Angry Photographer proves the 105/1.4E isn't "flat"

Started Oct 4, 2016 | Discussions
Iain G Foulds
Iain G Foulds Veteran Member • Posts: 3,896
On depth...
2

... Marianne: Seriously, you don't see depth in subjects, apart from the composition as a whole? In a portrait, an ear doesn't seem further away than a nose?

... Maybe this explains why both images look the same to you.

 Iain G Foulds's gear list:Iain G Foulds's gear list
Nikon Coolpix A900
cm71td Regular Member • Posts: 464
Re: Angry Photographer proves the 105/1.4E isn't "flat"
4

Marianne Oelund wrote:

After all his bluster decrying the failings of the new Nikon 105/1.4E, Ken has unwittingly given us the best evidence ever, that it can produce gorgeous 3D pop.

All it takes is a smart aleck like me to come along, and notice how to use his resurrection-plant example to put the "flatness" issue to rest.

Here you go - Ken's stereogram created with the 105/1.4E (and a little help from the 105 DC as well; I wouldn't want to leave that out). Arranged by yours truly, for cross-eye mode viewing.

Nikkor 105/1.4E (with 105 DC) creates real 3D!

Of course, to make the stereo effect work well, I had to adjust the exposure to match as closely as I could. With that done, I would like to have some feedback about the microcontrast in each pane: Have a careful look, and post your opinion as to whether the left pane or the right pane has better microcontrast - or if you think they look about even.

OK, I've tried the stereogram and conclude that the one in the middle has the most "3D pop".

Terry Breedlove
Terry Breedlove Senior Member • Posts: 1,215
Video soon
2

This will generate a butt hurt nasty video from the tattood wonder. LOL

 Terry Breedlove's gear list:Terry Breedlove's gear list
Nikon D2X Olympus PEN-F Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm F1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko ED 75-300mm 1:4.8-6.7 II +4 more
GlobalGuyUSA Senior Member • Posts: 2,016
Re: Angry Photographer proves the 105/1.4E isn't "flat"
2

cm71td wrote:

OK, I've tried the stereogram and conclude that the one in the middle has the most "3D pop".

Winner!

-- hide signature --

Sincerely,
GlobalGuy

 GlobalGuyUSA's gear list:GlobalGuyUSA's gear list
Nikon D810 Nikon AF Nikkor 135mm f/2D DC Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 58mm f/1.4G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 20mm f/1.8G ED +9 more
OP Marianne Oelund Veteran Member • Posts: 7,779
Re: Angry Photographer proves the 105/1.4E isn't "flat"
4

cm71td wrote:

OK, I've tried the stereogram and conclude that the one in the middle has the most "3D pop".

Definitely one of the most sensible replies here.

Hope you enjoyed the real 3D.

-- hide signature --

Source credit: Prov 2:6
- Marianne

OP Marianne Oelund Veteran Member • Posts: 7,779
Is an apology required for being a realist?
8

Iain G Foulds wrote:

... Marianne: Seriously, you don't see depth in subjects, apart from the composition as a whole? In a portrait, an ear doesn't seem further away than a nose?

In that particular case, there is a manufactured sense of depth which only results from conscious recognition of the subject, and knowledge of what the subject is like in 3 dimensions, from prior experience.  Light and shadow can help this, but at no time am I confused into thinking I am looking at anything remotely as realistic as an actual 3D subject.  My binocular vision insists powerfully that I am looking at a flat surface (display or printed photo), and no conscious process can override that.

Now, if I close one eye and stay still, my mind becomes free to interpret as it pleases:  Looking at the application windows on my monitor, I can certainly make them appear separated in depth, and I can fool my perceptions into believing that the stars on my background photo are as remote as real stars.  But as soon as I have both eyes open again, everything immediately snaps together into a flat surface.

What I am trying to make clear, is that there is a huge difference between knowing depth from mere inference, and seeing depth through binocular-difference processing.  To me, they are not remotely similar.

No portrait has any cues in it, which would allow you to discern whether the photo was taken of a live person, or was just a photo of a flat photograph.  Anyone who has done photo copy work knows this first-hand.

The consciously-derived sense of depth from a 2D image does not occur at the level of the visual cortex, and it is only a rough approximation (typically an underestimate) of the original subject's true depth features, with a high degree of uncertainty - not to mention a high error and omission rate.

