Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Accuracy of lens reviews  (Read 6982 times)
philip cole
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


« on: March 19, 2006, 03:24:31 PM »
ReplyReply

I followed your advice by the so callled subjective lens tests you have done on both the 24-70 over the 28-70 2.8L and also on the 70-200 Is lens and find your results to be totally inacurate and feel that you may have mislead many people and wondered if there may be some form of legal process by where we can get you to withdraw your tests or ammend them , or offer compensation to those who feel mislead by yourself promoting newer lens which do not perform better as you have stated.

 Anyone else with similar views contact me on my email
 Phil Coleman.  philcoleman2@ntlworld.com
Logged
Harold
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 18


« Reply #1 on: March 19, 2006, 05:00:40 PM »
ReplyReply

[span style=\'font-size:14pt;line-height:100%\']Hello[/font][/span]Hello.
Is anybody home?
Logged
ddolde
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 340


« Reply #2 on: March 19, 2006, 05:08:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Philip,

Can you extract your head from your behind, or is it too firmly implanted to ever remove?
Logged
katies
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #3 on: March 19, 2006, 06:07:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Philip
  I tend to find better and more accurate lens details given at photozone.com

 Katie

Quote
I followed your advice by the so callled subjective lens tests you have done on both the 24-70 over the 28-70 2.8L and also on the 70-200 Is lens and find your results to be totally inacurate and feel that you may have mislead many people and wondered if there may be some form of legal process by where we can get you to withdraw your tests or ammend them , or offer compensation to those who feel mislead by yourself promoting newer lens which do not perform better as you have stated.

 Anyone else with similar views contact me on my email
 Phil Coleman.  philcoleman2@ntlworld.com
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=60638\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
Sheldon N
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 797


« Reply #4 on: March 19, 2006, 08:08:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes, Philip. Perhaps we should ask Michael to retract his reviews. The next step would be to ask the thousands of pro photographers who agree with his assessment on those two lenses to return them and retract their opinions as well.

Why are you trying to start trouble here?
Logged

Jonathan Ratzlaff
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 193


« Reply #5 on: March 19, 2006, 08:49:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: philip cole,Mar 19 2006, 09:24 PM
I followed your advice by the so callled subjective lens tests you have done on both the 24-70 over the 28-70 2.8L and also on the 70-200 Is lens and find your results to be totally inacurate and feel that you may have mislead many people and wondered if there may be some form of legal process by where we can get you to withdraw your tests or ammend them , or offer compensation to those who feel mislead by yourself promoting newer lens which do not perform better as you have stated.

Sometimes one has to walk before learning to run.   Having good lenses in your hand isn't going to automatically give you good images in the same way as a Stradavarius violin isn't going to make you a good violinist..  Not sure where in the picture you are, but to get upset to the point where you are looking for compensation because your results don't measure up to your expectiations puts you strongly in the unconciously unskilled class of learner.
Logged
Paul Sumi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1217


« Reply #6 on: March 19, 2006, 11:35:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Philip,

Rather than come out with guns blazing, why don't you post a couple of images which you feel shows the deficiencies of the lenses?  You don't say in what ways these two lenses are defective and posting images will allow us to see for ourselves.

Keep in mind, in addition to the lenses themselves, there are other factors to consider, including:

  Accurate focusing
  Appropriate shutter speed and aperture
  Solid camera support/hand-holding technique
  If shooting JPG, appropriate in-camera setting for sharpness
  If shooting RAW, proper post-processing, including appropriate sharpening

The IS switch on the 70-200 can be easily moved inadvertantly to the "off" position, which will affect camera steadiness at low shutter speeds.

Additionally, it may be that your camera body's autofocusing mechanism is either front or rear focusing.

If the lenses are recently bought and you are within the time limit, you could return them to the merchant for exchange.  If beyond the return limit, body and lenses can be repaired/calibrated by the manufacturer.

All that being said, I own both of these lenses and I am very pleased with the performance of both.

Paul
Logged

Craig Arnold
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 219


WWW
« Reply #7 on: March 20, 2006, 02:24:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I followed your advice by the so callled subjective lens tests you have done on both the 24-70 over the 28-70 2.8L and also on the 70-200 Is lens and find your results to be totally inacurate and feel that you may have mislead many people and wondered if there may be some form of legal process by where we can get you to withdraw your tests or ammend them , or offer compensation to those who feel mislead by yourself promoting newer lens which do not perform better as you have stated.

 Anyone else with similar views contact me on my email
 Phil Coleman.  philcoleman2@ntlworld.com
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=60638\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Priceless!  I guess you figured if you bought some professional lenses you'd suddenly be taking great pictures eh?

