I do own some prime lenses for my Fujifilm cameras. The one lens though, I mostly use, is the XC 16-50 OIS II f3.5-5.6 (plastic zoom). This is not the much adored kit lens 18-55 f2.8-4; but I made comparison shots at f5.6 and: my plastic lens is sharper. It is also ultra lightweight, so I carry it in my rucksack on a daily basis.
Yes, Tamron 35mm f/2.8 1:2 Macro for Sony E. Same story .. everybody talks about the not so great AF (noisy, not sticky in video). That it's a lens for less than 200€ with exceptional IQ, is mostly let aside .. I tested it against the G-Master and you had to zoom in 5-8x to see the difference. But who does this? Nevertheless, I liked the G-Master because of the fast aperture and the haptics. That just doesn't mean that the images were dramatically better.
Honestly, true. I think if a lens can resolve 4k (so 8 MP) that's good enough for me. But I am a video person so photography detail never mattered much anyways. However, I FIND that lenses that are sharp sharp, OFTEN (not always!) tend to have less of the REALLY annoying stuff. Things like purple fringing and bad contrast are less likely to appear on lenses that are properly sharp (because it's probably a premium lens that was well built, not just for sharpness).
When I got my LUMIX S5II, I was disappointed in the lack of superzoom options. I loved having it with my Canon R10. So, I went to Sammy’s camera in Los Angeles looking for a Canon EF to L-mount adapter, so I could put a very old Tamron 28-300 on it. The employee told me I was stupid for trying to do it. Having an old superzoom, even with its softness and lack of wide aperture, is the best thing for my photography. I was called “stupid”… but it was the smartest thing I’ve done. Loved the video.
M43 user here. Recently bought my first weather sealed lens - 14-140 Panasonic. Nothing fancy (3.5 - 5.6) but I just love the flexibility (28-240 FF equivalent) and small size. Has given me a lot of impetus - now taking photos again after a fairly stagnant time
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept" - Henri Cartier Bresson. This quotation is very apt for your style of photography. I love the rather old fashioned 'slightly sooty' look to your images. I have recently bought a set of used lenses for my Sony A7R2. Even though used, they were quite expensive. But I bought them more for their reputation for ruggedness, their portability, their lightness and their range of focal lengths than for their ultimate optical performance. I researched their physical attributes as I will be using them on long treks. Another aspect of performance that is also usually overlooked by reviewers is that many lens 'flaws' are very ably corrected in processing by automatic profiles. I recently looked at a dark edge against the sky on one of my images and was amazed at the reduction in chromatic aberration simply by turning on the 'lens correction' module. Thank you for another great video my friend.
@@bernym4047 any comment is likely valid in some context but breathlessly repeating his quote without understanding who Bresson was betrays a real lack of thought.
I have the Nikon 24-200, it's plenty sharp especially when stopped down and the CA can be easily corrected. Getting the image and having an enjoyable experience is way more important than sharpness in the corners that nobody will ever notice.
You've made absolutely gorgeous images with that lens and you know it ! Have you ever thought that maybe, just maybe they had a flawed copy and never tried another ? If your happy with it, be happy with it !
20 year old Nikon D40 user here... 2 lenses: 18-55 & 55-200. I hafta keep it really simple. I'm too bad a photographer to go with high dollar gear. Note: I also shoot jpeg, and don't use Lightroom or Photoshop; just whatever that program is in Windows 10, if I edit at all. However, I also shoot film, and process and print my photos. And I shoot mostly on a Kodak Cresta 120 format camera. Like I said: keepin' it simple. In the words of one of my favorite photographers, Henry Wessel; ''I don't go out to take pictures... I take pictures. If I see something that interests me, I take a picture of it.'' Enjoy your channel, and love your passion for photography. Love your pictures!
Sometimes (just sometimes) you compare what you own and end up thinking _"ooh yeah, totally love my [insert gear here] compared to this one I pass up/don't have, made the perfect choice with that one and I should pat my past self in the back"_ and that could be quite fun.
Perhaps we have come to a tipping point where "focussing at the iris" and get the best bokeh and background separation is no longer enough? A good example is the 8K 40'' tv screen on which we see every skin pore and every individual hair. Given that our minds read detail as proximity, that amount of detail can feel intrusive. Perhaps we have to start judging how much detail a motive needs. Like the golden means, it is no longer a "constant".
If you look at vintage photography, when lens technology wasn't where it is today, many photographers didn't worry about tack sharpness. More importance was given to the subject, composition, storytelling, and overall mood. I suspect too many people have the false belief that expensive tools will make them better photographers, artists, writers, musicians, etc. Yes, good tool can sometimes help, but skill and creativity matter much more.
Hillarious. That broken lens I bought again and commented a few days ago also is a "bad kit superzoom". Come to figure many of my favorite pictures are made with this lens in great conditions 🤣
I have an old manual lens that is not very sharp, but it renders colors beautifully - much better than my new sharp lenses, which tend to be clinical. And besides - it's not about the violin you're playing - it's about the music. Great video.
Good enough or more than good enough is becoming the alternative nowadays. That’s fine, and even great for those who have extra needs alongside sharpness. Cost weight size weather sealing consistency in shape and design... We can prioritize other things and still get a good enough image quality. Even with zooms.
That is a brilliant post you did and so right. sharpness can be too much on lens too and a more organic look is lovely. It is interesting that reviewers of the same lens often vary and they even do test charts etc and some praise the lens and others say it’s average etc.
Same thing with cameras. Some of my most satisfying work has been with low megapixel cameras whereas high mp ones create a large set of issues that don’t result in better photos. Yet a lot of cameras have been sold- including to me- based on this. And the biggest mistake is to look at reviews on the equipment that you are using and happy with.
What a great video. So many of us, myself included, torture ourselves like this. We like something, even love it, then we go out to seek reassuring info and instantly doubt what we love. Also, you have taken many amazing shots with that lens
If you're going to compare chromatic aberration between lenses, you have to make sure they're both stopped down to the same aperture. aberration becomes more difficult to control the wider the aperture. so stop down that 35mm to f/2.8, and see how it performs vs the 28-200mm.
Yup! It's not very clear in the video (that was not the point), but the final "comparison" was between the two lenses both at f/5.6. There was a difference but much less so than when wide open.
Brilliant,, I've been over-thinking some gear choices lately and this is perfect timing to help me make the decision my feelings were telling me over the logic of other choices.
Keep using what you love. I recently switched from Fuji to Olympus. I shoot bnw, and the mono2 jpgs coming out of Olympus cameras are amazing. Despite all the hate I'm sticking with what I love
That lens looks amazing, the fast aperture offers more creative choices and it's definitely better in low light (I'm not a big fan of digital noise). But it is big and heavy indeed!
Great viideo. Had this feeling myself many years ago with my canon 100-400 zoom. Now that one suffered from some serious quality control issues so there was a huge amount of variability in terms of sharpness between copies. I loved the lens, and got some great shots with it, but seeing those other people returning their copies always had me doubting my own copy too. A frustrating feeling. I eventually ended up trading my 100-400 lens in for the 70-200 f2.8 when I started shooting more video, and you could immediately see a huge difference in sharpness. But ive never replaced that old 100-400 in terms of versatility AND ergonomics as the push pull zoom was amazing for birds in flight.
