why so few sample pictures?

A

Ansel

Suspended / Banned
Messages
16
Edit My Images
Yes
Its really amazing that new lenses/cameras get released to great fanfare and u go to the manufacturer's website and just get a few sample pix if u r lucky.

With lenses its even worse and u r lucky to find a few anywhere - once u've exhausted fred and miranda (which is a bit of date) and dpreview u r stuck.
Is there some comprehensive lens review site which i've overlooked?
Trawling through forums can take forever.

I'd love 2c some shots taken with the sigma 17-70 2.8-4 OS but have only found the old version.

here's the page on the sigma site
http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/dclenses/17-70mmOS.htm
but where are the pix???. Can anyone explain this coyness?
 
Last edited:
To be honest I think they may shy away from posting too many sample pics because lots of beginner togs would then question why their pictures didn't look the same etc.

Welcome Terry :) Be careful using too much text speak - a lot of the oldies round here don't like it - perhaps because they don't understand it :naughty:
 
There are too many variables to make sense of sample pictures. The only way to truly test a lens is to use it how you would use it.

Besides, if the manufacturer knew the lens was weak in terms of CA, they'd just avoid scenes which would exhibit it. If they knew the lens was soft in the corners, they'd just avoid showing samples which had detail in the corners, and so on.

Most lens manufacturers provide MTF charts (Sigma included.) Go and research what they mean, how to read them, and (most importantly) how each manufacturer makes them. They'll tell you more about the performance of a lens than a photo chosen by the manufacturer. They still won't tell you everything though, you still need to actually use the lens (or read the review of someone you trust.)
 
Last edited:
Blapto said:
There are too many variables to make sense of sample pictures. The only way to truly test a lens is to use it how you would use it.

Besides, if the manufacturer knew the lens was weak in terms of CA, they'd just avoid scenes which would exhibit it. If they knew the lens was soft in the corners, they'd just avoid showing samples which had detail in the corners, and so on.

Most lens manufacturers provide MTF charts (Sigma included.) Go and research what they mean, how to read them, and (most importantly) how each manufacturer makes them. They'll tell you more about the performance of a lens than a photo chosen by the manufacturer. They still won't tell you everything though, you still need to actually use the lens (or read the review of someone you trust.)
Click to expand...

True. Far too many variables. It would be so easy to make a rubbish lens look good, and vice versa. Hence the graphs etc, not that many of those are to be believed. Beyond DPReview and the manufacturers' own MTF graphs, I havn't got much time for most of them TBH.

But I do like The Digital Picture for most lens tests, even though they are dubious for short focal lengths (due to field curvature issues shooting a flat test chart at close distance). Excellent for long lenses, and they are at least real photographs. Brilliant comparison tool www.the-digital-picture.com
 
HoppyUK said:
True. Far too many variables. It would be so easy...[/url]
Click to expand...

that may be true but showing sample pix taken under ideal conditions can still be very helpful, after all the price of a lens is the best indicator of quality so u can only fool people to a limited extent.

eg i've tried making my cruddy 18-55 ef-s kit lens take pix like my mate's canon 50mm 1.4 and it just won't do it and i don't think a pro could either!!!
 
go to flickr type in the name of the lens in the search, jobs a good un.hth mike.:thumbs:
 
Just go search on pbase. You can fudge the search to find images done with specific lenses and specific lens/body combos, but it's been so long since I did it, I've forgotten the specifics.
 
dinorock said:
try this http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=sigma 17-70 os&w=all
Click to expand...

the problem is, the pics are going to processed to thaaaa maxxxx. Which doesn't give you any indication of what the lens is actually producing - it doesn't tell you the IQ, CA, vignetting levels.

I'm having the same trouble myself, you can search and find pics but actual ones straight off the camera are rare.

A Lens Sample Archive would be extremely useful.
 
All digital images are processed, either in-camera or via Lightroom, Adobe Camera RAW or whatever.

Short of actually having somebody upload RAW files, you're unlikely to find any.
 
Kaouthia said:
All digital images are processed, either in-camera or via Lightroom, Adobe Camera RAW or whatever.

Short of actually having somebody upload RAW files, you're unlikely to find any.
Click to expand...

:bang:
you know what I mean. I really wish people wouldn't waste their time telling me this.

There's a difference between converting a raw to a jpeg for upload and buggering around with the image so it barely resembles the original.
 
Those are out there if you look hard enough.
 
Feed 'em to the pigs? :)
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Are you sure? :naughty:
Click to expand...

well spotted - you have to admit the 'more' link doesn't exactly leap out.
i was scanning the front page for something more obvious like
sigma or tamron!!!

thanks 2 all 4 links and advice btw (oops i'm at it again!!)
 
Last edited:
adsayer said:
It would be good if again they hadn't processed them to nigh on high. It's not really a 'lens sample' archive, more a 'your best pics with a particular lens' archive.
Click to expand...

Your right, I'd never really looked at the threads before. :bonk:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top