You want to get advice here on starting legal proceedings against this site? For a misleading review which recommends the 24-70L and 70-200 IS L, commonly regarded as the two finest zoom lenses made by Canon?  

Marvellous, haven't laughed so much for ages.  

P.S. One presumes you don't have access to a dictionary.

sub·jec·tive  
   1.
         1. Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.
         2. Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2006, 02:28:01 AM by peripatetic » Logged

philip cole
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


« Reply #8 on: March 20, 2006, 04:08:44 AM »
ReplyReply

So all you other photographers on here are in agreement with the fact stated that both of these lenses are world beaters, and far superior to thier predecesors. If you have also owned the early versions to both these lenses you will be aware that they are both sharper and the resolving power of the old 70-200 2.8L will leave the newer IS version miles behind, there is no comarison between the quality in these two, The non IS version is also quicker to focus and snaps in. The newer IS version  tends to hunt more and also flares quite heavily as does the24-70 2.8L. I have also owned all the lenses stated and ok in low light image stabilisation can be handy but with the reduced noise in the later digital cameras it doesn't pose any noticle problem using higher ISO to compensate for the lower light situations.
As regards expecting quality photographs just as a result of using L series glass, as any we all know. its not the camera or the lens but the composition and reading the light present within that composition. I have also seen photographs taken from pin hole cameras and older cameras like the voigtlander with color scopar which i would be pround to have on my walls.
Investing thousands into the state of the art' ' Canon'' lenses does not automatically give one quality images but everyone should be aware of that and although i have 5 L series lenses i quite often have a preferance for using Nikon lenses like the 28mm Ais lens with adaptor ring on my canon cameras and also
believe in some  areas, other lens manufactures have far more to offer.

So all you out there believe that each review on here is accurate and unbiased ?
Logged
philip cole
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


« Reply #9 on: March 20, 2006, 04:25:05 AM »
ReplyReply

So all you other photographers on here are in agreement with the fact stated that both of these lenses are world beaters, and far superior to thier predecesors. If you have also owned the early versions to both these lenses you will be aware that they are both sharper and the resolving power of the old 70-200 2.8L will leave the newer IS version miles behind, there is no comarison between the quality in these two, The non IS version is also quicker to focus and snaps in. The newer IS version  tends to hunt more and also flares quite heavily as does the24-70 2.8L. I have also owned all the lenses stated and ok in low light image stabilisation can be handy but with the reduced noise in the later digital cameras it doesnt pose any noticle problem using higher ISO to compensate for the lower light situations.
As regards expecting quality photographs just as a result of using L series glass, as any we all know. its not the camera or the lens but the composition and reading the light present within that composition. I have also seen photographs taken from pin hole cameras and older cameras like the voigtlander with color scopar which i would be pround to have on my walls.
Investing thousands into the state of the art' ' Canon'' lenses does not automatically give one quality images but everyone should be aware of that and although i have 5 L series lenses i quite often have a preferance for using Nikon lenses like the 28mm Ais lens with adaptor ring on my canon cameras and also
believe in some other areas other lens manufactures have far more to offer.

So all you out there believe that each review on here is accurate and unbiased ?
Quote
Priceless!  I guess you figured if you bought some professional lenses you'd suddenly be taking great pictures eh?

You want to get advice here on starting legal proceedings against this site? For a misleading review which recommends the 24-70L and 70-200 IS L, commonly regarded as the two finest zoom lenses made by Canon?   

Marvellous, haven't laughed so much for ages. 

P.S. One presumes you don't have access to a dictionary.

sub·jec·tive   
   1.
         1. Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.
         2. Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=60666\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
Craig Arnold
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 219


WWW
« Reply #10 on: March 20, 2006, 07:21:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
So all you out there believe that each review on here is accurate and unbiased ?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=60668\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

They are subjective, which is to say - biased and having no particular claim to accuracy. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

They are one man's opinion. I have no doubt that they are Michael's honest opinion, and if you are insinuating that Canon is paying him to plug their new stuff then it is Michael who might have legal recourse.

If you don't like them take them back.
Logged

philip cole
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


« Reply #11 on: March 20, 2006, 08:26:57 AM »
ReplyReply

PARIPAPETIC STATES:-
They are subjective, which is to say -BIASED AND HAVE NO PARTICULAR CLAIM TO ACCURACY!,,

ALSO, THEY ARE ONE MANS OPINION. I have no doubt that they are Michael's honest opinion, and if you are insinuating that Canon is paying him to plug their new stuff then it is Michael who might have legal recourse.
 
