david_r._edan

Wow... That's a bummer but thanks, man. I'm wondering if the Z6 / Z7 behaves the same way when the electronic shutter is employed.

"Silent live view photography" (SL1), doesn't seem to be affected by the value in "Max. continuous release". In CH and CL modes the camera just keeps on shooting as long as I'm holding down the release. If I set "Silent live view photography" to "off" then the camera does stop taking pictures after capturing the number of them specified in "Max. continuous release" *The same is true for SL2. Also, when Exposure Bracketing is engaged the camera stops taking pictures after completing the sequence (in CH or CL), regardless of what's specified in the "Max continuous release". For example: "Max. continuous release": 3 frames "Exposure bracketing": 5 frames Camera stops taking pictures after capturing 5 frames (in CH or CL). I know that this is NOT the way it's supposed to be. *In every "non-silent" mode everything works like it should and the "Max. continuous release" is the ultimate limiter. Like, what's going on here? Did I do something stupid or is this a bug? I wonder what other "surprises" await as I keep exploring my new camera.

My 2 cents: How about a monopod instead of a tripod for keeping the bulk in check? I can recommend an excellent carbon fiber monopod for under $50. *A monopod + a VR lens is a lethal combination and is just what your subject matter calls for. Also consider hauling a foldable stool. Mine weighs around 600 grams and since I got it, it has literally transformed my photography. For you, sitting down and having a heavy lens resting on a monopod is guaranteed to get you better pictures and a much more pleasant experience.

A fast XQD card will definitely be my go-to in this camera but it'll have to come later. The thing is that I will need a good SD card anyway, so, I figured I'd start with something that I'm familiar with and something that I already have a very good reader for. Seeing how no one here is voicing any disdain for the Sony G SD card, I am going to pull the trigger on it. Oh, and to me, no flash on the D850 is actually a blessing. Thank you all.

So, it looks like I'm getting me a D850 after all. According to this guy's findings right here: Best Memory Cards For The Nikon D850 - Alik Griffin The Sony G is the fastest performer. And just so we're all on the same page, here it is: Sony64GB SF-G Series UHS-II SDXC Memory Card What's your experience? Anything better out there in terms of in-camera write speeds? It can be a little more expensive, though I am currently interested strictly in a 64GB SD card.

Is anyone hearing anything about a 3-rd party working on a replacement/alternative mount adapter? I would definitely go for an adapter that did not have all those motors but instead featured drop-in filters (like they did it with the new Canon). I am completely phasing out all my non-AF-S, mechanical aperture glass, so, I would rather not even have all those motors in the adapter, that come with their inherent complexity, added weight, bulk and a steep price tag. I would imagine that given the "lighter" specs, making an adapter that was flush with the body is doable. We're basically talking about a high-quality, all-metal, macro extension tube, with a bit of electronics (if any). Even with the thing for the drop-in filters, an adapter like that shouldn't be too expensive. I'd drop like 100-150 bucks in a heartbeat on those specs. And whatever happened to the vertical grip for this thing? Is it even in the works?

I have the D800 myself and to me those corners at 24/2.8 look atrocious, maybe even more so than that icky sample from a Canon, possibly because I get to see that sh*t in 36MP, full-res. I wish they would come up with a "microlens" that just made it GO AWAY. (translation: It is what it is, dude...)

You're welcome. There's nothing on your 35-70 though. I was kinda wondering about it myself but it's just way too old.

Dude, you're talking to a guy who captures custom flat-fields for stitching his panoramas. Vignetting is, like, my no. 1 enemy in the entire process. But I guess, that it's like I said before, some people like the vignetting. Others can simply add as much of it as they want in post, IF they want it. And seriously, "Canon"? Like that sample would show +/- 0 stops across the entire frame if it was a Nikon, which has its sensor made by elves out of pixie dust. "I think some people are up themselves..." some fella once said... To each is own, I said.

As long as I'm at it, here's the vignetting for the 24-70 G2 Tamron at 24mm and f/2.8 compared to self at 24mm and f/8 Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD G2 Lens Vignetting You know the drill by now, just hover the mouse over the picture but before you do look at those corners and numbers. Yep, that's over 3 stops of light loss there. And here's what you get when you throw on a UV filter: Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD G2 Lens Vignetting I love Bryan.

Here's your 50/1.4D Nikkor @ f/5.6: Nikon 50mm f/1.4D AF Nikkor Lens Image Quality Hover your mouse over the picture to see the Tamron at the same setting. *The overlaid sample was captured with a Canon body but it should give you a good idea of what to expect in terms of resolving power. You can compare the Tamron to your other lenses this way, at all the different settings.

I do not "hate" the lens, though I do wish there was something better. I would like the 24-70 much more if it provided more coverage, with everything else remaining the same. I said that the VR was "OK", which by no means is "worthless". In my particular case, the D800's shutter packs a wallop, which is a contributing factor that I never really considered and something that should have been obvious to me. You are very likely to be satisfied with what the VR on this lens does for you, if you don't expect any 'miracles' from it, that is. If I felt an urge to upgrade in this particular time frame, given everything, I would probably pull the trigger on that 24-70 G2 plus the console deal. However, if I felt that I could wait, I would see where the Z line was heading first (new Z-mount lenses from 3rd parties, actual data on image quality, stuff like that). I don't buy my lenses very often and when I do, they have to last me many, many years. The whole industry is in a weird spot right now and the future is kinda fuzzy, so I ain't buying diddly until it starts to make sense. I purchased my 24-70 almost a year ago, still thinking that I'd be using it on a D850, well, that ain't happening. If I knew then what I know about the Z7 now, I doubt I'd be in this discussion. Anyway, to me it doesn't look like that's your story, so by all means - go for it. Tamron have pushed out a whole bunch of decent and interesting lenses in the past few years and they keep rolling 'em out. That console may be of use to you beyond the 24-70 G2, so getting one is a no-brainer. You are very likely to need it for the 24-70, if you care about your focus. It will also let you choose what the VR actually does. *Keep in mind that the 24-70 G2 won't really work on your F100.

What are the odds?.... Look at the date. *The 70-200's problem has also been solved, apparently. I did not know that but good for Tamron and good for me.

Joe: It appears that with the G1, Tamron weren't trying very hard, they were just setting the first benchmark. With the G2, they had to produce a lens which was significantly better than its predecessor while also being a seemly competitor to similar lenses from Sigma and Nikon. So, they cut every corner and tried very hard but they overdid it and, consequently, there's a price to pay. Just one example: the lens cap literally comes within microns of the front element, that's how close they were cutting it with the filter thread. Tamron really did (overdid) everything they could to lower the dimensions and weight of the G2. From my quote it should be clear that I was expressing my personal preference/opinion. Again, I, personally, do not want to put myself in a position where I have to deal with that kind of vignetting by cropping out the dark corners or by any other means. Therefore, I choose to avoid those wide apertures altogether, also because of the somewhat subpar overall image quality. My G2 is not a lemon and the VC does work and is useful to me at times. However, I found the results produced to be rather inconsistent, which was a very bad thing for my type of shooting techniques (I don't just snap away, you know). With this lens you CAN get pin-sharp pictures at ridiculous shutter speeds with the VR on but it's a crapshoot, which is not what I need. I did run the G2 through rigorous tests, including the VR and I have the actual numbers. Those obviously are very subjective but may be of some use to someone or even you, Joe. I remember posting the data in one of the threads in this very forum awhile back. Anyone who cares enough about the subject should be able to find it.

OP: You do what you think is right for you, of course, I personally would not go for a D Lens at this point in time. It's all AF-S and E-aperture for me from here on out. Screwdriver focus has always been less consistent than internal motor, even in the pre-digital age. And in any future purchases E-aperture will always be a must for me because of the (theoretical) cross-platform compatibility. I guess, I'm planning ahead because I don't want to have to buy all new glass, should I decide to jump ship and switch over to a Sony body or something else. There's a bunch of adapters and, at least in theory, any AF-S, E lens should work with a proper adapter on any mirror-less body, be it Canon, Sony, etc... Ironically, the OEM FTZ refuses to cooperate with my Tamron 24-70 G2 as well as the 70-200... Don't know where you personally stand with regards to DSLRs and Nikon in general but I felt that this was important enough that it had to be said. So, basically, I'm just waiting for a 3rd party to come up with a proper Z-mount adapter, one that works with the two of my Tamron lenses. In the meantime, Nikon should be hard at work trying to fix that banding issue in the Z series. I am not shelling out $3K+ on a faulty camera. While waiting for their mirror-less to come out I was on the fence about the D850. Now, that Z7 is a no-go, buying a new D850 still feels like a stupid idea, especially given that I don't shoot sports or any fast action in the rain/mud/snow... Pretty pissed off at Nikon right now. One last thing. 24-70 is not a great range. It is actually quite limiting, especially if that lens is all that you have with you. And with a 35-70 it's almost like being stuck with a bad prime. Not sure what you're looking for but maybe consider something with a wider focal length range. With a D750 body, lens sharpness is less of an issue than let's say with a 40MP+ sensor.

