Just thought I'd pass the word along. I don't especially like paying subscriptions, but this site's content is well worth the fee. I bought the 1 year subscription to DAP ($24) plus the Zeiss lens review (another $35). The tests are extremely well done. For me, I learn a lot and save hours of time. I am not connected to Diglloyd in any way. I've been reading his blog for about 6 mos to 1 year now, and have found that most things he says I agree with based on my own experience, but that there are some things he says I strongly disagree with. But his reviews, and especially the Zeiss ZF reviews, are especially well done.
Yes. One thing he does in his lens tests, which I've not seen anyone do much of at all and certainly not in the controlled manner he does, is he identifies curvature of the focal plane on a lens by lens basis.
Another vote for Lloyd's site. I'd already purchased the Zeiss lens guide so I received a discount on DAP but I would have had no hesitation in paying the full price. His lens and camera reviews are thorough with a strong emphasis on actual picture making. Sean Reid's site (http://www.reidreviews.com/reidreviews/) is also well worth the $32.95 yearly subscription.
I also subscribe to Sean Reid's site, though he is adding content much more slowly than Lloyd, and also Sean Reid's site is probably about 50% focused on the Leica M8 and lenses, which doesn't interest me. Lloyd's site is 100% focused on the kinds of topics that this forum is about -- which lenses to use and how to use them to get the most out of a DSLR.
I was Sean's very first subscriber, and am still subscribed, but because he uses some Flash variant to present the material, none of the standard navigation (like Page Down) works, which irritates the $%^ out of me. (Only moving the location indicator, or clicking above or below it work.) Good content, some typos, and some interesting images, too.
The flash part at SR's site is a PITA. I find his tests well done, I like the side-by-side resolution, contrast and CA tests. Some of the M-mount lens performance characteristics mimic those of the R, ZF and CV SL units, so that can be helpful sometimes.
Lloyd Chamber's site is well worth the $$$ - especially considering the cost of some of the lenses/bodies in question a buyer may be contemplating. He speaks his mind, does comparison tests and isn't married to a lens/camera line and is thus open to admitting he may have rushed to praise/tear apart a lens/body in prior tests if further use gives him a change of heart. My only critique is he makes conclusions on sample variation form only 2-3 samples, which is of little merit (unless you're using Canon glass...;>.
Conner, I get that last part, but IF it's the case that sample variation can be found in such low numbers, that tells you that QC is a problem. I agree, though, that you can't say too much if you *don't* find variation in a sample of three; the sample size is just too small.
Exactly - IF you find it in 2-3 samples, look out. My point really was that If you DON'T find it in 2-3 samples - you can't draw any conclusion other than sample variation isn't utterly abysmal ;>
Precisely. I guess that's the best he can do, as an individual. If I lived closer, I'd lend him my copy of whatever he was testing—that's would be a 33% bigger sample size! cheers, kl
On Diglloyd's site today, he posted an interesting comparison of the resolution of the 1DsIII vs. Nikon D3. The tone of his posts has shown a general preference for the Nikon D3, until today that is. When he compared them using top flight lenses, the difference in detail from the 1DsIII (and presumably the Canon 5D) is astonishing. . . . During the week that I've been subscribed to the site, I've saved probably hundreds of dollars and hundreds of hours of time that I would have probably otherwise spent trying/testing lenses that I now know aren't worth the effort. Also, by reading some of his detailed reviews of lenses I've tested and used quite a bit -- like the Oly 35mm shift and Nikon 35mm shift -- I can confirm that his tests and subjective evaluations confirm my own. . . .
Although I have no connection at all to Lloyd, I would like as many others as possible to also subscribe -- that way I expect he'll be motivated to undertake more and more extensive testing. His site is by far the best site I've found for in-depth testing of the lenses I'm interested in. Until now, it was the 16:9 site. But Digglloyd's tests appear more rigorous and repeatable than Hubsand's, and also Digglloyd has tested more of the lenses I'm especially interested, including all of the new ZE/ZF line. This isn't intended as a knock on Hubsand's 16:9 site, which is, after all free.
Thank you everyone for the compliments. I am going to keep working hard to keep providing good value.
Regarding sample variation, I agree that one cannot come to a statistical conclusion with only a few samples.
Grouping a fairly large number of new lenses of each brand (Canon, Nikon, Zeiss), I do have a pretty strong opinion on the quality variation, which is to say that Canon and Nikon have had frequent problems for me, but Zeiss is significantly better. I've now seen 20 or so Zeiss ZF lenses, which is a reasonably large group, even if they aren't all the same focal length, and I've seen more than that of Canon/Nikon. The occasional variation I've seen with Zeiss has required very precise testing, whereas it has been fairly obvious in the Canon/Nikon cases. Of course, the ZF lenses are not zooms, and thus less complex, and therefore easier to build consistently.
My Brand-new Blur article covers a few of the bad samples I've run into. I’ve had trouble with quite a few others, including the Nikon 17-35/2.8 (so blurry on one side it could be seen through the viewfinder), and the Canon 24-70/2.8L and 16-35/2.8L.
I don't think Canon is any worse than Nikon, but I've had too many problems to trust any brand. When I get a new lens, I test it with field shots for a quick check (certain revealing subjects), then I do something more rigorous. It's a tedious and annoying task, but better than the alternative of shooting a bunch of frames that are soft on one side.
Both Canon and Nikon are selling full-frame digital cameras that show any optical problems clearly. I suspect that quality (less sample variation) might be getting better, but then again it might not. It's just way too costly to make sure 100,000 lenses are within 0.1% variance.
Lloyd, I have said this before, but it may be worth mentioning again:
Presently, QC consists of an assessment of number of lenses that are returned by disgruntled customers, over the number of the production run. If this is under x (arbitrary number decided by bean counters) then, QC-wise, all is OK (think "Class Action").
If higher, action taken. IOW, we are all beta testers (you are an alpha tester!).
Kit Laughlin wrote:
Lloyd, I have said this before, but it may be worth mentioning again:
Presently, QC consists of an assessment of number of lenses that are returned by disgruntled customers, over the number of the production run. If this is under x (arbitrary number decided by bean counters) then, QC-wise, all is OK (think "Class Action").
If higher, action taken. IOW, we are all beta testers (you are an alpha tester!).
Well, I'm not quite that cynical, but it might not be too far from the truth! At this point, I just buy from places where I can return a dud. That means a 4-5 hour commitment to shoot the lens in a variety of ways, assess the results and make a decision to keep or return it. Another good way is to buy used from a place that has a 30-day return policy, then shoot the lens carefully.
Either way, one loses (time and effort). That's life I guess.
httivals wrote:
I also subscribe to Sean Reid's site, though he is adding content much more slowly than Lloyd, and also Sean Reid's site is probably about 50% focused on the Leica M8 and lenses, which doesn't interest me. Lloyd's site is 100% focused on the kinds of topics that this forum is about -- which lenses to use and how to use them to get the most out of a DSLR.
Sean's insights are valuable. I think we don't have much cross-over, offering different takes on mostly different topics. Subscribe to both of our sites, we both offer a great deal!
I'll be adding topics like how to set up the Mac Pro optimally with memory, RAID, backup, etc, software evaluations of various kinds, because photography today is about an end-to-end system.
But as soon as I can get my hands on the Canon 5D Mark II, I'm going to put it through the ringer...
.
I am going to keep working hard to keep providing good value.