 I DIDNT SUGGEST THAT, BUT HES REVIEWS TEND TO FAVOUR THE NEWER LENSES WHICH IN MY OPINION ARE INFERIOR TO THE REPLACED VERSIONS! I AM SURE THERE ARE OTHER USERS ON HERE WHO CAN ALSO VOUCH FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF THE OLDER LENSES.

 YOUR THE ONE THAT HAS MADE REFERANCE TO CANON PAYING HIM ,NOT ME
I ONLY STATED AS ABOVE.

 ALSO IF YOU KNOW OF OTHER ''SUBJECTIVE''  LENS TESTS ON THE WEB THAT FAVOUR THE NAMED LENSES, LIST THEM AND I WILL BE ONLY TO PLEASED TO VIEW THEM AND STAND CORRECTED, IF THIS IS THE GENERAL CONSENSUS OF OPINION.
Logged
Craig Arnold
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 219


WWW
« Reply #12 on: March 20, 2006, 08:56:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
PARIPAPETIC STATES:-
They are subjective, which is to say -BIASED AND HAVE NO PARTICULAR CLAIM TO ACCURACY!,,

ALSO, THEY ARE ONE MANS OPINION. I have no doubt that they are Michael's honest opinion, and if you are insinuating that Canon is paying him to plug their new stuff then it is Michael who might have legal recourse.
 
 I DIDNT SUGGEST THAT, BUT HES REVIEWS TEND TO FAVOUR THE NEWER LENSES WHICH IN MY OPINION ARE INFERIOR TO THE REPLACED VERSIONS! I AM SURE THERE ARE OTHER USERS ON HERE WHO CAN ALSO VOUCH FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF THE OLDER LENSES.

 YOUR THE ONE THAT HAS MADE REFERANCE TO CANON PAYING HIM ,NOT ME
I ONLY STATED AS ABOVE.

 ALSO IF YOU KNOW OF OTHER ''SUBJECTIVE''  LENS TESTS ON THE WEB THAT FAVOUR THE NAMED LENSES, LIST THEM AND I WILL BE ONLY TO PLEASED TO VIEW THEM AND STAND CORRECTED, IF THIS IS THE GENERAL CONSENSUS OF OPINION.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=60679\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I presume you threaten legal action for every review of a film or play or music album you disagree with too and try to force a retraction, not to mention every other photographic magazine or website.

Unless of course they can point to some sort of consensus?

What on earth are you so worked up about?

Seriously dude, you need help.
Logged

Craig Arnold
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 219


WWW
« Reply #13 on: March 20, 2006, 09:50:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Definitely time for a huggy-jacket.
Logged

ddolde
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 340


« Reply #14 on: March 20, 2006, 10:07:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Philip,

You have made a total fool of yourself here.  Do youself a favor and delete this thread.
Logged
jcarlin
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 31


« Reply #15 on: March 20, 2006, 01:06:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Phillip,
    I suggest you take your own advice and do some quick checking on the Internet, I spent ~5min and found this on photo.net

http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/70-200

You'll find at the bottom an endorsment for the IS version for all around highest performance.
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5121


« Reply #16 on: March 20, 2006, 01:22:34 PM »
ReplyReply

I have a hypothesis. Since Canon has not released any hot new 35mm format products for, oh several months now, some of the impatient, herd following brand zealots who spend most of their time giving other Canon users a bad name in places like DPReview are getting restless, and have temporarily turned to eating their young (attacking Canon products), and are wandering over here in search of a fight.

They usually lose interest after a while and return to the "Fight Forums".
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7777



WWW
« Reply #17 on: March 20, 2006, 05:46:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Philip,

Have you at all considered the possibility that you might have gotten poor samples of these lenses?

Many have reported about the seemingly huge sample variation with the 16-35L lenses, it wouldn't be surprising to have enough gap between samples that Michael's 24-70 is better than his 28-70, while yours are the opposite.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6830


WWW
« Reply #18 on: March 20, 2006, 06:40:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Bernard,

This is a very interesting comment. "L" is supposed to be Canon's finest. To me that means they should be manufactured to meet a virtually invariate standard set of (demanding) performance criteria. If they don't, why should anyone have confidence that "L" has a particular meaning?
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7777



WWW
« Reply #19 on: March 20, 2006, 08:30:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Mark,

I agree with you of course.

L should mean both high average quality, together with little variation around this high level average, and it probably does mean that most of the time.

As you know, I don't have first hand experience with Canon glass, my comment was based on previous discussions here and elsewhere. Some people seem to see no difference between their 16-35 and Zeiss wides, while other see them as being in a completely different league...

Regards,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad