Do internet reviews put you off equipment?

D

Dave Pickett

Messages
992
Name
Dave Pickett
Edit My Images
Yes
I am looking at a sigma 70-200 (but this applies to most items)

Like many I search the reviews, and am holding off buying as every now and again you find a review where the lens is back or front focussing, or the HSM has failed or whatever.

Is it me being paranoid that I might get a bad example, or should I just buy one regardless?
 
Nope - you're not alone. I've been looking at a similar zoom for my 550D but am looking at Canon's own zooms for that very reason. The reviews I have read, especially looking at the charts side by side which show that the Canon's are much sharper across the lens, but especially when you move off centre.
 
In my opinion you shouldn't ignore Internet reviews. They are incredibly helpful in assessing a particular lens against another. However, there are faults with every single lens out there and as you say, you can't write off a lens based on one bad review!

I always read as many reviews as possible and try to get an overall, rounded view.

I believe, for instance, that the general consensus on the Sigma 70-200 versus the Tamron 70-200 is that the Sigma is faster focusing and the Tamron has better image quality (from memory!).

Do watch out for biased reviews too! There's some reviewers out there who will tell you to buy Nikon (for instance) no matter what (which obviously can't always be true!). And watch out for those reviews by people who own the lens and are desperately trying to prove to the world that it was the right choice!

DP Review is great, if you haven't found that yet.
 
I've never stressed over a lens review yet.

Several reasons.
1. Most people never enlarge images to the point where you can see that there might be a problem.
2. Most people would not recognise that there was a problem.
3.Pixel peeping 9/10 is only there so people can justify the expense of a big white lens.
4. Pics posted in places like this only contain 1-2% of the information so it doesn't matter.

I have owned a Sigma 70-200 and a Canon f4 and a Canon f2.8IS and I shot weddings for over a year with the Sigma and you know what? Not one of my clients ever complained about the quality of the images ;)
 
Several reasons.
1. Most people never enlarge images to the point where you can see that there might be a problem.
2. Most people would not recognise that there was a problem.
3.Pixel peeping 9/10 is only there so people can justify the expense of a big white lens.
4. Pics posted in places like this only contain 1-2% of the information so it doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

Thats just so sensible!

Was photographing my daughter show jumping in an indoor arena yesterday, with the D90 up to 3200ISO and my Tamron 90 2.8 wide open. The lack of image IQ caused by the high ISO is way in excess of any slight softness of any lens, but the flexibility of the zoom would have helped, so its on my list of gear to get.
 
I treat most of what I read on the internet with a pinch of salt. Fair enough, if EVERY person says something's a pile of brown, smelly stuff, it is likely to be but I'd far rather have a personal, face to face, real life review from someone I know has used the kit than a number of faceless "expert" opinions, very often from people who wouldn't even recognise the item if it was on a table in front of them.
Follow the personal recommendation with some personal hands on timne with the kit, THEN I'll make up my own mind. Pixel peeping to find faults is all very well for what an aquaintance (on the web) calls the measurebators but as long as prints up to A3 look good from normal viewing distance, what differenc is there in the real world?
 
When it boils down a review is just another persons opinion.
Technical reviews of kit can often go past any visual eye difference and rely on charts and software to show the bad bits.

As Alison says if the customer likes the results who is to worry.
 
One review can't really put me off, but if I read a number of reviews saying the same thing, I might start to worry. At that point I'd start looking on here for actual experiences, flickr for samples etc. The review itself wouldn't be enough to put me off, but it might make me look more critically into its performance.
 
I have to agree with Bouncy Melons too. I think a lot of people would be happy with inferior / cheaper lenses if they couldn't pixel peep - just veiwing images at standard print sizes. I am one of them - I know I was always happy enough with my 75-300 on film, but I am not happy with it on my 40D!

I read reviews, like many people, but I also take them with a pinch of salt, the best thing to do (not always that easy with some lenses, admittedly) is to try it for yourself.

At the end of the day, if the lens works for you, what does it matter that someone else doesn't like it?

