I followed your advice by the so callled subjective lens tests you have done on both the 24-70 over the 28-70 2.8L and also on the 70-200 Is lens and find your results to be totally inacurate and feel that you may have mislead many people and wondered if there may be some form of legal process by where we can get you to withdraw your tests or ammend them , or offer compensation to those who feel mislead by yourself promoting newer lens which do not perform better as you have stated.

Anyone else with similar views contact me on my email
Phil Coleman. philcoleman2@ntlworld.com

HelloHello.
[COLOR=green]Is anybody home?

Philip,

Can you extract your head from your behind, or is it too firmly implanted to ever remove?

Hi Philip
I tend to find better and more accurate lens details given at photozone.com

Katie

Yes, Philip. Perhaps we should ask Michael to retract his reviews. The next step would be to ask the thousands of pro photographers who agree with his assessment on those two lenses to return them and retract their opinions as well.

Why are you trying to start trouble here?

[quote=philip cole,Mar 19 2006, 09:24 PM]
I followed your advice by the so callled subjective lens tests you have done on both the 24-70 over the 28-70 2.8L and also on the 70-200 Is lens and find your results to be totally inacurate and feel that you may have mislead many people and wondered if there may be some form of legal process by where we can get you to withdraw your tests or ammend them , or offer compensation to those who feel mislead by yourself promoting newer lens which do not perform better as you have stated.

Sometimes one has to walk before learning to run. Having good lenses in your hand isn't going to automatically give you good images in the same way as a Stradavarius violin isn't going to make you a good violinist.. Not sure where in the picture you are, but to get upset to the point where you are looking for compensation because your results don't measure up to your expectiations puts you strongly in the unconciously unskilled class of learner.

Philip,

Rather than come out with guns blazing, why don't you post a couple of images which you feel shows the deficiencies of the lenses? You don't say in what ways these two lenses are defective and posting images will allow us to see for ourselves.

Keep in mind, in addition to the lenses themselves, there are other factors to consider, including:

Accurate focusing
Appropriate shutter speed and aperture
Solid camera support/hand-holding technique
If shooting JPG, appropriate in-camera setting for sharpness
If shooting RAW, proper post-processing, including appropriate sharpening

The IS switch on the 70-200 can be easily moved inadvertantly to the "off" position, which will affect camera steadiness at low shutter speeds.

Additionally, it may be that your camera body's autofocusing mechanism is either front or rear focusing.

If the lenses are recently bought and you are within the time limit, you could return them to the merchant for exchange. If beyond the return limit, body and lenses can be repaired/calibrated by the manufacturer.

All that being said, I own both of these lenses and I am very pleased with the performance of both.

Paul

Priceless! I guess you figured if you bought some professional lenses you'd suddenly be taking great pictures eh?

You want to get advice here on starting legal proceedings against this site? For a misleading review which recommends the 24-70L and 70-200 IS L, commonly regarded as the two finest zoom lenses made by Canon?

Marvellous, haven't laughed so much for ages.

P.S. One presumes you don't have access to a dictionary.

sub·jec·tive
1.
1. Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.
2. Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.

So all you other photographers on here are in agreement with the fact stated that both of these lenses are world beaters, and far superior to thier predecesors. If you have also owned the early versions to both these lenses you will be aware that they are both sharper and the resolving power of the old 70-200 2.8L will leave the newer IS version miles behind, there is no comarison between the quality in these two, The non IS version is also quicker to focus and snaps in. The newer IS version tends to hunt more and also flares quite heavily as does the24-70 2.8L. I have also owned all the lenses stated and ok in low light image stabilisation can be handy but with the reduced noise in the later digital cameras it doesn't pose any noticle problem using higher ISO to compensate for the lower light situations.
As regards expecting quality photographs just as a result of using L series glass, as any we all know. its not the camera or the lens but the composition and reading the light present within that composition. I have also seen photographs taken from pin hole cameras and older cameras like the voigtlander with color scopar which i would be pround to have on my walls.
Investing thousands into the state of the art' ' Canon'' lenses does not automatically give one quality images but everyone should be aware of that and although i have 5 L series lenses i quite often have a preferance for using Nikon lenses like the 28mm Ais lens with adaptor ring on my canon cameras and also
believe in some areas, other lens manufactures have far more to offer.

So all you out there believe that each review on here is accurate and unbiased ?

So all you other photographers on here are in agreement with the fact stated that both of these lenses are world beaters, and far superior to thier predecesors. If you have also owned the early versions to both these lenses you will be aware that they are both sharper and the resolving power of the old 70-200 2.8L will leave the newer IS version miles behind, there is no comarison between the quality in these two, The non IS version is also quicker to focus and snaps in. The newer IS version tends to hunt more and also flares quite heavily as does the24-70 2.8L. I have also owned all the lenses stated and ok in low light image stabilisation can be handy but with the reduced noise in the later digital cameras it doesnt pose any noticle problem using higher ISO to compensate for the lower light situations.
As regards expecting quality photographs just as a result of using L series glass, as any we all know. its not the camera or the lens but the composition and reading the light present within that composition. I have also seen photographs taken from pin hole cameras and older cameras like the voigtlander with color scopar which i would be pround to have on my walls.
Investing thousands into the state of the art' ' Canon'' lenses does not automatically give one quality images but everyone should be aware of that and although i have 5 L series lenses i quite often have a preferance for using Nikon lenses like the 28mm Ais lens with adaptor ring on my canon cameras and also
believe in some other areas other lens manufactures have far more to offer.

So all you out there believe that each review on here is accurate and unbiased ?

They are subjective, which is to say - biased and having no particular claim to accuracy. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

They are one man's opinion. I have no doubt that they are Michael's honest opinion, and if you are insinuating that Canon is paying him to plug their new stuff then it is Michael who might have legal recourse.

If you don't like them take them back.

PARIPAPETIC STATES:-
They are subjective, which is to say -BIASED AND HAVE NO PARTICULAR CLAIM TO ACCURACY!,,

ALSO, THEY ARE ONE MANS OPINION. I have no doubt that they are Michael's honest opinion, and if you are insinuating that Canon is paying him to plug their new stuff then it is Michael who might have legal recourse.

I DIDNT SUGGEST THAT, BUT HES REVIEWS TEND TO FAVOUR THE NEWER LENSES WHICH IN MY OPINION ARE INFERIOR TO THE REPLACED VERSIONS! I AM SURE THERE ARE OTHER USERS ON HERE WHO CAN ALSO VOUCH FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF THE OLDER LENSES.

YOUR THE ONE THAT HAS MADE REFERANCE TO CANON PAYING HIM ,NOT ME
I ONLY STATED AS ABOVE.

ALSO IF YOU KNOW OF OTHER ''SUBJECTIVE'' LENS TESTS ON THE WEB THAT FAVOUR THE NAMED LENSES, LIST THEM AND I WILL BE ONLY TO PLEASED TO VIEW THEM AND STAND CORRECTED, IF THIS IS THE GENERAL CONSENSUS OF OPINION.

I presume you threaten legal action for every review of a film or play or music album you disagree with too and try to force a retraction, not to mention every other photographic magazine or website.

Unless of course they can point to some sort of consensus?

What on earth are you so worked up about?

Seriously dude, you need help.

Definitely time for a huggy-jacket.

Philip,

You have made a total fool of yourself here. Do youself a favor and delete this thread.

Phillip,
I suggest you take your own advice and do some quick checking on the Internet, I spent ~5min and found this on photo.net

http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/70-200

You'll find at the bottom an endorsment for the IS version for all around highest performance.

I have a hypothesis. Since Canon has not released any hot new 35mm format products for, oh several months now, some of the impatient, herd following brand zealots who spend most of their time giving other Canon users a bad name in places like DPReview are getting restless, and have temporarily turned to eating their young (attacking Canon products), and are wandering over here in search of a fight.

They usually lose interest after a while and return to the "Fight Forums".

Philip,

Have you at all considered the possibility that you might have gotten poor samples of these lenses?

Many have reported about the seemingly huge sample variation with the 16-35L lenses, it wouldn't be surprising to have enough gap between samples that Michael's 24-70 is better than his 28-70, while yours are the opposite.

Cheers,
Bernard

Bernard,

This is a very interesting comment. "L" is supposed to be Canon's finest. To me that means they should be manufactured to meet a virtually invariate standard set of (demanding) performance criteria. If they don't, why should anyone have confidence that "L" has a particular meaning?

Mark,

I agree with you of course.

L should mean both high average quality, together with little variation around this high level average, and it probably does mean that most of the time.

As you know, I don't have first hand experience with Canon glass, my comment was based on previous discussions here and elsewhere. Some people seem to see no difference between their 16-35 and Zeiss wides, while other see them as being in a completely different league...

Regards,
Bernard

Bernard,

My own experience with Canon lenses indicates that there can be more significant quality variance between different samples of the same lens than one would ideally like to see. I bought a copy of the original series of the 24~105L which was so tack sharp that I wrote an article about it, comparing it with the 28-135 non-L for all those who may have been thinking of an up-grade. Michael liked my work on that comparison and published it on the website. The L of course is generally better. But then Canon did a recall of the original series 24~105 (because they said it produced more flare than it should - something I never noticed, frankly) and I was less impressed with the sharpness of the replacement they gave me, so I dashed back to Canon's service centre and retrieved my so-called "defective" lens before it went to lens heaven somewhere back in Japan. This is what sensitized me to the issue of what a quality standard should mean. I'm still absolutely thrilled with the quality of detail my original 24~105 L is giving me.

Mark

Reichman's tests are a great source of humor, but certainly not legal action. When I read his declaration that the 16-35L is more prone to flare than the 17-40L, using the images of the sun behind the power lines as proof, I almost fell off my chair. He doesn't seem to understand that the earth is rotating on its axis, and that the sun is blocked in the 17-40L image, but not completely blocked in the 16-35L image, resulting in the flare we see. He even tries to deflect criticism by stating that he hasn't moved the camera!

Well, given the inexorable rotation of the earth, and the impossibility of instantaneous lens changes, he of course would have to move the camera in order to maintain the same orientation of camera, power line tower, and sun between the two images.

So, OK Michael, the 16-35L is more prone to flare than the 17-40L. Sure, I believe you. ;-)

Well, at least you aren't overtly insulting here, the way you were when you wrote exactly the same observations on another forum recently.

Here's something to consider, along with your observation about my disregard for the earth's rotation – a rather thin retort, if you ask me.

Maybe I based my overall judgement on more than a single observation, and that the examples used were simply ones available for convenience sake. Has this occured to you?

Seems like a shallow argument to hang your assertion on. Me thinks more rude jibe than substantiating evidence.

Let me ask you this. Have you compared these lenses yourself? Have you evidence one way or the other, or are you simply basing your comments on other people's observations? If so, what experimental data are those based on?

If you have done such tests yourself, why not share the results with us to back up your counterclaim, rather than running around the net being a boor.

Michael

Peter,
The sun moves at a rate of ~0.25 degrees/minute. I have a hard time believing that it takes Michael more than a minute to change lenses, but lets assume that it takes him 2, well then those shots are off by no more than 0.5 degrees, say 0.6 at the most. I have a hard time believing that this difference was that important given that both shots in question where shot more or less directly into the sun. More to the point the advantage could have gone either way. For the flare comparison later in the article.



If you think Michaels review are so funny why don't you read them all the way through. If you don't think they're informative then I can highly recommend Ken Rockwell's site

www.kenrockwell.com

Ken even occasionally uses the equipment he reviews.

J,

Ahh, you spoiled all the fun.

I was all ready with the math, and also reference to the EXIF data from the camera showing that the time between frames was less than 1 minute, and how with a lens that wide the apparent motion of the sun was so small as to totally negate his obnoxious comment.

My eclipse expedition to Romania in 1999 and to Death Valley in 2003 will show that I have just a slight familarity with the motion of the sun (and moon), and am well aware of the effect of this on photography.

Rats. I was really looking forward to having some fun.

Michael

What nonsense. The sun can be completely blocked one moment and then not be completely blocked an instant later. All it takes is one little bit (like those technical terms?) of the sun to no longer be blocked by the tower in order for there to be a dramatic increase in flare in the image. It makes absolutely no difference what the rate of rotation is; the change from completely blocked to partly blocked is virtually instantaneous. All you need to do to understand that is to look at a shadow as it moves. It moves steadily. Once the edge of a shadow crosses a certain point, you've got flare folks!

This is just one more case (I can't mention the other or Reichmann will banish me) of Reichmann making absurd claims and then using his "authority" to back up the claim. He says there are other reasons for caiming the 16-35L has more flare but then he doesn't produce them, we just need to take his word for it. He's the "authority", after all. And the photos he does produce to prove the claim do nothing of the sort.

And I love the challenge that I produce contrary test results, as though I need to prove that the 16-35L DOESN'T have more flare! That's not the point, as anyone with half a brain would realize. I'm not claiming that one lens is or is not better than the other. I'm simply questioning the proof which Reichmann offers to support HIS claim that the 16-35L has more flare than the 17-40L.

Now, lest I be banished, I won't waste any more of Reichmann's precious bandwidth on this subject. I wouldn't want to be the reason the site goes under. How could I live with the guilt? ;-)

Actually, if you read your previous message you were clearly implying that you had reason to believe the contrary. If it is something more than the rotation of the earth lets hear it.

As an aside I think I've determined that all lens reviews are bunk. Ignoring sample variations and different end uses of the image if the person doesn't use the lens the way you would you won't get their results.

Peter:

I think you would do better to present a well argued case, rather than post a few insults which sound like petulant whining.

As far as I can see MR reviews equipment that he uses, or borrows for a short time, and then publishes his thoughts and opinions. He has experience of a wide range of products and quite often he has had long term use of the items in question. Sure the reviews are subjective. All reviews are subjective. Even ostensibly objective tests with detailed measurements are subjective, since the tester must decide what to include and how to interpret it.

On that last point, many people accept as gospel truth tests that are crammed to the gills with measurements. And yet they are unaware that the tests simply do not give a fair and balanced assessment of the product: all too often what is not measured is of more significance. In practice a supposedly subjective review can be more accurate.

As for the reliability of reviews, well each product is subject to sample variation, especially lenses, and of course each person has their own natural biases. IMO only a fool buys something because it came top in a test, or Joe Bloggs the famous photographer uses it. That is because their reasons for liking an item may be orthogonal to your needs. In practice it makes more sense to find as many reviews as possible, and preferably from sources that are respected.

I happen to consider reviews on this site to be interesting and informative and well worth what I pay for them!

Curiously enough there has not been a stream of postings along the lines of "Blimey Michael, you ain't alf got that review wrong me old mucker, time to change careers, ever thought about road sweeping?". And that is despite numerous visitors to the forum who have clearly used some of the same equipment as MR. There has been some disagreement. That's to be expected.

Have a nice day y'all, as they on your side of the pond.

Leif

I think that this thread has now run its course.

If anyone would like to contribute reasoned evidence one way or the other in this subject, then please start a new topic. I think we've had enough "opinion" though for now. Let's move on.

Michael