No single 2D image gives the visual cortex any 3D stimulation.  That is the only place in your brain where a detailed and accurate third dimension can be constructed, free of uncertainties and confusion.

If you were shown a photograph of a collection of unfamiliar objects, without cues such as overlap or shadow or defocus, you could not determine what the relative distances of the objects were.  Many convincing "trick" photographs have been produced, which take advantage of this fact.

-- hide signature --

Source credit: Prov 2:6
- Marianne

primeshooter
primeshooter Veteran Member • Posts: 5,111
Re: On depth...

Iain G Foulds wrote:

... Marianne: Seriously, you don't see depth in subjects, apart from the composition as a whole? In a portrait, an ear doesn't seem further away than a nose?

... Maybe this explains why both images look the same to you.

Iain, version 1 (first post) left or right jumps out more?

and version 2?

primeshooter
primeshooter Veteran Member • Posts: 5,111
Re: Is an apology required for being a realist?

Marianne Oelund wrote:

Iain G Foulds wrote:

... Marianne: Seriously, you don't see depth in subjects, apart from the composition as a whole? In a portrait, an ear doesn't seem further away than a nose?

In that particular case, there is a manufactured sense of depth which only results from conscious recognition of the subject, and knowledge of what the subject is like in 3 dimensions, from prior experience. Light and shadow can help this, but at no time am I confused into thinking I am looking at anything remotely as realistic as an actual 3D subject. My binocular vision insists powerfully that I am looking at a flat surface (display or printed photo), and no conscious process can override that.

Now, if I close one eye and stay still, my mind becomes free to interpret as it pleases: Looking at the application windows on my monitor, I can certainly make them appear separated in depth, and I can fool my perceptions into believing that the stars on my background photo are as remote as real stars. But as soon as I have both eyes open again, everything immediately snaps together into a flat surface.

What I am trying to make clear, is that there is a huge difference between knowing depth from mere inference, and seeing depth through binocular-difference processing. To me, they are not remotely similar.

No portrait has any cues in it, which would allow you to discern whether the photo was taken of a live person, or was just a photo of a flat photograph. Anyone who has done photo copy work knows this first-hand.

The consciously-derived sense of depth from a 2D image does not occur at the level of the visual cortex, and it is only a rough approximation (typically an underestimate) of the original subject's true depth features, with a high degree of uncertainty - not to mention a high error and omission rate.

No single 2D image gives the visual cortex any 3D stimulation. That is the only place in your brain where a detailed and accurate third dimension can be constructed, free of uncertainties and confusion.

If you were shown a photograph of a collection of unfamiliar objects, without cues such as overlap or shadow or defocus, you could not determine what the relative distances of the objects were. Many convincing "trick" photographs have been produced, which take advantage of this fact.

Version one, left or right jumps out at you more? And version two. We are awaiting your answers...

primeshooter
primeshooter Veteran Member • Posts: 5,111
moderation?
3

photoreddi wrote:

nottabot wrote:

Hello, I don't like to post on forums too much but I was asked to write about lenses a bit; someone I know is interested in buying the Nikon 105mm f/1.4.

It's not a lens that I'm ever likely to get but that's because I wouldn't use it enough in conditions that would take advantage of its strengths, it's too heavy for me to be tempted to use it when I could get by with the 105mm VR Micro Nikkor or the 135mm DC Nikkor, and it's too expensive. I have more immediate expenses that have a much higher priority. But it's a wonderful lens that deserves to be used and not put on a pedestal.

.

One mistake I think people make is they look at objects, it doesn't matter what they are, and then they begin to make assumptions. For example, if you had never heard of a vehicle before and you saw a Ferrari drive by at 5MPH, but you only saw Coaches do 30mph, you might make the assumption that Ferraris are not very fast. People look at big lenses and they assume they have to be big (to an extent this is true, but I won't get into that subject here). People look at high element count lenses and assume they have to be bad. It's not necessarily so.

Theoria Apophasis also states that to "insult a fool is the praise of wisdom." Personally I think this is not logical. Digging a hole under someone's toes does not elevate yourself. For that reason, I kindly ask that if he does post here insulting me, admin does something about it.

That's unlikely unless forum members send an avalanche of feedback to DPR's admin. It's unlikely that using the Complain button will do anything because it appears that this forum's three moderators aren't actively keeping tabs on the forum. They might be, but we wouldn't know it from checking their posting history which shows this :

Formotioner : Three posts to this forum in Feb. 2015. Stopped posting to other forums about a year and a half ago and he was by far most active in several of the Sony forums.