I have the Tamron 70-200 and am very happy with it - I have not yet had an issue where I missed a shot due to the focus speed. But I don't get paid to take photos, nothing I have photographed is a critical once in a lifetime shot and I don't shoot fast paced sports. It also cost £50 less than the best priced Canon 70-200 F4 L non IS when I bought it new last year from WEX, which was a massive deciding factor! :thumbs:
 
This picture was taken with the Sigma 70-200 at 200mm, f2.8 ISO 100 on my 50D

dad-IMG_9056-copy.jpg


Here is a 100% crop from the same.

dad-crop_IMG_9056-copy.jpg


Sure plenty of reviewers slate the Sigma 70-200, the review on the digital picture.com totally put me off, but after seeing some sample shots from the lens I bought I went ahead. I'm very pleased with my purchase and I recommend that you get some sample shots from the lens you intend to buy if it is second hand. If you want to buy new then make sure its from a place that you can easily return to in case of any problems.
 
chris321 said:
One review can't really put me off, but if I read a number of reviews saying the same thing, I might start to worry. At that point I'd start looking on here for actual experiences, flickr for samples etc. The review itself wouldn't be enough to put me off, but it might make me look more critically into its performance.
Click to expand...

That's exactly the way I feel.

I'm looking at buying a 5D MkII but because it's going to be a major purchase for me I was a bit worried about negative comments on its AF performance.

But having looked at everything I've still decided to go ahead.
 
CSB said:
This picture was taken with the Sigma 70-200 at 200mm, f2.8 ISO 100 on my 50D

dad-IMG_9056-copy.jpg


Here is a 100% crop from the same.

dad-crop_IMG_9056-copy.jpg


Sure plenty of reviewers slate the Sigma 70-200, the review on the digital picture.com totally put me off, but after seeing some sample shots from the lens I bought I went ahead. I'm very pleased with my purchase and I recommend that you get some sample shots from the lens you intend to buy if it is second hand. If you want to buy new then make sure its from a place that you can easily return to in case of any problems.
Click to expand...

The trouble with Sigma seems to be inconsistancies with their lenses.

A few years ago I was looking for a walkabout lens and after reading a lot of reviews and seeing a lot of pics I went for a Sigma 28-300mm (I think) Macro lens with internal focussing.

Unfortunately it was a disaster - it was soft, close up it was virtually unusable and even on a tripod the quality wasn't even as good as the Canon 75-300mm MkIII lens which I already owned.

In the end it was replaced by the Canon 70-300mm IS USM lens which is a whole universe better.

Since that experience I simply wouldn't buy anything but Canon.
 
petersmart said:
That's exactly the way I feel.

I'm looking at buying a 5D MkII but because it's going to be a major purchase for me I was a bit worried about negative comments on its AF performance.

But having looked at everything I've still decided to go ahead.
Click to expand...

Centre point performance is actually pretty decent, and I've managed sharp shots of birds flying head on towards me with my 5D2 and 100-400 lens. The weak point, so I understand it, is the outer points, which are supposedly all but useless in dim light such as weddings - a situation the 5D2 was born to be good for. I rarely use the outer points, but when I have (outdoors in daylight) I've had no problems. People who are used to the outer point performance of 1 series bodies or the 40D, 50D, 7D might be disappointed. Personally, with my expectations set suitably low, I have so far been pleased with the camera's AF performance, and I do have a 40D, 50D, 7D and 1D3.
 
petersmart said:
The trouble with Sigma seems to be inconsistancies with their lenses.
Click to expand...

As much as I like Canon, owning as I do six of their bodies and nine lenses, I've certainly had my problems with Canon glass....

28/1.8 - so soft that it was unuseable between f/1.8 and f/2.2. At f/2.5 it pulled fractionally ahead of my 17-55 wide open, but I didn't spend that money and add the inconvenience of another lens to my kit (without IS) just to gain 1/3 stop of performance. Returned for refund.

24/1.4L MK 1 - would not produce consistent focus and could not be microadjusted to correct. Failed to work properly on my 1D3 and 50D. Returned for refund. I think there was something fishy with this lens. I bought it new, from Park Cameras, but the price was suspiciously low and a few things did not add up. It may have been a customer return or perhaps dropped or something. It sounded like something was loos einside. Possibly not Canon's fault.

85/1.8 - First copy had excessive purple fringing. Replaced with a much improved copy.

50/1.4 - way too soft wide open (dreamy, some people like to call it). Also fringed a bit. Replaced with a copy that is better and has less PF.

I also bought a Sigma 10/2.8 fisheye and that was so far out of calibration that it went straight back for a refund. It was a niche lens anyway, and the experience put me right off. Who would think that a 10mm lens would have such poor focusing that the results were unusable?
 
BouncyMelons said:
I've never stressed over a lens review yet.

Several reasons.
1. Most people never enlarge images to the point where you can see that there might be a problem.
2. Most people would not recognise that there was a problem.
3.Pixel peeping 9/10 is only there so people can justify the expense of a big white lens.
4. Pics posted in places like this only contain 1-2% of the information so it doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

All of this presumes that the photographer is not going to use the images for professional/commercial purposes, which might not be the case.

I don't 'pixel peep' to justify expensive lenses. I read lens reviews very carefully and take a massive interest in image quality because I want my images to be accepted by stock photography sites and because I want to be able to produce large, high quality prints!

If you're interested in these kind of applications, then yes - read the reviews! Don't just blindly follow them but definitely read them.
 
in the case of the nikon 24-120 then yeah but if i was buying off someone on here and they could prove it was sharp and had no issues i'd be satisfied, however buying new i'd not be so convinced :)
 
CSB said:
This picture was taken with the Sigma 70-200 at 200mm, f2.8 ISO 100 on my 50D

dad-IMG_9056-copy.jpg


Here is a 100% crop from the same.

dad-crop_IMG_9056-copy.jpg
.
Click to expand...

That is soft technically - A Nikon 70-200 VR would be a lot sharper.

Agreed if you print, its not a problem...
 
The problem with internet reviews - and I'm referring particularly to opinions spouted on internet discussion groups - is that people tend to quote stuff they've read elsewhere, and it ends up being repeated as gospel.

The 5D mk II's AF is a good case in point. Everyone agrees that it's not as good as the D700 - 51 point vs. 9 point AF, you wouldn't expect it to be.

A lot of people take this further and say the 5D mk II's AF is rubbish, and only good for landscapes. This gets repeated ad nauseum.

As a 5D mk II owner, I've just tried a little test. I tried focusing in my living room using only window light, forcing the camera to use one of the side AF points. It's 5:20pm, light fading outside, pretty gloomy indoors without the light on - camera's meter is recommending 2 seconds at f/4 at ISO 400.

Surprise surprise, the side AF point focuses fine, given a reasonably contrasty surface to lock on to. (The white kitchen door throws it, but the centre point won't work on that either.) And this is with a 17-40mm f/4 lens, what my 5D2 happened to have fitted at the time.

I wouldn't expect stellar performance using the 5D2 for motorsport etc., but this isn't what it's pitched at. Based on actually using a 5D2 in the real world, I'd have no qualms at all about shooting a wedding with one, unless the bride was a hyperactive 8 year old who'd been at the Sunny D all morning.

Don't believe everything you read! ;)

A.
 
An often overlooked discussion with regards to Sigma lenses is that they are reverse engineered to fit non Sigma SA mounts. This reverse engineering can have adverse effects when it comes to focus accuracy. This can and does get confused with soft results. A friend of mine (who I am trying to sign up here) using the Sigma SD14 camera produces results that blow a lot of high end equipment out of the water. Many of the Sigma lenses in his equipment bag have received terrible reviews but on the Foveon X3 sensor produce results that far outweigh their reputation. Their quality control could do with a reorganizing in an effort to filter out the lenses than need recalibrating but other than that they produce some excellent optics and great prices.
 
Anorakus said:
The problem with internet reviews - and I'm referring particularly to opinions spouted on internet discussion groups - is that people tend to quote stuff they've read elsewhere, and it ends up being repeated as gospel.

tdodd said:
Centre point performance is actually pretty decent, and I've managed sharp shots of birds flying head on towards me with my 5D2 and 100-400 lens. The weak point, so I understand it, is the outer points, which are supposedly all but useless in dim light such as weddings - a situation the 5D2 was born to be good for. I rarely use the outer points, but when I have (outdoors in daylight) I've had no problems. People who are used to the outer point performance of 1 series bodies or the 40D, 50D, 7D might be disappointed. Personally, with my expectations set suitably low, I have so far been pleased with the camera's AF performance, and I do have a 40D, 50D, 7D and 1D3.
Click to expand...


The 5D mk II's AF is a good case in point. Everyone agrees that it's not as good as the D700 - 51 point vs. 9 point AF, you wouldn't expect it to be.
Click to expand...

Please be careful how you quote me. I am not saying that the 5D2's outer focusing points are all but useless. I'm simply saying that you might come away with that impression if you believe everything you read. Your selective quote might easily be read to imply that I hold that belief too. My choice to use the word "supposedly" was very deliberately chosen to convey the point that that's the allegation, by others. Since I have not used my 5D2 under those conditions I have no opinion one way or the other. I would not like to be accused of being one of those people who simply parrots internet hearsay. If you are going to quote me it would be nice if you included the full context of what I said, not snippets. Just for clarity, you understand. :)
 
SummerSound said:
All of this presumes that the photographer is not going to use the images for professional/commercial purposes, which might not be the case.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't.:D I've been known to do the odd...enlargement :D

showphoto.php
[/url][/IMG]
 
When I had my D300 I had Tokina 11-16mm which was a fantastic lens. I sold the D300 and got a D700 so I had to replace the Tokina, I couldn't afford the Nikon 14-24. A lot of the reveiws I had read of the Sigma 12-24 were negative. I decided to buy a secondhand one from a dealer with the proviso that if it was a bad copy I could send it back for a full refund. He was quite happy with that and I have been pleased with the lens. I do think though the saying you pay for what you get is generally true. I think the problem with sigma is poor quality control.
 
BouncyMelons said:
No it doesn't.:D I've been known to do the odd...enlargement :D

showphoto.php
[/url][/IMG]
Click to expand...

Like your style :thumbs:

Reviews aren't the be all and end all. I have a Nikon 28-70mm f2.8 and the Sigma version of the same. The reviews I've seen pan the Sigma lens but I've tested them side by side and I'll be damned if I can tell the difference between them.
 
DP Review has to be one of the most inane reviewers on the net. Especially when it comes to the sample galleries. They lack the balls to provide critically important feedback for the fear of being shotgunned by the manufacturer. The pro's and con's couldn't be more obvious about camera bodies and lens reviews are equally terrible. I find it difficult to understand how they have become so 'important' in the photography review / news industry. Oh wait, free advertising for the manufacturers with a guaranteed vanilla review.
 
i think this is why dpreview are quite reliable, most other reviewers put too much effort into their reviews that they don't come across as impartial

i've not once read a dpreview review that sounded bias
as a first port of call i rate them pretty highly
 
alexkidd said:
i think this is why dpreview are quite reliable, most other reviewers put too much effort into their reviews that they don't come across as impartial
Click to expand...

You see, that doesn't really make sense. By putting less effort into a review you become impartial and putting more effort in you become biased?
 
ok i'll try and phrase it differently, the other reviewers seem to be trying to hard to make an impact and become the definitive reviewers that it often backfires imho

dpreview just seem to get on with it

obviously it's personal preference though :)
 
puddleduck said:
That is soft technically - A Nikon 70-200 VR would be a lot sharper.

Agreed if you print, its not a problem...
Click to expand...

I'm sure the Nikon or Canon 70-200 f2.8L II IS is sharper, but the Sigma costs less than half the price of those lenses even when new. Also the examples I posted are converted from raw with no sharpening.
 
but comparatively they should probably review against the industry standard which would be the makers own, so when a review says it's a bit soft that's probably why

realistically most people won't be overly fussed if it's as sharp as those seen but then it's the difference between a pro and an amateur looking at the pics

that excludes the majority of tp though who will probably pixel peep :P
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top