Is anybody else totally unable to load page 2 of this thread? I think something in Cindy Flood's post is breaking my browser. The farthest I have gotten on page 2 is halfway through Cindy's post before the browser hangs up and dies. This is with two different web browsers, BTW.
Image loads fine. Page 2 crashes my browser. Like I said, I think it's something in Cindy Flood's post. Does she have anything unusual there, like special characters or something? Maybe in her signature block?
The 28-70L is definitely a bit yellow. That said, I found the color of my Tamron to be a little flat - not saying you couldn't make it more "punchy" in PS, but I find I like the color out of my 24-70 more.
Yes Joshua ... have one in hand an another that'll be here on Friday. We'll see how they stack up against each other and the 24-70. Wish I had a 35 f2 to toss in there also.
Yeah, it's this weird line that says.
script language="JavaScript" type="text/javascript"
--
if current user="moonidigger"
set brower mode= "crash"
set crash level= "really hard"
// -->
/script
Sorry, I've been working on websites all day and am starting to lose it.
Her shutterhappy.com avatar is missing but it just give me a missing file icon. Maybe that's doing it?
moondigger wrote:
Image loads fine. Page 2 crashes my browser. Like I said, I think it's something in Cindy Flood's post. Does she have anything unusual there, like special characters or something? Maybe in her signature block?
jmardy wrote:
Hi Curt.
Yes, I will be the first to admit that these are unscientific tests and were originally just for me. I did try to remove as many variables as possible.
I shot them at different times, with different light, but I shot them RAW and used ACR to adjust color balance by clicking on the center of the white tape arrow.
Honestly, the Canon 28-70 makes the brick look richer and more sautrated than it really is. It is closer in color to the other four (does that make any sense?)
Makes total since to me .
I thought you would say that and I have to agree. Although the Canon L lenses have an attractive color being saturated and contrasty , they do not always render color properly. Its not a bad thing by any means. Its just not proper color rendition.
I looked at the other pictures and already knew the answer as far as color goes.
Thanks for your honest reply, and great comparison !
Edited by CurtPick on Mar 23, 2005 at 11:55 PM GMT
Edited by CurtPick on Mar 23, 2005 at 11:57 PM GMT
jmardy wrote:
Yeah, it's this weird line that says.
script language="JavaScript" type="text/javascript"
--
if current user="moonidigger"
set brower mode= "crash"
set crash level= "really hard"
// -->
/script
Sorry, I've been working on websites all day and am starting to lose it.
That's alright, I found it amusing.
Her shutterhappy.com avatar is missing but it just give me a missing file icon. Maybe that's doing it?
Maybe, but I've never had a missing graphic file cause two different browsers to hang up on me. Usually if something won't load, I get the missing file icon and life goes on.
Strange.
I'll try loading that page on my Mac when I get the chance. Both crashing browsers are Windoze products.
jmardy, thanks for setting this up and posting it.
A comment...
While the Canon 28-70L does look punchier and more saturated, it also looks unrealistic to me-unless we are dealing with an odd-ball super-colored type of brick. The sharpness is certainly there though.
The Tamron, has the sharpness and what I'd call more neutral color rendition. It looks more realistic to me in comparison to common *house brick* color and tone.
I have always felt that my copy of the Tamron 28-75 gave very good performance and acceptable color and contrast. But as is usually the case, I have suffered some lack of faith in it when I hear people rave about how much better Canon L color and contrast are. Almost to the point of selling my two Tamrons in order to fund the purchase of a midrange L zoom.
After shooting with my Tamron quite a bit yesterday with my new 580EX and seeing the shots posted here, my mind is once again put at ease. I see no need to move *up* to a Canon midrange zoom at this time.
That's alright, I found it amusing.