(03-20-2018, 07:36 AM)toni-a Wrote: FWIW photozone was well there in 2004, I am one of the oldest members here, the forum software was changed in 2010 and the valuable data was removed.
The earliest roots actually date back to 1995 - the "Lens Test Archive". Back in the days, at the uni, I started exploring the internet by creating my first website.
In that year or maybe in 1996 I also started the "Lens Performance This is most likely spam content" that I switched off a couple of years ago.
Photozone.de started probably sometime in the early 2000s. I don't know anymore when the first forum started - 2002 maybe. So Toni is right.
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com
Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
03-20-2018, 12:21 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-20-2018, 12:23 PM by Rover.)
Oh, oh, oh wait. I forgot about another really awful lens I used - and not for a few minutes like the Canon 75-300! Looks like the memory tries to erase the unpleasant experiences unless I purposely try to revive them.
So... the Sigma 28-300/3.5-6.3 in Nikon mount on a D70. Thankfully it wasn't mine - the newspaper I worked at had this thing in its possession until they ditched all this junk and outfitted their photogs with more modern gear (in the Canon flavour, anyway). It was paired with a Sigma 18-50/3.5-5.6 DC - another unremarkable unit, but this one was a lot better behaved. Almost half-decent I'd say. (Klaus even tested it once! http://opticallimits.com/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/316-sigma-af-18-50mm-f35-56-dc-nikon-mount-lab-test-report--review )
Now don't get me wrong, this lens and the others I listed above did net me a few decent pictures. But getting them involved quite some jumping through the hoops - not helped by the fact that I was in my "early" years of doing photography, to put it mildly. Frankly - my skills sucked donkey rhino back then. When coupled with the lousy gear I had to use... the end result is/was rather predictable. 
03-20-2018, 09:07 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-20-2018, 09:08 PM by JJ_SO.
Edit Reason: bloody auto-correction...
)
(03-20-2018, 10:51 AM)Klaus Wrote: (03-20-2018, 07:36 AM)toni-a Wrote: FWIW photozone was well there in 2004, I am one of the oldest members here, the forum software was changed in 2010 and the valuable data was removed.
The earliest roots actually date back to 1995 - the "Lens Test Archive". Back in the days, at the uni, I started exploring the internet by creating my first website.
In that year or maybe in 1996 I also started the "Lens Performance This is most likely spam content" that I switched off a couple of years ago.
Photozone.de started probably sometime in the early 2000s. I don't know anymore when the first forum started - 2002 maybe. So Toni is right.
Thanks for clarification. Lost forum data, wrong registration date (which is not toni-a's fault) and wrong history in a third party site, together with not much of dates in the articles can easily lead me to wrong assumptions. Sorry for that. I still don't get the point of this thread, but I don't have to.
03-20-2018, 09:20 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-20-2018, 09:21 PM by you2.)
I thought some of the data was sold (or maybe that was another mtf testing site). Hum. That must have been another site; wasn't the original data on this site users opinions ? I think I started visiting in 1999 or 2000.
(03-20-2018, 09:20 PM)you2 Wrote: I thought some of the data was sold (or maybe that was another mtf testing site). Hum. That must have been another site; wasn't the original data on this site users opinions ? I think I started visiting in 1999 or 2000.
I never sold any data.
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com
Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
Those user reviews although although lacking solid scientific workup like the site official reviews, were very interesting and informative, Before buying Tokina 24-200 the review I read was among user reviews on this site, my experience with this lens is 100% similar to what was written in that review.
Could we bring user reviews back ?
03-21-2018, 08:30 AM
(This post was last modified: 03-21-2018, 08:30 AM by Brightcolours.)
Tonia, depending on which post in whatever thread one reads about your opinion of the Tokina 24-200mm, it is a very nice lens or a so-so lens but better than an even worse lens. Depending on which post one reads Tokinas are very well built or your only Tokina broke without you abusing it.
That is precisely why user "reviews" on websites like this are very useless, highly unreliable and not a good information source, even way worse than the DXOmark "reviews".
03-21-2018, 09:19 AM
(This post was last modified: 03-21-2018, 09:30 AM by obican.)
User reviews on lenses are only slightly better than user reviews on tripods.
The problem with tripod reviews is that almost everyone had one of those 25$/€/£ silver plastic piece of junk and the moment they upgrade to a tripod with no rattle when shaken, it's OMG BEST TRIPOD EVER. Rock solid, absolutely steady etc. Average tripod sees even less use than a power drill and it's lighter too.
With user reviews on lenses, it's also a bit like that. Is it slightly sharper than the kit lens and has a wider aperture? OMG MY CANON 50/1.4 IS THE BEST LENS EVER. Or every lens with plastic exterior will be labeled as "solid construction but it's not metal therefore 7/10" even though the lens will be much better built than most all metal lenses.
Simple users can't really be trusted with these and yes, pretty much all of us are simple users. Most lens reviewers at least have access to an arsenal of gear and have mostly established views on different lenses so you can figure out what they mean by something when they say it. I trust Klaus and Markus with what they do since they probably have experience with more lenses than all the rest of us combined and they are pretty open about their methodology in their reviews. Some random guy who had 6 zoom lenses and two primes from the 90s and early 2000s? No.
Also my worst lenses... Can't really remember one being truly awful because I've mostly made good purchases. However, one sticks out for different reasons:
Canon FD 28-85/4
One of the best zoom lenses made in the 80s, according to some people. f/4 fixed aperture all the way through and very sharp too (compared to other zoom lenses from the era).
The problem was the weight and mediocrity of the focal range covered.
It was my first lens after my 50/1.4 and I had jumped on it when I saw it on a shop window. It is a pretty rare lens and had a very good price tag (much less than what it was available for on eBay) so I bought it on the spot. For a whole year, I used it almost exclusively. Sometime later though I realized that with the combined weight of the lens and my T90, I began to leave the camera at home more and more often. Everytime I had a photo opportunity, the camera was back at home.
They say the best gear is the one they have with you, in that case this was the worst gear since it was never with me.
Later I realized since a 28-85 focal length is neither here nor there, all I did was stand in a single spot and zoom in and out. The moment I put my 50/1.4 back on my camera, I remembered that I had feet too and started looking for better vantage points. All it did was making me lazy by giving me the zoom capability. Also 28mm isn't really wide and 85mm isn't really long.
Did I get good photos out of it? Yeah.
Will I ever long for another standard zoom? No.
The new forum combines consecutive posts into one? That's interesting.
I've just remembered the DA 50-200mm kit lens....which came "free" with the Samsung GX10 (Pentax K10).....my copy was the:
(I'm just clearing my throat here)
Schnolder Klodsnatch version or something.... 
it was soft everywhere across the range.......
maybe they new that.......
.........so they priced it accordingly! 
yesterday I bought a Zenit camera along with helios 44-M for a friend, the seller kindly offered me jupiter 135mmf4 for free, tried it with adapter it was so bad that even for free I don't want it
|
