Tamron 70-210mm F4 Di VC USD Review

It's no secret Canon makes the sharpest glass. (Their newest upgraded line is best (vs nikon & sony) in each corresponding class: 11-24, 16-35/2.8III, 24-70II, 35/1.4II, 70-200/4II, 2.8III, 300/600 etc, But what is it worth when I can't shoot past 2 megapixels (1080p).

Trebor129 ... Different strokes for different folks. I have the Canon f/2.8, and even stopping that down to f/4 significantly reduces the background separation in most shots. And IS doesn't solve all problems. Yes the weight is an issue.
I am increasingly using primes, which is much better but less flexible.

The cons show the differences between a $800 lens and a $1200 one.

It's not only about the lens mounting and zooming direction and getting used to it. Most things we use are turning, screwing, adjusting, tightening (etc.) clockwise, which is the right direction :), unlike Nikon's way of doing it.
In England people are not driving on the "right" side of the road :), because they are driving on the "left" side of the road (which isn't wrong and it doesn't require you to think backwards). But their cars do not make a left turn when they turn the wheel to the right. That's how Nikon cameras feel like to me.
?dnatsrednu uoy oD - Awkward, counterintuitive and irritating. The mounting direction is not that big of a problem though.

Honestly, it takes me a few minutes with a camera to adapt to using a focus ring clockwise or counter. I've used dozens of cameras, both professionally and on personal projects; Directions of mounting, zooming and focusing is just a non-issue.

The zoom ring at the front of the lens though, would probably be more of an issue for me; it doesn't seem the best decision. But a 70 - 210 f4 lens at £800, come on - if it's giving you the photographic options that would otherwise cost at least double, get used to the focus ring; it won't take long.

Cheers

Barney, "Are you referring to occasional reposts of Roger's posts on the LR blog?" Yes, I am.

(With all due respect) this site used to be the go-to for reviews of cameras, lenses, printers, scanners and software. It's fine - I'm sure that you are doing your best under difficult circumstances - but I do think that a really independent source of information and guidance has been lost here.

When did dpr last review a printer, or a scanner? How many lenses went un-reviewed in order to make room for the stupid 'buyers guides'?

So, nice to see an in-house lens review; it's a strait-up obversation.

Cheers

OK, so the occasional reposts of Roger's blog weren't lens reviews, which hopefully would have been obvious to someone who had read them. Let's just get that out of the way. We'll continue to share articles like that with our readers, because we like Roger, and we like what he has to say. Hopefully you do to.

I can't remember when we last wrote an in-depth review of a scanner (there's nothing in the reviews database, so we're going back around a decade, at least) and I think we'd be foolish to restart that effort, given the state of the market for consumer scanners in 2018.

Printers, yep - we did review printers briefly, a few years ago. Sorry that we stopped. But as for "how many lenses went un-reviewed in order to make room for the stupid 'buyers guides'?" I'm afraid you may be betraying your bias there, a little...

Lens reviews and buying guides are different kinds of content, produced in different ways, aimed at fulfilling different needs. It's a false equivalence.

Barney, "Lens reviews and buying guides are different kinds of content, produced in different ways, aimed at fulfilling different needs. It's a false equivalence."
Unless they're prepared by different people that don't communicate with each other, it's not a false equivalence because working on one precludes working on the other. So a published buying guide means an unpublished lens review. It's as simple as that.

The rubber gets sucked with grease from hands and it goes bad in time and turns white. You don't really get it clean as it is gone inside rubber.

Not all manufactures rubbers suffer from it. And if you want to keep one clean after purchase, protect the surface first time.

Be careful with silicone oil and optics, silicon migrates and is extremely hard to get rid of.

theyre not abysmal photos. theyre not that good. why only motocross though..

"And as always, plenty of specific, constructive, actionable feedback from the comments section."

Not a professional and courteous reply, especially talking down your own comments section like that.

Given the onslaught of negativity and cantankerous comments that pervade the DPR comments sections, I'm not mad at all for the occasional snark in response. The comments section of DPR articles probably drive a few newcomers away from photography on a frequent basis, it's a bad look for the site, the hobby, and the community.

This comment got what it deserved from Carey. Review photos are not meant to be good. They are meant to provide examples of how the lens coped with a variety of situations, particularly challenging situations - with the sun in a tricky place or where the AF might miss, for example. I think that the photos here are fine for that purpose. Most lenses can take great photos in ideal conditions. We don't need DP review staff to showcase their photography skills but to put the lens through a series of challenges, which should result in some very 'ordinary' looking photos simply because the lens is being pushed to its limits.

Finally! We want more Lens Reviews!!!

"This comment got what it deserved from Carey."

No, it didn’t. It was immature and unprofessional. When you run a business or are a part of of a business, as an employee, you don’t talk down the people and aspects of the business that make the business, and your job, possible in the first place.

Unfortunately, also, too many people today can’t accept criticism, and that kind of thinking is being catered to and encouraged.

PhilDunn: You and I don't seem to be reading the same reply. Carey was being sarcastic, yes, but he made extremely clear that what he wants is specific, constructive and actionable criticism, not "durr youre photos SUCK!!!111LOL".
If someone thinks the photos are 'abysmal' then it's up to them to explain why they think so, and offer advice to improve the samples.
I personally think that the samples that Carey provides are the best of DPR, and am thankful for that. Some of the stuff we were seeing years ago wasn't 'abysmal', but by dog was it boring and uninspired!

@PhilDunn - " It was immature and unprofessional." I agree with you on this. In retrospect, I should probably have just deleted the comment. But I'm only human, and in this case, let my frustrations get the better of me.

"Unfortunately, also, too many people today can’t accept criticism, and that kind of thinking is being catered to and encouraged."

Actually, I really value criticism, but only when it's useful. If you were to go back and look at some previous comments of mine (I don't expect or recommend you spend your time doing this), I like to think I usually take a pretty measured approach. But as other users say, when someone says simply, 'your photos are abysmal,' it does nothing to help me improve and try to make the photos more valuable to that person in the future.

That sort of comment in particular happens a lot, hence the frustration and my being more sarcastic than I should have been.