.

Mike Cialowitz : Moderately active in several Nikon forums but his most recent 5 posts (2 to this forum, 3 to the Sony Alpha / Nex E-mount (APS-C) forum were posted in 2014. All other posts date back to 2013 or older.

.

ltcdata : Similar. The 2 most recent replies were posted in this forum 11 months ago. After that a mix of posts to other Nikon forums. One to the Nikon Pro DX SLR forum in Jan. 2014 and all the rest were most recently posted in 2013.

So feedback needs to be used to get the attention of DPR's administration. Only they can tell if the forum moderators are actually (at least) lurking or whether they need to be supplemented or replaced by more active moderators. If feedback isn't used, it's unlikely that the lens trolls and sock puppets will ever disappear.

I don't want to come across as a conspiracy theorist, but if TAP and his minions and sock puppets barraged DPR's forums with videos and theories about how horrible it was to purchase camera gear from Amazon, I think they'd be swept out of DPR's forums in short order, as they should be.

I see you've taken it upon yourself to be part time forum moderator. Until you own the site, or are an actual moderator yourself, you don't get the say in it - it's pretty simple. Your post is quite a slap in the face to the current mods. At the end of the day, you can turn off your pc/phone and go outside if something really bothers you; no one's forcing you to be here are they? I believe it's been said before that the moderation is deliberately kept light - the world is already moderated and too PC as it is...people the world over get offended over nothing, without bringing it all in here too.

HFLM Senior Member • Posts: 1,947
Re: Is an apology required for being a realist?
5

Version one, left or right jumps out at you more? And version two. We are awaiting your answers...

Irrelevant as perspective was slightly different and therefore out of focus transition occurs at different positions and the histogram is broader for the 105/1.4, providing a larger tonal range. So we have various possibilities to process the 105/1.4 image in post trying to equalise contrast, but nothing unambiguous. So even if Marianne would also choose the DC image, it would not hold up to scrutiny whatever you are trying to do, as the reference experiment designed by TAP is flawed.

facebook - https://www.facebook.com/steverphotographer
google + - https://plus.google.com/u/0/+StevenRobinsonPhotographer/posts
flickr - http://www.flickr.com/photos/steverphotographer/
500px - https://500px.com/steverphotographer

 HFLM's gear list:HFLM's gear list
Sony a9 Sony a7R III Sony a7 III
primeshooter
primeshooter Veteran Member • Posts: 5,111
Re: Is an apology required for being a realist?

HFLM wrote:

Version one, left or right jumps out at you more? And version two. We are awaiting your answers...

Irrelevant as perspective was slightly different and therefore out of focus transition occurs at different positions and the histogram is broader for the 105/1.4, providing a larger tonal range. So we have various possibilities to process the 105/1.4 image in post trying to equalise contrast, but nothing unambiguous. So even if Marianne would also choose the DC image, it would not hold up to scrutiny whatever you are trying to do, as the reference experiment designed by TAP is flawed.

facebook - https://www.facebook.com/steverphotographer
google + - https://plus.google.com/u/0/+StevenRobinsonPhotographer/posts
flickr - http://www.flickr.com/photos/steverphotographer/
500px - https://500px.com/steverphotographer

It's her test, if she expects us to answer it she can do the same, no need to get all bent out of shape over this, is there? It's not irrelevant because we are being asked the same, to ID the better side of the image.

What I am trying to do; is ask her which side of the image in version one and two pops off the screen more, but she's too stuck in her numbers figures and long lengthy replies to just answer it. Perhaps it's a wee case off, "didn't get the answers I was expecting...". If so this is worrying, because in each image a set of half decent eyes will see the same as myself and most of the posters in here saw. She's caught up in a world of "if I cannot quantify it it does not exist" to just say which one pops more.

Iain G Foulds
Iain G Foulds Veteran Member • Posts: 3,896
Re: Is an apology required for being a realist?
5

... Prime: Absolutely agree that there is no moderation at this forum. Half the posts on these threads should have been deleted and the posters banned.

... I'm not clear on the series, but it is obvious that in the latest series, the image on the right has depth and life. The image on the left is flat and dead.

... There is something that just don't make sense in Marianne's reply to my post. It is so severely over intellectualized that you would think that you were dealing with a machine, and not a human being/ photographer. I feel sorry for her. It puts all her opinions in question.

