Reading mode: Light Dark

Increditably sharp 24-85 (goldfinger)!

Go to last post
One more thing. Click on photo details to see the camera info.
Bruce Erickson said:
riokid said:
It makes my champagne shot like cr@p:



I would appreciate seeing a 100% crop, unprocessed from the camera.
Also, please identify the taking camera setting, as the DRebel is
already set at +1,+1,+2.

Thanks,

dan
johnd1 said:
Bruce Erickson said:
johnd1 said:
Franklin said:
drip said:
I thought my late Sigma 28-70EX was close to an L, until I see this
on my new 24-85 (silver):
http://www.pbase.com/image/30903036
Even sharper than the stopped down 50/1.8:
http://www.pbase.com/image/30903047

The 24-85 looks a little under-exposured because it's done months
later.
--
Brian
Dallas, TX
300D owner
http://www.pbase.com/drip
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/franklin
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
riokid said:
It makes my champagne shot like cr@p:



I would appreciate seeing a 100% crop, unprocessed from the camera.
Also, please identify the taking camera setting, as the DRebel is
already set at +1,+1,+2.

Thanks,

dan
johnd1 said:
Bruce Erickson said:
johnd1 said:
Franklin said:
drip said:
I thought my late Sigma 28-70EX was close to an L, until I see this
on my new 24-85 (silver):
http://www.pbase.com/image/30903036
Even sharper than the stopped down 50/1.8:
http://www.pbase.com/image/30903047

The 24-85 looks a little under-exposured because it's done months
later.
--
Brian
Dallas, TX
300D owner
http://www.pbase.com/drip
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/franklin
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Brian
Dallas, TX
300D owner
http://www.pbase.com/drip
 
Now, the things are in the right perspective.

I never doubted that the 24-85 was a good lens or that your black one was sharper than my battered champagne one.

While it is physically impossible for us to compare the images under exactly identical condition, it is nice to be able to rule out as much variable as possible.

Cheers,

dan
 
Thanks, I don't really know if mine is sharper than others, I just know that the 24-85 is a good, light, relatively inexpensive, walk-around lens. Drip is right, I use this lens in good light and typically between f8 - f11.
Bruce
riokid said:
Now, the things are in the right perspective.

I never doubted that the 24-85 was a good lens or that your black
one was sharper than my battered champagne one.

While it is physically impossible for us to compare the images
under exactly identical condition, it is nice to be able to rule
out as much variable as possible.

Cheers,

dan
Click to expand...
 
AdamT is the official salesperson and promoter of this lens. Did you check with him before you posted!!!

I am just kidding, it just seemed like old times. Last year there was post after post about this lens.
I have the black version and like it.

glenn
drip said:
I thought my late Sigma 28-70EX was close to an L, until I see this
on my new 24-85 (silver):
http://www.pbase.com/image/30903036
Even sharper than the stopped down 50/1.8:
http://www.pbase.com/image/30903047

The 24-85 looks a little under-exposured because it's done months
later.
--
Brian
Dallas, TX
300D owner
http://www.pbase.com/drip
Click to expand...
 
and even be a part of it sometimes!

BTW, you do not have to go back to 2003, you can just go back to a week and the same questions will be asked again. In fact, there are 2 related threads going on right now.

If I have time, I try to contribute back what I have learned from the forum by politely answering the question.

Cheers,

dan
Glenn D said:
I am just kidding, it just seemed like old times. Last year there
was post after post about this lens.
I have the black version and like it.

glenn
drip said:
I thought my late Sigma 28-70EX was close to an L, until I see this
on my new 24-85 (silver):
http://www.pbase.com/image/30903036
Even sharper than the stopped down 50/1.8:
http://www.pbase.com/image/30903047

The 24-85 looks a little under-exposured because it's done months
later.
--
Brian
Dallas, TX
300D owner
http://www.pbase.com/drip
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top