Your best images would not have been as magical if they were bleeding sharp. That feeling and connection you have with your favourite lens is something that many can only wish for. I think you need to make a lens appreciation video to really drive the point home...maybe as an apology to your lens? 😅 Great video, thanks for sharing this. I can totally relate.
I think the pictorialist period is my favourite era of photography. The photographs of photographers like Misonne and Emerson for example and other photographers of the "Linked Ring". It's true though that the beautiful softness of these photographs is not just from the camera but from the printing processes used. In fact I'd say some of your photographs remind me of this era of photography.
I totally agree on the printing! My hope is to one day have a darkroom, not to shoot & develop film but to print my digital images using digital negatives. There's so much room for creativity there.
I've used that lens since I moved to Sony about 5 years ago and love it, its far from perfect but the range, size and weight of it along with its cost make its flaws more than acceptable. I've added the Tamron 17-50 f4 which is on my camera by default these days, so the 28-200 could maybe get replaced by the 50-400 at some point for the extra range since I'me usually hiking, carrying camping gear, and now make videos so that's a second video set up as well. No way I was more or alternative bigger heavier Sony lenses for that little bit of extra performance that pixel peeping might show. Always enjoy your videos and find they bring me back to reality of photography. You don't just push gear and exaggerate about how incredible a scene is. sometimes it's just ok and that's fine. Keep up the great work.
That makes total lens, 28mm is definitely not wide enough for many situations. I get away with it because I usually have my video camera with the 17-28mm on it, mainly to film myself for these videos, but I'll definitely use it whenever I need that wider angle!
One of my favorite photographs was taken by a lens some have called obsolete and short of minimum contemporary standards. The image ran as a two page spread in one of my books and it is exquisite. Always trust your own intuition. Enjoy your Tamron, it's served your vision faithfully. By the way, your film about the Winter Camino is perhaps my favorite travel film. Just doing the Camino during that time of year was gutsy, but filming it as you went must have been brutal. Bravo 👎🌟🌟🌟🌟🏆
I love this lens with my Sony. Also I've watched many reviews from Mads Peter Iversen who almost uses this lens. Yes it's not the perfect lens but what…And finally I love your work with this lens! Happy New Year!!🎉🎉
I'm waiting for the day we talk about your filters! Would love a long vid about more exotic filter types. I use ND, polarizer, and sometimes some red filters... but I'm not familiar with diffusion filters or how they change the look of light.
RUclips became a battlefield of camparison. Good photographic results are few. Also with super sharp lenses or high high ended cameras. That popular street photograph theme doesn't touch me at all. Looking at the backside of a couple while shopping. Who needs it. But in the end it also a form of art. A lightpainting that matters...
As a videographer, I've come to really hate overly sharp perfect lenses. I'm much happier with the image I get out of vintage glass like the Helios 44-2 or Canon FD line, anamorphics, or some low budget cine lenses because a little less sharpness is much more flattering. And pretty much all lenses can resolve a 4K image with plenty of detail, even with softer or less perfect edge to edge sharpness.
Sure... the XF18-55 is one I use all the time. Plus, I love to shoot with old lenses adapted to my X-T3. One of my favorites is the Canon FD28mm f2.8. Loved your dramatization though!
My favorite lens in my Nifty Fifty. It's been beaten around a bit, used on full frame and APS-C sensors, and used in less than ideal situations. I love it so much I bought two of the older versions. In fact for my professional work, a 50mm lens will be my next big lens purchase.
Well said, Adrian. Many reviews suck and have little to do with real photography. I’m not at all worried that a travelzoom lens at 1 to 2m away from a bookshelf, is less sharp than a high-end prime lens. Performance can be dramatically different at infinity. Pixel-peeping and photography are two different hobbies. For my professional work as fashion/beauty photographer, I use Hasselblad and Leica. One of the steps in post is to ‘soften’ the image a bit, to give it a more pleasing look. Last Nov we did a lookbook for a renowed fashion brand and the client specifically asked me to use my ‘vintage’ lenses on the M11. The 35mm steel rim and the 90mm elmarit are designed in resp. the 60s and the 80s. To modern standards these lenses are ‘flawed’ to put it mildly. Nevertheless, the real-life images are gorgeous and exactly what they were looking for. For my personal work, long hikes outdoor, I’ve switched to an OM-1 and some Zuiko zoom lenses. I was fed up with carrying large, heavy full-frame cameras and lenses. As it turns out, 20MP M4/3 images are more than enough for the purpose and still very well suited to publish in books and magazines. Once printed, nobody zooms to 300%…
I’ve had the same problem. Even though it’s probably not the sharpest, I keep coming back to my Olympus 12-100 lens. It’s good enough and the convenience is important to me.
I have a lot of time for the sigma 35mm 1.4 dg hsm art and the canon rf 14-35. I’ve seen both get middling reviews but to me they’re great value for money.
"...the point here is that a technically better lens doesn't necessarily mean or make better images, sometimes it can be the opposite" well said. IMHO, it's the photographer who makes images. The technical prowess of today's camera equipment just makes it easier.
To quote the late David Thorpe, if you are worrying about the minor details of image quality, "it's a bad picture." You can be very proud of the pictures you shared.
Hi Adrian, everyone looks at Sharpness from a lens a different way than another photographer. I have taken some great photos with my Kit lens, and my Sharpest lens sometimes didn't take good photos. Thanks Adrian this was a good subject. 😊
Thanks for your wise video. The Tamron 28-200mm is a good example for a lens that ist "good enough" for many purposes. It's not as perfect as many other modern lenses, but so versatile. And it's small enough to take ist out. It makes images possible, that one couldn't have made with other (more perfect) lenses at that moment. Because they were to big/heavy and stayed in the shelf. And I think for your b/w-photography the color-fringing-issues of the tamron don't matter and if it's sharp enough for your prints, everything is fine. I made a lot of images that I really like with adapted vintage lenses with a lot of optical flaws, but who cares if they are good enough for that type of images I used them for.
Don’t be too concerned AOWS! If your chosen lens is ‘soft’ put it down to your photography style! Indeed, too many photographers pay too much emphasis on ‘wall to wall’ sharpness - not on achieving photography style! You sir …. have lots of STYLE! Your photography is excellent, including your RUclips videos!
Very well said and so true. I’ve always shied away from very sharp lenses and prefer lenses that provide a more realistic or artistic look. Thank you for all your great videos.
I advice, if you still have an extended 5 year warranty on this lens, go get it checked for allingment, it should not be so soft, I know because I own it and it's much sharper than you showed in the examples, it's not normal. It's also my only zoom for my A7iii and it's unbelievable, crazy good and versatile lens! Good luck and keep up the great work, subscribed! ❤
One thing I use as a reality check is that a Cinema screen is gigantic. And can make sharp enough images at... 2K. At maximum DCI 2K resolution. That noone really uses. That's 2048x1080. That's... Roughly 2 Megapixels... 2.... Megapixels. Most cinemas don't top that. Even at cinemas at full 4K, no crop, is 4096x2160. That's... Roughly 8 MP. And you need basically an IMAX screen size to not have more pixels per photosite in a perfect 20/20 human eye at 4K... So.. Ok. Stills are not movies. Yes. And you can scrutinize a still image. Printed on large sheets much more easily than the latest hollywood blockbuster. And having a screen close up can warrant retina level details. But... still... If it looks good enough... It probably is. We judge images on its full composition after the intended crop. Not tiny fractions of detail. Ultrahigh resolving power is basically the photo version of audiophiles. At a certain point, it's just placebo.
One of my favorite lenses, the Sony-Zeiss 24-70 F4 has very mixed reviews. I think there was a lot of sample variation when the lens first came out. Recent reviews have been more positive, but either way it works for me and is perfect for what I want and do. I have quite a few great shots from it and that's the proof I need that it's a winner. People these days are obsessed with sharpness. However it's only 1 of the 3 criteria for lens quality. Contrast and color saturation (affects B&W rendering as well) are the other two. And lens designers have to balance the three attributes. Back in the day, German lenses tended to favor contrast over resolution as an example. Todays modern lenses with computer aided designs and better manufacturing techniques make it easier to attain all three qualities with less compromise, but there are still trade offs that the designers have to make.
The Tamron 28-200 is my favorite lens too. I don't have a GM lens, but I do have a G lens and several primes, but the 28-200 is my most used lens. It does everything, even some wildlife.
Sharpness is not the most important thing in photography. Moment, Composition and Story matter much more - especially these days - as most photos are viewed on mobile devices. In fact a great test to see if you have a good photo is to squint at an image and see if you can still identify what it is about. I would rather get a great moment and shot with my superzoom while on vacation than miss all the shots because I am changing lenses, or just so tired from carrying around all those lenses. Sure - I have better lenses if I know roughly what focal lengths I am going to be at, or I know that I am going to be shooting in low light, or whatever... but if I can print a photo that was taken at 240mm from the Sony 24-240mm (it's worst focal length for sharpness), and have it printed on my wall at 20x30", and be getting compliments from anyone that visits... I can be confident that it will be good enough in most situations.
Absolutely. I like using primes every once in a while because they force me to see in a very specific way, limiting what I can do. Constraints can be very healthy for creativity. But there's no single photo in my library which I thought "this one could be a bit sharper" (sure, some are blurry, but that's a completely different issue).
I have this exact same lens and love it. It has been so good that I sold my very expensive 35mm (I hate that focal length, never used it) along with a rarely used 85mm, and nifty 50 to go with a kit of just this lens and the older Sony Zeiss 50mm which is very good.
I purposefully use old lenses, wide open, with various filters on top, through an almost as ancient camera, with a handful of pixels, with all kinds of "flaws" in the image by the end. and I love them. Never going to get rid of them. Never going to replace them with "good" gear. I've found a look, or a few looks, I enjoy playing with. and intensely sharp details are not part of my desires. I find that when I do see people use the same gear I do, and they find it lacking, it's just because they are looking for something entirely different in their images. Even when using the same type of gear, like your Tiffen diffusion. I considered a Glimmer Glass myself. But ultimately, the Black Pro Mist felt more suited to the look I was searching for. I even considered a K&F, like you have on the other cam, but it again didn't quite have that character I wanted. Where you found two different diffusions, for different jobs, on different cameras and lenses to me. To end up with images that are quite different from the images I get. It's all about goals, and figuring out what it is you actually need to reach those goals. Not just listening to some nobody on the internet say "this one is good, this one is bad". Is it good for the goal you have? Is it bad for the goal you have? Most importantly, why? If you can put into words what it is that works or doesn't work for your goals, you can easier find the pieces of the puzzle that -will- help you reach them. and sometimes, that might be a lens that is soft, a filter even softer, and a camera with a handful of pixels.
I like my large aperture lenses because they are soft and detailed in the same time, if it make sense, comparing to a phone that is aggressively sharpened for example. Sometimes i still bring the clarity down in LR. What you get with that lens is lack of detail, cheap lenses have a cheap look
The way you edit your photos, which I think gives them a soft look also along with the fog, slow shutter on water and added grain, I doubt a sharper lens would do them justice and might even look too clinical. There are far too many clinical photographs being made as it is.
Mads Peter Iversen uses this Tamron lens a lot and rates it highly as an all in one and uses it on the same Sony A7RIV. His only real complaint is at 28mm. I don't think I'd hesitate to use one.
¡Próspero año nuevo! I'm surprised that you would place much importance on things like sharpness or high resolution, as you seem to go for soft focus and add considerable grain, and since you convert to B&W, CA should be of minimal concern. You could probably get by with a Holga (hey, it works for Michael Kenna--HA!--I wrote that before seeing those books!)... The largest format I currently shoot is MFT and my Lumix G9M2's 25MP is way more than necessary to produce large prints (I've yet to use its 100MP mode). I also have many very sharp lenses (mostly Leica), but I don't always want all of that sharpness. Re flexibility, the main reason I shoot MFT is that I can carry 12-800mm EFL in a small, light pack I can take just about anywhere (and very rarely use a tripod). You should test-drive an MFT system if you really want to travel light. I'm confident you'll be very impressed with the results.
A camera's telephoto lens is a like painter's paintbrush, which is used to describe our sensantion, people can say whatever they want. The important thing is that it's okay with us!!
I have the same lens. It's fantastic and a great value. I often take it out when I just want to carry one lens. I think people in general put to much emphasis on corner use cases. I had a tampon 28-75 and took some of my favorite photos with it on a family vacation. But I got caught up with having the best so I got the 24-70 gmII. I wish I had saved my money! But my 35 gm prime is one of my favorite lenses. I love how creamy the fall off between in focus and focus,
Once you own acquire something, and you use it, and you like it, the worst thing you can is read/watch a review of that thing. I own a number of cameras and lenses that I know have not always been the darlings of reviewers, but I knew it when I bought them.
Spot on. Sharpness in photography is SO overrated. Thats why most videos on RUclips are about gear and lenses. Not about ideas and vision. Keep up the good work with your videos.
Problem on youtube, you will see one video saying this lens is bad, another one this lens is stellar ... I have it, and wow it is very good ! I made sharpness test against my 35-150, and sharpness is the same on tripod
2:08 People of often say a given lens will not "resolve" a high-res sensor, but this is incorrect. Lenses do not "resolve" sensors and sensors do not "resolve" lenses. Your entire imaging system, which includes air quality, in-camera RAW processing (yes all RAWs are cooked to some extent) and lens corrections, technique, optimal focusing and post-processing determines the system's overall resolving capability. Oversampling by a massive sensor like the A7RIV will still yield more resolution than a sensor half its size even if the lens is not an ideal optic (e.g., corner sharpness). Still, if you don't know what you're missing (e.g., medium format), just enjoy making great photos with what you got. A great photo has more than one parameter of quality.
I found out that all my favorite lenses are unliked because of focus shift (Zeiss zm 50mm 1.5 / 35mm summilux asph v1 / 28mm summicron v1). So, I guess I like soft images. And that’s fine with me.
I used to read a lot of music magazines when I was a kid, especially the music reviews section. Back then they weren't afraid to totally trash certain releases and I would for some reason unbeknown to me not even listen to them and completely bypass them.. Years later I discovered my mistake often finding those "bad" albums I actually liked lol Same thing with gear to be fair I would say, depending on what it is there is of course a level of scientific testing you can do but with something like photography where it's more art based who cares. It's all about the look the user is trying to achieve not some sharpness curves
The internet is full of images that are amazing from a technical point of view but have no artistic merit. Also I have and have had, friends that can take better pictures with their phones than most people can take with gear costing tens of thousands. As you say, photography is all about finding what works for you in order to enable your creative vision; if you don't have the latter, so amount of sharpness is going to ultimately help you. Great video.
Beautiful images with that "crap" lens. I am old enough to have bought a Leica M3 new for $280, A couple of years ago I pulled out some of my slides and was shocked at how soft they were compared to my digital images. Although they were not infused with the greatness of H. Cartier-Bresson, I enjoyed them anyway. Loved the humor the dramatization.
I have 48 lens Sony, Nikon, Canon, Leica, Hasselblad and Olympus going back to the early seventies to today I was never a fan of zoom lens but I bought a Zeiss 16-35mm for my Sony A7R3 and was pleased with it
I 100% agree ! I have been a professional photographer for over 20 years and have, for the past two years been using that exact same lens on my Sony A7RIV ! I have sharper lenses (if you look at 200 or 400 % as you have said) but for overall versatility and just GETTING THE PICTURE I have found nothing better.. Cheers !
I got a lens based on the HYPE for my APSC camera, and after a year, I found out it was total garbage. Tamron 17-70. It just falls on its face at F2.8 60-70MM with really bad contrast and CA and found myself constantly stopping down to F5.6 to get rid of it. I got the Tamron 28-75 G2 since I always found myself at the long end of the range and not the wide. Its such a better lens at the same weight and size. The G2 is also the same weight and size as the 28-200!
I would add that, if you check 10 different examples af the same lens, you will hardly find 2 that have the exact same performance. This is specially true for zoom lenses.
I know this lens very well. It was my first lens on full frame. I have tested the 35 GM, too, and for sure it is a lens that is optically better than the Tamron, but the Tamron is just a lens you can do everything with. Its IQ is very good, it is brighter than usual zooms of such range and even brighter for most of the range compared to Sony's overrated 24-105 G. I would nobody let say a single negative word about this lens. If the images are not good, it's the photographer's fault, not the lens. You can get exceptional results out of it as you have shown. Have fun shooting with it no matter what test charts say :D There are people on these review sites that will "sell" you a G or GM lens as waaaaay better and tell crap about Tamron "they are only plastic fantastic". I shoot Tamron too and yeah their lenses might not be as sexy as the GMs with their aperture ring and texture, but they offer good IQ and the most trustworthy weather sealing I know for Sony E! I have had this 28-200 against the 24-105 because I wanted a good quality lens with OSS but the CAs on the highly-praised G lens were so terribly visible, I had images where there would be large corner areas only bursting of purple fringing without even zooming in. But main thing these people tell you "Sony G is better than Tamron". That's all a lie. Most modern lenses can be used without any problem if you know what you do.
Nice video. For Nikon, the discussion about Nikon Z 24-200 f/3.5-6.3 is the same. And that is way better than your Tamron. It is just so, that at 24mm and above 100mm it is surpassed by other lenses in terms of sharpness. You can, nevertheless, make great images. But I see many who just want sharpness, neglecting things like CA and most of all Bokeh quality. And they forget that sharpness can even spoil images. By the way, I now gave up on the 24-200 too, and use a Tamron 70-180 instead for the longer range. The more modern Tamron lenses (besides the super-zooms) are on a very high standard.
Yeah so I have to disagree with this. My lens has terrible CA which if not corrected manifests in black and white as a nasty looking halo along all edges. If I remove the CA it removes the halo
@chrisnielsen9885 you are certainly right that CAs are not negligible in B/W photographs. But, they are imo significantly more distracting in color images. One of my favorite lenses has pretty bad CAs, and I never noticed them after covering to b/w. Thanks anyway for the rectification.
First of all - comparing the top fix lens with a super zoom and hoping that they will be equal - is fantastic wish. Fix lens always wins - regardless of the brand. But as many people in their comments pointed that the photography is not about sharpness - it is about the emotion that photographer shall convey in the images he/she produces. Also - recent trend to showcase the polished images that looks very plasticky - I hate that. For the same reason I left 500px but remain on Flickr. Your work is outstanding not because of how sharp the image are - you produce images with the mood that very much loved by people (who do not like the plastic look of mass produced images).
Keep in mind also that a lot of these review channels are trying to get you to purchase the gear they are reviewing because they get a kickback from the company that makes that gear. Not alway, but more often than not. Bottom line if you are satisfied with the results you’re getting, then that’s all that matters. I have always said if the picture was good in the past it is still a good picture now.
My favorite lens is very soft, and I love it. Do you use a piece of equipment that has gotten less than stellar reviews?
My Fuji x-t30II always gets bashed because of....autofocus? Bruh I just want to take my f/5 pictures, leave me alone
The sony apsc 16-55 kit lens. It's seen as rubbish lens but I used it exclusevely when I started and printed images and I can't see any flaw
I do own some prime lenses for my Fujifilm cameras. The one lens though, I mostly use, is the XC 16-50 OIS II f3.5-5.6 (plastic zoom). This is not the much adored kit lens 18-55 f2.8-4; but I made comparison shots at f5.6 and: my plastic lens is sharper. It is also ultra lightweight, so I carry it in my rucksack on a daily basis.
I use panasonic lenses in L mount ( and i mean the basic line, not the Leica certified ones) so I guess that the answer is yes 😁.
Yes, Tamron 35mm f/2.8 1:2 Macro for Sony E. Same story .. everybody talks about the not so great AF (noisy, not sticky in video). That it's a lens for less than 200€ with exceptional IQ, is mostly let aside .. I tested it against the G-Master and you had to zoom in 5-8x to see the difference. But who does this? Nevertheless, I liked the G-Master because of the fast aperture and the haptics. That just doesn't mean that the images were dramatically better.
This video is absolutely excellent. Well done on giving a different perspective.
Thanks, Mark!
In my opinion, a sharper photo ≠ a better photo.
Photography is not about grabbing every detail, but every emotion.
exactly
And action and history / memories. Having a few unsharp pics of relatives or friends that passed away is better than having no pics at all !
Whoa, those photos are phenomenal. They have a particular atmosphere of conveying otherworldliness.
Sharpness I highly overrated. And you images is awesome. No matter lens specs.
Honestly, true.
I think if a lens can resolve 4k (so 8 MP) that's good enough for me. But I am a video person so photography detail never mattered much anyways.
However, I FIND that lenses that are sharp sharp, OFTEN (not always!) tend to have less of the REALLY annoying stuff. Things like purple fringing and bad contrast are less likely to appear on lenses that are properly sharp (because it's probably a premium lens that was well built, not just for sharpness).
When I got my LUMIX S5II, I was disappointed in the lack of superzoom options. I loved having it with my Canon R10. So, I went to Sammy’s camera in Los Angeles looking for a Canon EF to L-mount adapter, so I could put a very old Tamron 28-300 on it. The employee told me I was stupid for trying to do it.
Having an old superzoom, even with its softness and lack of wide aperture, is the best thing for my photography.
I was called “stupid”… but it was the smartest thing I’ve done. Loved the video.
Some people really ruin photography for everyone.
M43 user here. Recently bought my first weather sealed lens - 14-140 Panasonic. Nothing fancy (3.5 - 5.6) but I just love the flexibility (28-240 FF equivalent) and small size. Has given me a lot of impetus - now taking photos again after a fairly stagnant time
I own this lens too and i can agree: It is an inspiring and great tool. Very versatile.
Performance in the field trumps technical reviews. Really liked how you approached this video!
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept" - Henri Cartier Bresson. This quotation is very apt for your style of photography. I love the rather old fashioned 'slightly sooty' look to your images. I have recently bought a set of used lenses for my Sony A7R2. Even though used, they were quite expensive. But I bought them more for their reputation for ruggedness, their portability, their lightness and their range of focal lengths than for their ultimate optical performance. I researched their physical attributes as I will be using them on long treks.
Another aspect of performance that is also usually overlooked by reviewers is that many lens 'flaws' are very ably corrected in processing by automatic profiles. I recently looked at a dark edge against the sky on one of my images and was amazed at the reduction in chromatic aberration simply by turning on the 'lens correction' module.
Thank you for another great video my friend.
Henri Cartier Bresson WAS the bourgeoisie lmao. He was quite literally born into the leisure class too he didn't make it there himself.
@@TCMx3 So that makes his comment invalid?
@@bernym4047 any comment is likely valid in some context but breathlessly repeating his quote without understanding who Bresson was betrays a real lack of thought.
You nailed! Great video! Every photographer should watch this. Thank you!
I have the Nikon 24-200, it's plenty sharp especially when stopped down and the CA can be easily corrected. Getting the image and having an enjoyable experience is way more important than sharpness in the corners that nobody will ever notice.
Reviews suck. You’re the artist. That’s what matters
Reviews have their place, some people just take the wrong things away from them.
You've made absolutely gorgeous images with that lens and you know it ! Have you ever thought that maybe, just maybe they had a flawed copy and never tried another ? If your happy with it, be happy with it !
Perhaps! It's not the only review talking about some of those flaws, though. It's clearly far from a perfect lens.
20 year old Nikon D40 user here... 2 lenses: 18-55 & 55-200. I hafta keep it really simple. I'm too bad a photographer to go with high dollar gear. Note: I also shoot jpeg, and don't use Lightroom or Photoshop; just whatever that program is in Windows 10, if I edit at all. However, I also shoot film, and process and print my photos. And I shoot mostly on a Kodak Cresta 120 format camera. Like I said: keepin' it simple. In the words of one of my favorite photographers, Henry Wessel; ''I don't go out to take pictures... I take pictures. If I see something that interests me, I take a picture of it.'' Enjoy your channel, and love your passion for photography. Love your pictures!
What matters is that you love the process! Thanks!
Comparison is the thief of joy. Shoot with what you like. The end.
Oh so true
Sometimes (just sometimes) you compare what you own and end up thinking _"ooh yeah, totally love my [insert gear here] compared to this one I pass up/don't have, made the perfect choice with that one and I should pat my past self in the back"_ and that could be quite fun.
Perhaps we have come to a tipping point where "focussing at the iris" and get the best bokeh and background separation is no longer enough? A good example is the 8K 40'' tv screen on which we see every skin pore and every individual hair. Given that our minds read detail as proximity, that amount of detail can feel intrusive. Perhaps we have to start judging how much detail a motive needs. Like the golden means, it is no longer a "constant".
If you look at vintage photography, when lens technology wasn't where it is today, many photographers didn't worry about tack sharpness. More importance was given to the subject, composition, storytelling, and overall mood. I suspect too many people have the false belief that expensive tools will make them better photographers, artists, writers, musicians, etc. Yes, good tool can sometimes help, but skill and creativity matter much more.
Absolutely!
Thanks!
Thank you so much! I really appreciate it 🙏
Hillarious. That broken lens I bought again and commented a few days ago also is a "bad kit superzoom". Come to figure many of my favorite pictures are made with this lens in great conditions 🤣
I have an old manual lens that is not very sharp, but it renders colors beautifully - much better than my new sharp lenses, which tend to be clinical.
And besides - it's not about the violin you're playing - it's about the music. Great video.
Good enough or more than good enough is becoming the alternative nowadays. That’s fine, and even great for those who have extra needs alongside sharpness. Cost weight size weather sealing consistency in shape and design... We can prioritize other things and still get a good enough image quality. Even with zooms.
That is a brilliant post you did and so right. sharpness can be too much on lens too and a more organic look is lovely. It is interesting that reviewers of the same lens often vary and they even do test charts etc and some praise the lens and others say it’s average etc.
Same thing with cameras. Some of my most satisfying work has been with low megapixel cameras whereas high mp ones create a large set of issues that don’t result in better photos. Yet a lot of cameras have been sold- including to me- based on this. And the biggest mistake is to look at reviews on the equipment that you are using and happy with.
Your work is the best defense of your lens choice. Superb use of an optic. 👍🌟🌟🌟🌟📷
Your test shots of books made me think it might be fun to have you suggest/review a few or several books.
I've been having a lot of fun getting books from the library, I should talk about some of them, for sure.
What a great video. So many of us, myself included, torture ourselves like this. We like something, even love it, then we go out to seek reassuring info and instantly doubt what we love. Also, you have taken many amazing shots with that lens
The life of the photographer is a life of permanent self-doubt about your work. That's what pushes you to get better, though.
If you're going to compare chromatic aberration between lenses, you have to make sure they're both stopped down to the same aperture. aberration becomes more difficult to control the wider the aperture. so stop down that 35mm to f/2.8, and see how it performs vs the 28-200mm.
Yup! It's not very clear in the video (that was not the point), but the final "comparison" was between the two lenses both at f/5.6. There was a difference but much less so than when wide open.
Brilliant,, I've been over-thinking some gear choices lately and this is perfect timing to help me make the decision my feelings were telling me over the logic of other choices.
Keep using what you love. I recently switched from Fuji to Olympus. I shoot bnw, and the mono2 jpgs coming out of Olympus cameras are amazing. Despite all the hate I'm sticking with what I love
The 28-200 was my first FF lens. I eventually moved on to the 35-150 as my main lens. Sometimes I regret it because the 28-200 was so small and light.
That lens looks amazing, the fast aperture offers more creative choices and it's definitely better in low light (I'm not a big fan of digital noise). But it is big and heavy indeed!
Great viideo. Had this feeling myself many years ago with my canon 100-400 zoom. Now that one suffered from some serious quality control issues so there was a huge amount of variability in terms of sharpness between copies. I loved the lens, and got some great shots with it, but seeing those other people returning their copies always had me doubting my own copy too. A frustrating feeling. I eventually ended up trading my 100-400 lens in for the 70-200 f2.8 when I started shooting more video, and you could immediately see a huge difference in sharpness. But ive never replaced that old 100-400 in terms of versatility AND ergonomics as the push pull zoom was amazing for birds in flight.
Absolutely, that 100-400 will get you shots the other lenses can't, and that's what matters.
Your best images would not have been as magical if they were bleeding sharp. That feeling and connection you have with your favourite lens is something that many can only wish for. I think you need to make a lens appreciation video to really drive the point home...maybe as an apology to your lens? 😅
Great video, thanks for sharing this. I can totally relate.
Haha, I totally need to apologize to this lens for the many times I've doubted it. It's very easy to fall to the temptation of the newest and latest.
@@aows ignorance is bliss as they say, and your photos made by the lens were certainly blissful ❤️
This is the only important photo gear review video on all of RUclips.
Well, commercial photography is the culprit for always high end lenses. However, I own few vintage lens and I am very happy with it!
There's a time and a place for sharp lenses, for sure.
Very helpful perspective! Remember the trade offs of every decision and use that to understand your goal….wonderful insight. Thank you.
Very true, there's always a trade off. Thanks!
Love the images you showed at the start
Thanks!
I think the pictorialist period is my favourite era of photography. The photographs of photographers like Misonne and Emerson for example and other photographers of the "Linked Ring". It's true though that the beautiful softness of these photographs is not just from the camera but from the printing processes used. In fact I'd say some of your photographs remind me of this era of photography.
I totally agree on the printing! My hope is to one day have a darkroom, not to shoot & develop film but to print my digital images using digital negatives. There's so much room for creativity there.
I've used that lens since I moved to Sony about 5 years ago and love it, its far from perfect but the range, size and weight of it along with its cost make its flaws more than acceptable. I've added the Tamron 17-50 f4 which is on my camera by default these days, so the 28-200 could maybe get replaced by the 50-400 at some point for the extra range since I'me usually hiking, carrying camping gear, and now make videos so that's a second video set up as well. No way I was more or alternative bigger heavier Sony lenses for that little bit of extra performance that pixel peeping might show. Always enjoy your videos and find they bring me back to reality of photography. You don't just push gear and exaggerate about how incredible a scene is. sometimes it's just ok and that's fine. Keep up the great work.
That makes total lens, 28mm is definitely not wide enough for many situations. I get away with it because I usually have my video camera with the 17-28mm on it, mainly to film myself for these videos, but I'll definitely use it whenever I need that wider angle!
One of my favorite photographs was taken by a lens some have called obsolete and short of minimum contemporary standards. The image ran as a two page spread in one of my books and it is exquisite. Always trust your own intuition. Enjoy your Tamron, it's served your vision faithfully. By the way, your film about the Winter Camino is perhaps my favorite travel film. Just doing the Camino during that time of year was gutsy, but filming it as you went must have been brutal. Bravo 👎🌟🌟🌟🌟🏆
Thank you! Glad you liked the video, it was definitely an adventure.
I love this lens with my Sony. Also
I've watched many reviews from
Mads Peter Iversen who almost uses this lens. Yes it's not the perfect lens but what…And finally I love your work with this lens! Happy New Year!!🎉🎉
I'm waiting for the day we talk about your filters! Would love a long vid about more exotic filter types.
I use ND, polarizer, and sometimes some red filters... but I'm not familiar with diffusion filters or how they change the look of light.
RUclips became a battlefield of camparison. Good photographic results are few. Also with super sharp lenses or high high ended cameras. That popular street photograph theme doesn't touch me at all. Looking at the backside of a couple while shopping. Who needs it. But in the end it also a form of art. A lightpainting that matters...
As a videographer, I've come to really hate overly sharp perfect lenses. I'm much happier with the image I get out of vintage glass like the Helios 44-2 or Canon FD line, anamorphics, or some low budget cine lenses because a little less sharpness is much more flattering. And pretty much all lenses can resolve a 4K image with plenty of detail, even with softer or less perfect edge to edge sharpness.
Sure... the XF18-55 is one I use all the time. Plus, I love to shoot with old lenses adapted to my X-T3. One of my favorites is the Canon FD28mm f2.8. Loved your dramatization though!
My favorite lens in my Nifty Fifty. It's been beaten around a bit, used on full frame and APS-C sensors, and used in less than ideal situations. I love it so much I bought two of the older versions. In fact for my professional work, a 50mm lens will be my next big lens purchase.
Well said, Adrian.
Many reviews suck and have little to do with real photography. I’m not at all worried that a travelzoom lens at 1 to 2m away from a bookshelf, is less sharp than a high-end prime lens. Performance can be dramatically different at infinity. Pixel-peeping and photography are two different hobbies.
For my professional work as fashion/beauty photographer, I use Hasselblad and Leica. One of the steps in post is to ‘soften’ the image a bit, to give it a more pleasing look. Last Nov we did a lookbook for a renowed fashion brand and the client specifically asked me to use my ‘vintage’ lenses on the M11. The 35mm steel rim and the 90mm elmarit are designed in resp. the 60s and the 80s. To modern standards these lenses are ‘flawed’ to put it mildly. Nevertheless, the real-life images are gorgeous and exactly what they were looking for.
For my personal work, long hikes outdoor, I’ve switched to an OM-1 and some Zuiko zoom lenses. I was fed up with carrying large, heavy full-frame cameras and lenses. As it turns out, 20MP M4/3 images are more than enough for the purpose and still very well suited to publish in books and magazines. Once printed, nobody zooms to 300%…
They truly are two different things, photography and pixel peeping.
There are people producing art, and others counting pixels.
Beautiful photos,everything is personal view points, I like those photos.
I’ve had the same problem. Even though it’s probably not the sharpest, I keep coming back to my Olympus 12-100 lens. It’s good enough and the convenience is important to me.
I have a lot of time for the sigma 35mm 1.4 dg hsm art and the canon rf 14-35. I’ve seen both get middling reviews but to me they’re great value for money.
"...the point here is that a technically better lens doesn't necessarily mean or make better images, sometimes it can be the opposite" well said. IMHO, it's the photographer who makes images. The technical prowess of today's camera equipment just makes it easier.
To quote the late David Thorpe, if you are worrying about the minor details of image quality, "it's a bad picture." You can be very proud of the pictures you shared.
People who hate on this lens have never tried it. Bought this as my main walk around lens and I haven't looked back.
Hi Adrian, everyone looks at Sharpness from a lens a different way than another photographer. I have taken some great photos with my Kit lens, and my Sharpest lens sometimes didn't take good photos. Thanks Adrian this was a good subject. 😊
Thanks for your wise video. The Tamron 28-200mm is a good example for a lens that ist "good enough" for many purposes. It's not as perfect as many other modern lenses, but so versatile. And it's small enough to take ist out. It makes images possible, that one couldn't have made with other (more perfect) lenses at that moment. Because they were to big/heavy and stayed in the shelf.
And I think for your b/w-photography the color-fringing-issues of the tamron don't matter and if it's sharp enough for your prints, everything is fine. I made a lot of images that I really like with adapted vintage lenses with a lot of optical flaws, but who cares if they are good enough for that type of images I used them for.
Yes, not having to worry as much about color fringing is definitely a perk of shooting monochrome!
Don’t be too concerned AOWS! If your chosen lens is ‘soft’ put it down to your photography style!
Indeed, too many photographers pay too much emphasis on ‘wall to wall’ sharpness - not on achieving photography style!
You sir …. have lots of STYLE!
Your photography is excellent, including your RUclips videos!
Thank you!
Very well said and so true. I’ve always shied away from very sharp lenses and prefer lenses that provide a more realistic or artistic look. Thank you for all your great videos.
I advice, if you still have an extended 5 year warranty on this lens, go get it checked for allingment, it should not be so soft, I know because I own it and it's much sharper than you showed in the examples, it's not normal. It's also my only zoom for my A7iii and it's unbelievable, crazy good and versatile lens! Good luck and keep up the great work, subscribed! ❤
One thing I use as a reality check is that a Cinema screen is gigantic. And can make sharp enough images at...
2K.
At maximum DCI 2K resolution. That noone really uses. That's 2048x1080.
That's... Roughly 2 Megapixels...
2....
Megapixels.
Most cinemas don't top that.
Even at cinemas at full 4K, no crop, is 4096x2160. That's... Roughly 8 MP.
And you need basically an IMAX screen size to not have more pixels per photosite in a perfect 20/20 human eye at 4K...
So..
Ok. Stills are not movies. Yes. And you can scrutinize a still image. Printed on large sheets much more easily than the latest hollywood blockbuster. And having a screen close up can warrant retina level details.
But... still... If it looks good enough... It probably is. We judge images on its full composition after the intended crop. Not tiny fractions of detail.
Ultrahigh resolving power is basically the photo version of audiophiles. At a certain point, it's just placebo.
One of my favorite lenses, the Sony-Zeiss 24-70 F4 has very mixed reviews. I think there was a lot of sample variation when the lens first came out. Recent reviews have been more positive, but either way it works for me and is perfect for what I want and do. I have quite a few great shots from it and that's the proof I need that it's a winner. People these days are obsessed with sharpness. However it's only 1 of the 3 criteria for lens quality. Contrast and color saturation (affects B&W rendering as well) are the other two. And lens designers have to balance the three attributes. Back in the day, German lenses tended to favor contrast over resolution as an example. Todays modern lenses with computer aided designs and better manufacturing techniques make it easier to attain all three qualities with less compromise, but there are still trade offs that the designers have to make.
The Tamron 28-200 is my favorite lens too. I don't have a GM lens, but I do have a G lens and several primes, but the 28-200 is my most used lens. It does everything, even some wildlife.
Sharpness is not the most important thing in photography. Moment, Composition and Story matter much more - especially these days - as most photos are viewed on mobile devices. In fact a great test to see if you have a good photo is to squint at an image and see if you can still identify what it is about. I would rather get a great moment and shot with my superzoom while on vacation than miss all the shots because I am changing lenses, or just so tired from carrying around all those lenses. Sure - I have better lenses if I know roughly what focal lengths I am going to be at, or I know that I am going to be shooting in low light, or whatever... but if I can print a photo that was taken at 240mm from the Sony 24-240mm (it's worst focal length for sharpness), and have it printed on my wall at 20x30", and be getting compliments from anyone that visits... I can be confident that it will be good enough in most situations.
Absolutely. I like using primes every once in a while because they force me to see in a very specific way, limiting what I can do. Constraints can be very healthy for creativity. But there's no single photo in my library which I thought "this one could be a bit sharper" (sure, some are blurry, but that's a completely different issue).
Such a valuable video!
All those"youtube photografers" aka indoors pixel peepers are plague, and they do not help anyone. Great photos, short and good video.
I have this exact same lens and love it. It has been so good that I sold my very expensive 35mm (I hate that focal length, never used it) along with a rarely used 85mm, and nifty 50 to go with a kit of just this lens and the older Sony Zeiss 50mm which is very good.
I purposefully use old lenses, wide open, with various filters on top, through an almost as ancient camera, with a handful of pixels, with all kinds of "flaws" in the image by the end. and I love them. Never going to get rid of them. Never going to replace them with "good" gear. I've found a look, or a few looks, I enjoy playing with. and intensely sharp details are not part of my desires.
I find that when I do see people use the same gear I do, and they find it lacking, it's just because they are looking for something entirely different in their images.
Even when using the same type of gear, like your Tiffen diffusion. I considered a Glimmer Glass myself. But ultimately, the Black Pro Mist felt more suited to the look I was searching for. I even considered a K&F, like you have on the other cam, but it again didn't quite have that character I wanted. Where you found two different diffusions, for different jobs, on different cameras and lenses to me. To end up with images that are quite different from the images I get.
It's all about goals, and figuring out what it is you actually need to reach those goals. Not just listening to some nobody on the internet say "this one is good, this one is bad". Is it good for the goal you have? Is it bad for the goal you have? Most importantly, why? If you can put into words what it is that works or doesn't work for your goals, you can easier find the pieces of the puzzle that -will- help you reach them. and sometimes, that might be a lens that is soft, a filter even softer, and a camera with a handful of pixels.
I like my large aperture lenses because they are soft and detailed in the same time, if it make sense, comparing to a phone that is aggressively sharpened for example. Sometimes i still bring the clarity down in LR. What you get with that lens is lack of detail, cheap lenses have a cheap look
Which lens did u have in this video? Tamron?
Just wanted to say that you took some very nice photos with that lens.
The way you edit your photos, which I think gives them a soft look also along with the fog, slow shutter on water and added grain, I doubt a sharper lens would do them justice and might even look too clinical. There are far too many clinical photographs being made as it is.
Mads Peter Iversen uses this Tamron lens a lot and rates it highly as an all in one and uses it on the same Sony A7RIV. His only real complaint is at 28mm. I don't think I'd hesitate to use one.
Not too surprising really. A good quality prime lens will kick the azz of a zoom lens almost all the time regarding sharpness.
Excellent vid!
¡Próspero año nuevo! I'm surprised that you would place much importance on things like sharpness or high resolution, as you seem to go for soft focus and add considerable grain, and since you convert to B&W, CA should be of minimal concern. You could probably get by with a Holga (hey, it works for Michael Kenna--HA!--I wrote that before seeing those books!)... The largest format I currently shoot is MFT and my Lumix G9M2's 25MP is way more than necessary to produce large prints (I've yet to use its 100MP mode). I also have many very sharp lenses (mostly Leica), but I don't always want all of that sharpness. Re flexibility, the main reason I shoot MFT is that I can carry 12-800mm EFL in a small, light pack I can take just about anywhere (and very rarely use a tripod). You should test-drive an MFT system if you really want to travel light. I'm confident you'll be very impressed with the results.
I made my favorite photobook about Bolivia with this lens. Love this lens.
Usability is way more important than sharpness…good image is a good image regardless of how sharp it really is. 28-200 is simply amazing lens!
A camera's telephoto lens is a like painter's paintbrush, which is used to describe our sensantion, people can say whatever they want. The important thing is that it's okay with us!!
I have the same lens. It's fantastic and a great value. I often take it out when I just want to carry one lens. I think people in general put to much emphasis on corner use cases. I had a tampon 28-75 and took some of my favorite photos with it on a family vacation. But I got caught up with having the best so I got the 24-70 gmII. I wish I had saved my money! But my 35 gm prime is one of my favorite lenses. I love how creamy the fall off between in focus and focus,
Once you own acquire something, and you use it, and you like it, the worst thing you can is read/watch a review of that thing. I own a number of cameras and lenses that I know have not always been the darlings of reviewers, but I knew it when I bought them.
Spot on. Sharpness in photography is SO overrated. Thats why most videos on RUclips are about gear and lenses. Not about ideas and vision.
Keep up the good work with your videos.
Problem on youtube, you will see one video saying this lens is bad, another one this lens is stellar ...
I have it, and wow it is very good ! I made sharpness test against my 35-150, and sharpness is the same on tripod
2:08 People of often say a given lens will not "resolve" a high-res sensor, but this is incorrect. Lenses do not "resolve" sensors and sensors do not "resolve" lenses. Your entire imaging system, which includes air quality, in-camera RAW processing (yes all RAWs are cooked to some extent) and lens corrections, technique, optimal focusing and post-processing determines the system's overall resolving capability. Oversampling by a massive sensor like the A7RIV will still yield more resolution than a sensor half its size even if the lens is not an ideal optic (e.g., corner sharpness).
Still, if you don't know what you're missing (e.g., medium format), just enjoy making great photos with what you got. A great photo has more than one parameter of quality.
I found out that all my favorite lenses are unliked because of focus shift (Zeiss zm 50mm 1.5 / 35mm summilux asph v1 / 28mm summicron v1). So, I guess I like soft images. And that’s fine with me.
I used to read a lot of music magazines when I was a kid, especially the music reviews section. Back then they weren't afraid to totally trash certain releases and I would for some reason unbeknown to me not even listen to them and completely bypass them.. Years later I discovered my mistake often finding those "bad" albums I actually liked lol Same thing with gear to be fair I would say, depending on what it is there is of course a level of scientific testing you can do but with something like photography where it's more art based who cares. It's all about the look the user is trying to achieve not some sharpness curves
The internet is full of images that are amazing from a technical point of view but have no artistic merit. Also I have and have had, friends that can take better pictures with their phones than most people can take with gear costing tens of thousands. As you say, photography is all about finding what works for you in order to enable your creative vision; if you don't have the latter, so amount of sharpness is going to ultimately help you. Great video.
Great speech.❤
Beautiful images with that "crap" lens. I am old enough to have bought a Leica M3 new for $280, A couple of years ago I pulled out some of my slides and was shocked at how soft they were compared to my digital images. Although they were not infused with the greatness of H. Cartier-Bresson, I enjoyed them anyway. Loved the humor the dramatization.
I have 48 lens Sony, Nikon, Canon, Leica, Hasselblad and Olympus going back to the early seventies to today I was never a fan of zoom lens but I bought a Zeiss 16-35mm for my Sony A7R3 and was pleased with it
I 100% agree ! I have been a professional photographer for over 20 years and have,
for the past two years been using that exact same lens on my Sony A7RIV ! I have sharper lenses
(if you look at 200 or 400 % as you have said) but for overall versatility and just GETTING THE PICTURE
I have found nothing better.. Cheers !
flaws = unique photographs. I love an old petzval lens and also an Holga 120 lens.
I got a lens based on the HYPE for my APSC camera, and after a year, I found out it was total garbage. Tamron 17-70. It just falls on its face at F2.8 60-70MM with really bad contrast and CA and found myself constantly stopping down to F5.6 to get rid of it. I got the Tamron 28-75 G2 since I always found myself at the long end of the range and not the wide. Its such a better lens at the same weight and size. The G2 is also the same weight and size as the 28-200!
"Art is in the Edges and technology continues to polish the Edges away."
Great video, Thanks so much
I would add that, if you check 10 different examples af the same lens, you will hardly find 2 that have the exact same performance. This is specially true for zoom lenses.
I know this lens very well. It was my first lens on full frame. I have tested the 35 GM, too, and for sure it is a lens that is optically better than the Tamron, but the Tamron is just a lens you can do everything with. Its IQ is very good, it is brighter than usual zooms of such range and even brighter for most of the range compared to Sony's overrated 24-105 G. I would nobody let say a single negative word about this lens. If the images are not good, it's the photographer's fault, not the lens. You can get exceptional results out of it as you have shown. Have fun shooting with it no matter what test charts say :D
There are people on these review sites that will "sell" you a G or GM lens as waaaaay better and tell crap about Tamron "they are only plastic fantastic". I shoot Tamron too and yeah their lenses might not be as sexy as the GMs with their aperture ring and texture, but they offer good IQ and the most trustworthy weather sealing I know for Sony E! I have had this 28-200 against the 24-105 because I wanted a good quality lens with OSS but the CAs on the highly-praised G lens were so terribly visible, I had images where there would be large corner areas only bursting of purple fringing without even zooming in. But main thing these people tell you "Sony G is better than Tamron". That's all a lie. Most modern lenses can be used without any problem if you know what you do.
Nice video.
For Nikon, the discussion about Nikon Z 24-200 f/3.5-6.3 is the same. And that is way better than your Tamron. It is just so, that at 24mm and above 100mm it is surpassed by other lenses in terms of sharpness. You can, nevertheless, make great images. But I see many who just want sharpness, neglecting things like CA and most of all Bokeh quality. And they forget that sharpness can even spoil images.
By the way, I now gave up on the 24-200 too, and use a Tamron 70-180 instead for the longer range. The more modern Tamron lenses (besides the super-zooms) are on a very high standard.
this review could make you feel better: Tamron 28-200mm f/2.8-5.6 Di III RXD lens review with samples
B&W Photographer- "This lens has terrible chromatic aberration." :-)
My thought as well 😂
Yeah so I have to disagree with this. My lens has terrible CA which if not corrected manifests in black and white as a nasty looking halo along all edges. If I remove the CA it removes the halo
@chrisnielsen9885 you are certainly right that CAs are not negligible in B/W photographs. But, they are imo significantly more distracting in color images. One of my favorite lenses has pretty bad CAs, and I never noticed them after covering to b/w. Thanks anyway for the rectification.
First of all - comparing the top fix lens with a super zoom and hoping that they will be equal - is fantastic wish. Fix lens always wins - regardless of the brand. But as many people in their comments pointed that the photography is not about sharpness - it is about the emotion that photographer shall convey in the images he/she produces. Also - recent trend to showcase the polished images that looks very plasticky - I hate that. For the same reason I left 500px but remain on Flickr. Your work is outstanding not because of how sharp the image are - you produce images with the mood that very much loved by people (who do not like the plastic look of mass produced images).
Keep in mind also that a lot of these review channels are trying to get you to purchase the gear they are reviewing because they get a kickback from the company that makes that gear. Not alway, but more often than not. Bottom line if you are satisfied with the results you’re getting, then that’s all that matters. I have always said if the picture was good in the past it is still a good picture now.