 Iain G Foulds's gear list:Iain G Foulds's gear list
Nikon Coolpix A900
photoreddi Veteran Member • Posts: 7,973
If the shoe fits ...
2

primeshooter wrote:

...

Theoria Apophasis also states that to "insult a fool is the praise of wisdom." Personally I think this is not logical. Digging a hole under someone's toes does not elevate yourself. For that reason, I kindly ask that if he does post here insulting me, admin does something about it.

That's unlikely unless forum members send an avalanche of feedback to DPR's admin. It's unlikely that using the Complain button will do anything because it appears that this forum's three moderators aren't actively keeping tabs on the forum. They might be, but we wouldn't know it from checking their posting history which shows this :

Formotioner : Three posts to this forum in Feb. 2015. Stopped posting to other forums about a year and a half ago and he was by far most active in several of the Sony forums.

.

Mike Cialowitz : Moderately active in several Nikon forums but his most recent 5 posts (2 to this forum, 3 to the Sony Alpha / Nex E-mount (APS-C) forum were posted in 2014. All other posts date back to 2013 or older.

.

ltcdata : Similar. The 2 most recent replies were posted in this forum 11 months ago. After that a mix of posts to other Nikon forums. One to the Nikon Pro DX SLR forum in Jan. 2014 and all the rest were most recently posted in 2013.

So feedback needs to be used to get the attention of DPR's administration. Only they can tell if the forum moderators are actually (at least) lurking or whether they need to be supplemented or replaced by more active moderators. If feedback isn't used, it's unlikely that the lens trolls and sock puppets will ever disappear.

I don't want to come across as a conspiracy theorist, but if TAP and his minions and sock puppets barraged DPR's forums with videos and theories about how horrible it was to purchase camera gear from Amazon, I think they'd be swept out of DPR's forums in short order, as they should be.

I see you've taken it upon yourself to be part time forum moderator. Until you own the site, or are an actual moderator yourself, you don't get the say in it - it's pretty simple. Your post is quite a slap in the face to the current mods. At the end of the day, you can turn off your pc/phone and go outside if something really bothers you; no one's forcing you to be here are they? I believe it's been said before that the moderation is deliberately kept light - the world is already moderated and too PC as it is...people the world over get offended over nothing, without bringing it all in here too.

Silly goose. If I took it upon myself to be a part time forum moderator, you and everyone else would know it because changes would be made. All I've done here is to express an opinion that's shared by others, an opinion that evidently doesn't give you warm fuzzies. Moderation in this forum is NOT "deliberately kept light", it doesn't appear to exist, and if that were to change I can understand why some here would worry.

primeshooter
primeshooter Veteran Member • Posts: 5,111
Re: If the shoe fits ...

photoreddi wrote:

primeshooter wrote:

...

Theoria Apophasis also states that to "insult a fool is the praise of wisdom." Personally I think this is not logical. Digging a hole under someone's toes does not elevate yourself. For that reason, I kindly ask that if he does post here insulting me, admin does something about it.

That's unlikely unless forum members send an avalanche of feedback to DPR's admin. It's unlikely that using the Complain button will do anything because it appears that this forum's three moderators aren't actively keeping tabs on the forum. They might be, but we wouldn't know it from checking their posting history which shows this :

Formotioner : Three posts to this forum in Feb. 2015. Stopped posting to other forums about a year and a half ago and he was by far most active in several of the Sony forums.

.

Mike Cialowitz : Moderately active in several Nikon forums but his most recent 5 posts (2 to this forum, 3 to the Sony Alpha / Nex E-mount (APS-C) forum were posted in 2014. All other posts date back to 2013 or older.

.

ltcdata : Similar. The 2 most recent replies were posted in this forum 11 months ago. After that a mix of posts to other Nikon forums. One to the Nikon Pro DX SLR forum in Jan. 2014 and all the rest were most recently posted in 2013.

So feedback needs to be used to get the attention of DPR's administration. Only they can tell if the forum moderators are actually (at least) lurking or whether they need to be supplemented or replaced by more active moderators. If feedback isn't used, it's unlikely that the lens trolls and sock puppets will ever disappear.

I don't want to come across as a conspiracy theorist, but if TAP and his minions and sock puppets barraged DPR's forums with videos and theories about how horrible it was to purchase camera gear from Amazon, I think they'd be swept out of DPR's forums in short order, as they should be.

I see you've taken it upon yourself to be part time forum moderator. Until you own the site, or are an actual moderator yourself, you don't get the say in it - it's pretty simple. Your post is quite a slap in the face to the current mods. At the end of the day, you can turn off your pc/phone and go outside if something really bothers you; no one's forcing you to be here are they? I believe it's been said before that the moderation is deliberately kept light - the world is already moderated and too PC as it is...people the world over get offended over nothing, without bringing it all in here too.

Silly goose. If I took it upon myself to be a part time forum moderator, you and everyone else would know it because changes would be made. All I've done here is to express an opinion that's shared by others, an opinion that evidently doesn't give you warm fuzzies. Moderation in this forum is NOT "deliberately kept light", it doesn't appear to exist, and if that were to change I can understand why some here would worry.

Ironic isn't it that you are going on about forum moderation. I suggest you take a wee wander over to the forum rules page. You'll see that forum moderation isn't to be discussed on here. So if your unhappy with it, leave or email them directly.

photoreddi Veteran Member • Posts: 7,973
Re: If the shoe fits ...

primeshooter wrote:

photoreddi wrote:

primeshooter wrote:

...

Theoria Apophasis also states that to "insult a fool is the praise of wisdom." Personally I think this is not logical. Digging a hole under someone's toes does not elevate yourself. For that reason, I kindly ask that if he does post here insulting me, admin does something about it.

That's unlikely unless forum members send an avalanche of feedback to DPR's admin. It's unlikely that using the Complain button will do anything because it appears that this forum's three moderators aren't actively keeping tabs on the forum. They might be, but we wouldn't know it from checking their posting history which shows this :

Formotioner : Three posts to this forum in Feb. 2015. Stopped posting to other forums about a year and a half ago and he was by far most active in several of the Sony forums.

.

Mike Cialowitz : Moderately active in several Nikon forums but his most recent 5 posts (2 to this forum, 3 to the Sony Alpha / Nex E-mount (APS-C) forum were posted in 2014. All other posts date back to 2013 or older.

.

ltcdata : Similar. The 2 most recent replies were posted in this forum 11 months ago. After that a mix of posts to other Nikon forums. One to the Nikon Pro DX SLR forum in Jan. 2014 and all the rest were most recently posted in 2013.

So feedback needs to be used to get the attention of DPR's administration. Only they can tell if the forum moderators are actually (at least) lurking or whether they need to be supplemented or replaced by more active moderators. If feedback isn't used, it's unlikely that the lens trolls and sock puppets will ever disappear.

I don't want to come across as a conspiracy theorist, but if TAP and his minions and sock puppets barraged DPR's forums with videos and theories about how horrible it was to purchase camera gear from Amazon, I think they'd be swept out of DPR's forums in short order, as they should be.

I see you've taken it upon yourself to be part time forum moderator. Until you own the site, or are an actual moderator yourself, you don't get the say in it - it's pretty simple. Your post is quite a slap in the face to the current mods. At the end of the day, you can turn off your pc/phone and go outside if something really bothers you; no one's forcing you to be here are they? I believe it's been said before that the moderation is deliberately kept light - the world is already moderated and too PC as it is...people the world over get offended over nothing, without bringing it all in here too.

Silly goose. If I took it upon myself to be a part time forum moderator, you and everyone else would know it because changes would be made. All I've done here is to express an opinion that's shared by others, an opinion that evidently doesn't give you warm fuzzies. Moderation in this forum is NOT "deliberately kept light", it doesn't appear to exist, and if that were to change I can understand why some here would worry.

Ironic isn't it that you are going on about forum moderation. I suggest you take a wee wander over to the forum rules page. You'll see that forum moderation isn't to be discussed on here. So if your unhappy with it, leave or email them directly.

No irony here, or at least from me. There hasn't been any noticeable forum moderation here so how can anyone say that forum moderation has been discussed? What has been discussed is the absence of moderation, an entirely different thing.

What's ironic is that you're asking me to leave because you apparently feel threatened by my reasonable opinion. That's tantamount to doing what you've decried, taking it upon yourself to act as a forum moderator.

DPReview recommends two ways to deal with issues such as these.

1: DPReview's Site Feedback and Help forum : https://www.dpreview.com/forums/5001

This forum is moderated by community moderators Olga Johnson, Marti58, Dale Buhanan, Footski, and Mako2011.

.

2: Send feedback using this link : Feedback

Note: This also includes a link to the Feedback and Help forum.

JCB123 Senior Member • Posts: 1,274
Re: Angry Photographer proves the 105/1.4E isn't "flat"

Ah but what about the swirly bouquet in combination with cats-eye bokeh ?

 JCB123's gear list:JCB123's gear list
Sony RX100 Nikon D90 Nikon D7000 Olympus PEN E-PL5 Nikon D7100
Tim O'Connor
Tim O'Connor Veteran Member • Posts: 5,427
Re: Angry Photographer proves the 105/1.4E isn't "flat

First version: Right image blob in the middle appears to have more contrast and seems to have more separation from the background.  Not sure I would call this a '3D effect though.

Second version: much much more difficult.  Not sure I can really tell the difference.  Perhaps there is a tiny bit more detail in the right in the wood?

-- hide signature --
 Tim O'Connor's gear list:Tim O'Connor's gear list
Nikon D600 Nikon D500 Sony a7R III Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.5 1-5x Macro +18 more
Albert Silver Veteran Member • Posts: 3,313
Swirly cats-eye bokeh
4

JCB123 wrote:

Ah but what about the swirly bouquet in combination with cats-eye bokeh ?

Swirly cats-eye bokeh coming right up!

 Albert Silver's gear list:Albert Silver's gear list
Nikon D750 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Sigma 24-105mm F4 DG OS HSM Tamron SP 35mm F1.8 Di VC USD +1 more
tko Forum Pro • Posts: 12,925
yup
4

akul60 wrote:

  1. I have no idea what 'micro contrast' means. - resolution and micro contrast to me means pretty much the same.

Microcontrast seems to be an invented word that means nothing, and is already described by existing contrast based resolution test. No need to make up words

  1. I hate that word '3D pop'. It is one of the most meaningless word that I really would be happy to never read again.

Agree also.

  1. Now I am looking at the images on my laptop but my impression stays the same.

Be it high-fidelity, wine tasting, or photography, pseudo-experts like to make up terms that make them seem more important.

-- hide signature --

no, I won't return to read your witty reply!
professional cynic and contrarian: don't take it personally
http://500px.com/omearak

fPrime
fPrime Senior Member • Posts: 2,950
TAP's 105/1.4E review is vindicated
2

Hope you got what you wanted out of the perception experiment, Marianne, but I believe the case can now be closed on TAP's review of the 105E. In retrospect the evidence shown here makes it is clear that his review was 100% right. Recall that he basically postulated three things:

  • Color shift vs. the 105 DC - Confirmed. When shot side by side in numerous, independent comparisons the 105E has been consistently yellower. The debate over if blue light absorption by the 105E is the cause can continue, but the fact that this lens renders more yellow than the 105DC is incontrovertible.
  • Swirly, Cats-eye bokeh - Confirmed. Vetted first by Hogne and plainly visible once again in the latest 105E examples by Derek Z here: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4062893#forum-post-58455488
  • Flat images - Confirmed. First by numerous flat 105E examples from Art Jacks and Fotoinfo which originally raised the rendering concern, secondly by you when you adjusted the exposure on the resurrection plant photos showing the 105E as dead flat next to the 3D pop of the 105DC, lastly by Derek Z once again in string of nicely composed but utterly flat examples here: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4062893#forum-post-58455488

Against the stark review accuracy by TAP, how did our self-anointed "experts" do in their own forum reviews of the 105E? Horribly! Although Lance B, anotherMike, and you were among the first to buy the 105E, it's embarrassing that not a single one of you either discovered or reported ANY of these three issues to the forum before TAP did. While all of you were gushing like schoolgirls over sharpness and bokeh, TAP was doing your job of finding the cons and posting examples. If you think this doesn't fundamentally undermine your lens reviewing credibility, think again.

Somebody compared TAP to Trump earlier and after some consideration there's more than a little truth to that. When it's right and obvious, TAP is apparently the only one willing to tell it like it is... no politically correct bs. Is he vulgar? Yes. But is he wrong... not on this matter, for sure. You are all collectively the Hillary/Kaine ticket running a tired campaign of insults against reality by suggesting he doesn't have the demeanor to be a lens reviewer or that people who agree with his findings are a basket of deplorables. The parallels are both funny and sad.

fPrime

 fPrime's gear list:fPrime's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Fujifilm FinePix S5 Pro Nikon D1X Nikon D200 Nikon D700
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads