p.1 #2 · How accurate is www.the-digital-picture.com?
The site has good information, but the site also supports Canon. I would be a bit cautious when it comes to Canon lens comparisons with other brands on this site. Photozone.de is much better and more reliable in this regard.
p.1 #5 · How accurate is www.the-digital-picture.com?
The sharpness samples compare very well with my experience with many of the same lenses.
It started with reviews of Canon lenses and has been gradually adding other brands. The guy who runs it is obviously more familiar with Canon and does an excellent job of putting it all together. His reviews are full of good info and insights.
How does the site "support Canon"? I don't see any evidence of that. Photozone.de is good too, but I don't see any evidence that it's "better and more reliable". Saying such things without any evidence doesn't sound very reliable.
p.1 #7 · How accurate is www.the-digital-picture.com?
zlatko wrote:
The sharpness samples compare very well with my experience with many of the same lenses.
It started with reviews of Canon lenses and has been gradually adding other brands. The guy who runs it is obviously more familiar with Canon and does an excellent job of putting it all together. His reviews are full of good info and insights.
How does the site "support Canon"? I don't see any evidence of that. Photozone.de is good too, but I don't see any evidence that it's "better and more reliable". Saying such things without any evidence doesn't sound very reliable.
Even the overall review is pretty good comparing those lenses, it always ends in a similar slogan - good, but Canon is better (last paragraph). I can definitely tell from my experience here that this is not true since I own both the Canon and the Sigma lenses tested here. The Sigma lens has the much better bokeh and so far I have not seen any hint of the mentioned flare issue here. I use both lenses since they have different strengths. Good thing is that the site at least compares other lens brands, the critical reader knows how to extract the useful information.
p.1 #8 · How accurate is www.the-digital-picture.com?
I agree with what is said above that:
1) Thedigitalpicture is a really good site and I trust their opinions
2) It is best to get input from several sites
A) Because sometimes they test a bad lens and sometimes the tolerances of the lens and camera add to a bad combination; and
B) Sometimes an evaluation will give more weight to an aspect that you would give more weight to.
I particularly like thedigitalpicture iso comparisons.
The review sounds right - iq is similar. Bokeh is different and you obviously like the sigma better whereas he likes the canon better - but bokeh is kind of subjective. And he is saying that the focus on canon is better - which I don't know about.
So there is nothing said that contradicts just that you would have said and if he puts lots of weight on focussing and thinks the canon better, the canon is better in his view.
Not saying that the canon is better than the sigma, just saying what you are saying - be careful to read as much as you can before buying because the reviews are subjective and put different weight on aspects than you would. But thepicture has pretty good information. Of which I really like the ISO-12233-Sample-Crops. There are so many people saying things about iq but the ISO-12233-Sample-Crops actually provides proof to the pudding for your eyes, with the proviso that they could have sampled a bad lens.
p.1 #9 · How accurate is www.the-digital-picture.com?
Scott Stoness wrote:
So there is nothing said that contradicts just that you would have said and if he puts lots of weight on focussing and thinks the canon better, the canon is better in his view.
I will very quickly dump a lens if it cannot focus consistently. Who cares how sharp the lens is if its AF is not up to scratch?
p.1 #10 · How accurate is www.the-digital-picture.com?
In general his reviews are very honest and accurate. To make a comment that he is a Canon guy is totally inaccurate and not giving him his due. He is in no way supported by Canon anymore then Thom Hogan is supported by Nikon. Each has invested considerable personal time and money and have developed a liking for a particular brand. I personally own and use lots of different Canon and Sigma glass and don't remember any instance where I feel he was being outright unfair. As has been mentioned several times now it is definitely smart to review a group of good sites and form your own opinion.
p.1 #11 · How accurate is www.the-digital-picture.com?
thw2 wrote:
I will very quickly dump a lens if it cannot focus consistently. Who cares how sharp the lens is if its AF is not up to scratch?
I agree but the reviewer did not say whether the focus differences were how long to focus or accuracy of focuss but I would value focus over bokeh. But my point is that retrofocus either thinks that the difference is small and/or thinks that better bokeh is more important than the difference.
p.1 #12 · How accurate is www.the-digital-picture.com?
Scott Stoness wrote:
I agree but the reviewer did not say whether the focus differences were how long to focus or accuracy of focuss but I would value focus over bokeh. But my point is that retrofocus either thinks that the difference is small and/or thinks that better bokeh is more important than the difference.
To answer the questions, to me AF for a 1:1 macro lens is nearly irrelevant. I do (as most other macro photographers) macro focus fully in MF. The Canon lens itself is a lot better when AF capabilities are compared between those models, here the review is accurate. This review here also does not mention the much smaller aperture the Sigma lens can have. Anyway, my point is that all lens reviews of this site always end in favor for Canon.
As I said above, the reviews on this site are helpful but IMO more subjective, and in their outcome definitely in favor for Canon if compared to lens models from other brands. I take the reviews with a grain of salt, if I need to decide between performances of a Canon lens and another similar lens from different brands, I always check other review sites in addition.
p.1 #13 · How accurate is www.the-digital-picture.com?
retrofocus wrote:
The site has good information, but the site also supports Canon. I would be a bit cautious when it comes to Canon lens comparisons with other brands on this site. Photozone.de is much better and more reliable in this regard.
+1
it seems like not a single third party lens tested there has ever been a good copy!
their tamron copies all look like they were dropped three times before testing
and their older tests were done using few trials and often relied on AF and are not very reliable IMO at all
but it is still useful and the more recent Canon tests were carried out with a lot more care
i'd say photozone.de still tends to match what I've personally seen, most all, although due to testing and copy variation nothing ever quite matches
p.1 #15 · How accurate is www.the-digital-picture.com?
retrofocus wrote:
To answer the questions, to me AF for a 1:1 macro lens is nearly irrelevant. I do (as most other macro photographers) macro focus fully in MF. The Canon lens itself is a lot better when AF capabilities are compared between those models, here the review is accurate. This review here also does not mention the much smaller aperture the Sigma lens can have. Anyway, my point is that all lens reviews of this site always end in favor for Canon.
Actually he does mention the smaller aperture the Sigma lens can have. The Sigma goes to f/45; the Canon goes to f/32. He writes, "Since DOF (Depth of Field) is very shallow at close distances, you will likely find yourself using this lens stopped down significantly. But maybe not to this lens' uniquely narrow minimum aperture of f/45 (f/32 with Nikon and Pentax mounts). Unfortunately, diffraction causes images to go soft beyond f/16 or f/22, so this extreme-minimum aperture is not helpful to me."
The Canon lenses are often more expensive and have the advantage of being built by the maker of the camera bodies instead of a third party. It's not surprising to me that they are often better, perhaps not in every detail, but in important areas like autofocus.
p.1 #16 · How accurate is www.the-digital-picture.com?
As roger cicala will tell you, there is a lot of variation and testing only one lens doesn't really tell you a lot. At the best, the charts will show the least amount of performance you'll get with a good lens - which is a nice start. I like the actual chart clips from tdp, and the 3d graphs of slrgear. To me that conveys a lot more information than photozone's bar graphs that represent only 3 points on the lens.
p.1 #18 · How accurate is www.the-digital-picture.com?
zlatko wrote:
Actually he does mention the smaller aperture the Sigma lens can have. The Sigma goes to f/45; the Canon goes to f/32. He writes, "Since DOF (Depth of Field) is very shallow at close distances, you will likely find yourself using this lens stopped down significantly. But maybe not to this lens' uniquely narrow minimum aperture of f/45 (f/32 with Nikon and Pentax mounts). Unfortunately, diffraction causes images to go soft beyond f/16 or f/22, so this extreme-minimum aperture is not helpful to me."
The Canon lenses are often more expensive and have the advantage of being built by the maker of the camera bodies instead of a third party. It's not surprising to me that they are often better, perhaps not in every detail, but in important areas like autofocus....Show more →
Yes, but in my experience you can easily use the Sigma lens up to f/32. in cases where I don't want to rely on focus stacking techniques, I always grab the Sima lens to get a bit better DoF. Canon's 100/2.8 EF macro lens on the on the other hand is great to use for closeup shots where I have a good AF. So personally I like both lenses, they just serve different purposes.
I am well aware that many other similar test sites are also oft influenced by subjective nature. This is often understandable since reviewers have a preference to a brand or certain lens classes, sometimes they might be also supported directly or indirectly by a specific camera brand by delivering directly new lenses or other camera gear to reviewers. What I like is that Photozone either directly purchases lenses from stores or relies on regular users to lend them lenses for testing. Good idea is also to be sceptic with some *.com sites where a commercial interest is included.
Jan 05, 2013 at 12:06 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · How accurate is www.the-digital-picture.com?
I really like the website. And I also like his lens-camera reviews. But I don't think the ISO 12233 Crops is any good
