06-22-2010, 12:09 AM
[quote name='SimonC' date='21 June 2010 - 11:31 PM' timestamp='1277159486' post='644']
If you read his review of the 24G, he devotes a significant pages towards documenting the AF problems the lens has - so much so you'd question why he'd even continue shooting with the lens after. So, he's hardly biased towards Nikon. If anything, he seems to prefer his Zeiss lenses over Nikon or Canon. Viewers can draw their own conclusions looking at the crops.
Simon
[/quote]
I find Lloyd Chambers reviews to be sort of odd. There is information in there, but you have to read very carefully because of what does seem like a strange set of biases. He certainly likes Zeiss lenses, so much you would think he was their agency. Even the 25 2.8 is a lens he raves about. Now, he doesn't as far as I know tell us anything untrue -- he mentions the curvature of field issue in his reviews -- but somehow when a Zeiss lens has curvature of field it's a feature which has creative potential which can make the photographer slip up if they don't take careful note, but when a canon lens has curvature of field it's shocking.
After Zeiss, there is a pretty clear emotional preference for Nikon over Canon. When a Canon lens does well, he can almost sound annoyed. (actually given that he uses mainly Nikon bodies, but shoots Canon when he thinks the lens is better, he's right to be privately annoyed - it means he will be switching bodies!). And he searches for faults. In his review of the 24 i.4LII for example, he goes on about the 'bizzare' donut effect in which there are concentric rings of unsharpness. Now he's not wrong about this. One of the effects some modern correction techniques is that rather than being sharpest centrally, and then trailing off the edge of the image circle, there is a ring effect. But it's not as though there is a ring of unsharpness; just a different pattern of variable sharpness than on traditional designs (and this phenomenon is increasingly common on modern fast lenses, and results in all areas being sharper than on older designs). Again, this is described as a bizzarre outrage. Similarly his review of the latest canon 70-200IS which described the fact that the lens is diffraction limited from f8 as being a *bad* thing.
In contrast is the review of the (excellent) Nikon 24mm 1.4. He indeed found the autofocus to be almost useless - there appears to be a problem here I'm sure Nikon will fix. But here his tone is remarkably forgiving. Now maybe that's fair enough. Presumably Nikon will fix it and you could get your lens looked at, and it seems to be a very good lens otherwise at least in the same league as the Canon. But I just know how he could have treated a Canon lens that behaved that way! - Much more harshly.
So there is information to be had, just so long as we remember that Zeiss >> Nikon >> Canon in the Chambers hierarchy, and ignore the non-factual content of the reviews (which does rather undermine the point of experiential reiviews)
If you read his review of the 24G, he devotes a significant pages towards documenting the AF problems the lens has - so much so you'd question why he'd even continue shooting with the lens after. So, he's hardly biased towards Nikon. If anything, he seems to prefer his Zeiss lenses over Nikon or Canon. Viewers can draw their own conclusions looking at the crops.
Simon
[/quote]
I find Lloyd Chambers reviews to be sort of odd. There is information in there, but you have to read very carefully because of what does seem like a strange set of biases. He certainly likes Zeiss lenses, so much you would think he was their agency. Even the 25 2.8 is a lens he raves about. Now, he doesn't as far as I know tell us anything untrue -- he mentions the curvature of field issue in his reviews -- but somehow when a Zeiss lens has curvature of field it's a feature which has creative potential which can make the photographer slip up if they don't take careful note, but when a canon lens has curvature of field it's shocking.
After Zeiss, there is a pretty clear emotional preference for Nikon over Canon. When a Canon lens does well, he can almost sound annoyed. (actually given that he uses mainly Nikon bodies, but shoots Canon when he thinks the lens is better, he's right to be privately annoyed - it means he will be switching bodies!). And he searches for faults. In his review of the 24 i.4LII for example, he goes on about the 'bizzare' donut effect in which there are concentric rings of unsharpness. Now he's not wrong about this. One of the effects some modern correction techniques is that rather than being sharpest centrally, and then trailing off the edge of the image circle, there is a ring effect. But it's not as though there is a ring of unsharpness; just a different pattern of variable sharpness than on traditional designs (and this phenomenon is increasingly common on modern fast lenses, and results in all areas being sharper than on older designs). Again, this is described as a bizzarre outrage. Similarly his review of the latest canon 70-200IS which described the fact that the lens is diffraction limited from f8 as being a *bad* thing.
In contrast is the review of the (excellent) Nikon 24mm 1.4. He indeed found the autofocus to be almost useless - there appears to be a problem here I'm sure Nikon will fix. But here his tone is remarkably forgiving. Now maybe that's fair enough. Presumably Nikon will fix it and you could get your lens looked at, and it seems to be a very good lens otherwise at least in the same league as the Canon. But I just know how he could have treated a Canon lens that behaved that way! - Much more harshly.
So there is information to be had, just so long as we remember that Zeiss >> Nikon >> Canon in the Chambers hierarchy, and ignore the non-factual content of the reviews (which does rather undermine the point of experiential reiviews)