I erred, the zoom ring is the one that should have been made thinner, or basically anything else that would provide for a decent grip on the lens WITHOUT touching the focus ring. Good thing I'm like 99% on a tripod with this lens, using AF in the Live View. "not nearly as awful as some" - Well put. Couldn't have phrased it better myself. If you also own the 70-200 G2 I would recommend you get the Tap-in console, it's pretty neat. "Proper" focus calibration aside, there are "goodies" you do not get access to without it. Also, with the new X1.4 TC (which I own) you get a separate set of focus calibration settings, which was reason enough for my shelling out the extra dough.

Andrew: I completely agree, a thinner focus ring would have been much better. And when I said that I considered the lens unusable at wide-open, I was talking about the awful vignetting in the corners, not image sharpness, which is fairly decent, compared to other zooms. At the optimal apertures the sharpness with this lens is almost prime-like, except at the far end of the zoom range. *Since I never capture my photos at wide-open anyway, the horrible vignetting is actually not much of an issue for me. Plus, I guess, one could correct for it in post but at some lens settings, it would be pushing it. Not expecting too much and then being pleasantly surprised? That is actually what happened to me with this very lens in regards to image sharpness, at the wide apertures. I was expecting some dull, blurry, CA-ridden pictures, but when I looked at the first test-shots I went: Huh.., what do you know... And then I noticed the black corners...

Kinda late to the party but I figured I'd say a few words since I happen to own the actual lens (and a D800) Image sharpness: nothing spectacular, though decent, even by today's standards (at the right apertures that is). Prepare to invest some money in the tap-in console and lotsa time in calibrating the focus (not that much time, actually, if you know what you're doing). Anyway, my copy was all over the place but I was able to tame the focus, eventually. I mostly focus via Live View, BTW but I still wanted the focus to be at least in the ball park when I'm not in LV. *At 70mm the images are "almost soft" with my D800 but you should be pretty happy with what you get out of your D750. Focus acquisition: on the slow side. VR: Just "OK" but better than "no VR", I guess. (some minor customization via the console) Ergonomics: Meh.. This is a heavy and bulky beast which I do not enjoy carrying around. Also, the focus ring is kind of a disaster. You're guaranteed to override (and throw off) your automatically acquired, perfect focus in lots of photos. At least everything rotates in the right direction (unlike with some lenses...) The lens cap: It almost touches the front element. Every time I have to put mine back on the lens I get annoyed because of how carefully that has to be done in order not to touch/scratch the front element. You'd think that a clear filter would relieve some of that tension, well, not so fast, which brings us to the next point. Vignetting and filters: No filter: 24mm -> "acceptable" vignetting when stopped down to f-5, anything wider is just "bad" 35mm -> same thing: from f-4 50mm -> ditto 70mm -> only from f-5.6 It is actually that bad. I personally consider this lens to be "unusable" at wide-open. BTW, the actual "vignette" is not some darkening of the corners due to the light fall-off but rather something distinctly physical obscuring the corners of the image. That is just bad design. Some people don't mind it, I do. WITH an 82mm filter you're looking at similar results, except at the 24mm setting. Widest "usable" aperture becomes f-6.3, with no "apparent" vignetting at f-11 If you do decide to throw on a permanent filter on this lens - say goodbye to corner sharpness, which isn't all that great to begin with. With wide lenses like that, there's just nothing you can do about it. Physics don't care if you pay $300 for your 82mm filter, corner sharpness IS OUT, baby. Given everything AND the price, I... really don't know, man... I mean, what else is there? The Sigma?.. It is what it is, I guess. Just don't expect too much of this lens, it is not that good. PS: Just a heads-up: Reportedly, the 24-70 is incompatible with the new Nikon mirror-less line.

A couple of years back I used degreaser on my old D70s. Obviously use gloves, apply gently and wipe it off after a minute or so with a damp microfiber cloth or anything else that won't "disintegrate". You may try Q-tips for the hard to reach places, I think I had to use a toothpick and pieces of a paper towel at one point, don't remember all that well how it went down. You'll probably have to repeat the process if the condition is really bad. My D70s was disgustingly sticky. It took me about an hour to reach a point where it was completely clean and almost like new. Be sure to remove any traces of the chemical once you're satisfied with the "cleanliness". Just keep wiping it off with the cleaning cloth which you keep rinsing. I must say that I went for the degreaser approach only because I didn't care for that camera body all that much. Since the cleaning I've used it on many occasions with no problems whatsoever. In fact, the last time I took pictures with it was about 2 weeks ago. I haven't cleaned the camera since the "degreasing", which was done in 2015 and it feels very clean and not sticky to this day. *I also tried the same technique on a couple of old and sticky Sigma lenses. The degreaser cleaned them very well but it also removed some of the markings. The distance scale on one, and I'm not sure about the other. So there...

None of those will "fit like a glove" if that's what you mean by "compatible" but otherwise all of them should be OK. The ones from Acratech and Kirk would be the preferable choice because they feature the standardized Arca clamp, which means that they can accept a custom RSS, Arca plate for your camera. I have a couple of F5's laying around myself. Haven't used them in years but I did buy me one custom plate from RSS way the hell back. Once you screw it on - it is on there, it will not rotate. Naturally I would recommend something like that because you could mount or do away with the L-plate in 2-3 seconds. And when you do remove it, there's always a way (RSS plate) to immediately mount the camera on the tripod for horizontals. I, myself have opted out of having a "permanent" L-plate on my gripped Nikon D800. It was just going to be too much bulk. So, I came up with a somewhat less (or more?) elegant solution. As I was shopping for an L-plate for my aforementioned Nikon D800, I realized that I did not need one at all. You see, an L-plate can be rigged up from: 1 Nodal rail 1 Vertical rail 1 Double-sided clamp 1 Arca-compatible plate (preferably a custom one from RSS) It's that simple. The downside is that, overall, those 4 components weigh more than just a normal L-plate. On the upside, they have a less awkward form factor when broken down and some or all of them can serve additional roles. Total setup from 'camera with no L-plate' to 'camera with an L-plate' is less than 10 seconds. And you can just leave it on, if it fits in your bag like that. In my case (a panorama shooter), I already had 4 (all) of the components, so it was a no-brainer. I just ordered me an extra-short nodal rail from ebay (for convenience) and was all set. The "L-plate" that I got is incredibly strong. In my panorama setup, I can use it to mount my gripped D800 + Tamron 24-70/2.8 in the horizontal orientation (yes, clamped to the rig from the side!) and it will not budge. To me that part was important and it was a major reason why I didn't buy just an "L-plate". I realize that your photography is very different (I don't think that you're much of a panorama shooter with that F5), so obviously, your priorities are very different. Just a quick question. You can tilt that tripod head to the side for verticals, why would you need an L-plate? You obviously lose some stability that way but not a whole lot, really. Or is it the height issue? With an L-plate you don't need to readjust the center column when switching between horizontals and verticals, more of a problem when there is no center column to speak of. Still, out in the field, not shooting panoramas, I would do everything NOT to carry an L-plate with me. In the studio I almost always have my "L-plate" on, even when shooting horizontals, because if I suddenly do need to get a vertical, switching is super-easy.

I wouldn't even factor in the cost of a tripod. If you're not in a habit of abusing your equipment, a good tripod will serve you 20+ years, at least. It will outlast any camera and lens that you're currently using and how much did those cost? It used to be possible to get any replacement part for any given Gitzo tripod. A pretty expensive ordeal but it's certainly much better than getting a whole new carbon fiber tripod. Not sure what's the deal with that these days but maybe someone can provide valuable input. Anyway, it was a major factor when I was shopping for a new tripod about 7 years ago. I went for the series 2 Gitzo, the GT2541, to be precise, a model they don't make anymore. I also wanted the option of upgrading the center column to a longer one, which, as it turned out, was not needed. You should look at the legs and the tripod head separately because the head can always be replaced. You can even switch between those, depending on the task at hand. I myself used to do that for a while. As per the maximum length: I'm 5'11" and the GT2541 is just the right height for me for doing verticals on even ground. Yeah, if you don't use an L-Bracket, the level of your camera's eyepiece will drop drastically as soon as you tilt it 90 degrees. And in any type of "wilderness" scenario you will lose 5 to 7 inches of maximum height (on average) to uneven terrain, and a lot more if you're shooting on a mountain slope. So, either, get a tripod that will give you that height or start working on your knee muscles. Personally, out in the field, I always carry with me a foldable stool and use it whenever I can. It weighs only 600 grams and makes my life just so much easier. So far, I've been able to "sit down" for the shoot in about 90% of the time I needed to use the tripod. Getting a small, foldable stool is something that you may consider. At any rate, if it's a "camping" kind of hike you should bring a stool or a chair with you anyway. Check out ebay. As per the head, I would strongly recommend going for something that's Arca compatible because those clamps are so much more versatile than Manfrotto's system. With an Arca clamp your setup is ready to accept all sorts of L-Brackets, panorama rigs, focusing rails and much more.... Tamron, for example, have started making all their tripod collars Arca-Swiss compatible and they're awesome! You can even get a custom-tailored Arca plate for your Nikon D800 from RRStuff. I have one (for the grip) and it fits it like a glove, plus, it's comfortable enough in the palm of my hand that I don't ever have to remove it when shooting verticals handheld. In my "outdoor shooting" / hiking setup I've got the Arca-Swiss p0 ballhead plus a cheap (but awesome) Mengs clamp. (*Arca-Swiss OEM clamps suck, BTW, and I've replaced it on my p0). I went for this particular head because of the versatility, degree of control and durability (the "inverted" design keeps most of the sand out). In the studio I use their D4, geared model but if I was allowed to have only one tripod head, the Arca-Swiss p0 would be it. I use it a lot with my gripped D800 and a Tamron 70-200/F2.8 + X1.4 TC combo, with no problems whatsoever. It's fairly easy to control with a heavy load on top and once tightened, there's no creep to speak of. It will handle a 4X5 and pretty much anything you can throw at it. So, as I've already said, you should treat the legs and the head as two different things because they're both interchangeable. You may even end up with a head that you absolutely love but legs that are giving you some kind of trouble, which you'll be able to replace. Do your research, keep in mind that Ara-compatible heads will almost always let you change the clamp (and there's a multitude of those to choose from). Whatever you do, don't skimp because even if you manage to "save" a couple hundred bucks by going for a lesser-quality product, what's $200-$300 over 20 years? That said, there's lots of good-quality carbon fiber stuff coming out of China these days and not just tripod legs. I myself am set in that department because I've already invested in an excellent product (Gitzo GT2541) but you should check brands like Benro, as they often provide more functionality and could potentially have excellent value. Just don't get that 5 or 6-section, ultra-compact crap, believe me, it's not for you (or me). Hope this helps.

I second that. I was really hoping they would upgrade that LCD to something that was historically correct to the 21 century. A dot matrix, user-customizable, OLED display would be a step in the right direction. I haven't bought the D850 yet. Waiting for the upcoming full-frame mirrorless, holding my fingers crossed. As per the buttons and the menus. At least Nikon have got that somewhat right. The ISO is so much more important than the frame counter with digital cameras and I love it that they moved the "mode" button to the other side because I NEVER use it, as I am ALWAYS on M. And with my D800 I have the "movie record" button as "ISO". I'm glad Nikon provided this option in the custom settings and they did it even better in the subsequent models. Overall, the menu layout isn't too bad. When pressed for time, some of the settings may be a little hard to get to and that is why they have the "My Menu". In there I have pretty much everything that I ever need to fumble with. You can "prioritize" the items and place them in the desired order. And they're not just "Menu Items" to go into. Many of them actually display the current settings right there in the menu. Things like: Storage folder, Exposure delay, Max. continuous release, EV steps, etc... I have about 20 items in that menu and I've organized them to be a sort of a checklist. Before each shoot I quickly go over the "My Menu" and immediately know whether I need to change anything. It eliminates a lot of mistakes and saves time. I've assigned the "AE-L/AF-L" button (on the D800) to go to the first item in "My Menu" which is "Storage folder" in my case. All the other important items are always just one more press of a button away ("left" on the multi-selector"). Personally, I would like to see a lot more customizability in the Nikon bodies but I'm fairly content with the way they've done it with the D800 and I don't think I would complain much about the D850, should I get one. Having said that, the ability to program and run scripts would be pretty sweet. I know I'd love it.

Yeah, so, stop making them in China while charging $$$$ over the competitor's, then we'll talk business. Personally, I don't believe that I will ever buy another Nikkor lens again, unless Nikon makes something that blows me away in regards to image sharpness while doing something unfathomable about the price tag.... So, nope... not holding my breath.

I totally agree on the multiple data point thing. Also, I wanted to but forgot to mention that I do realize that the field curvature is a factor in Bryan's tests because of the relatively short focusing distances. I have run into this issue in my own tests on multiple occasions. So, quite a few lenses will have more corner sharpness out in the field than what can be gathered from Bryan's test samples. Personally, I concentrate on the ~f/5.6 to f/16 range in my own lens tests but even there I've seen some weird stuff like: corners that are sharper at f/8 than f/5.6, while the center being slightly less sharp due to diffraction. Having that happen in only one half of the frame would easily explain it as the image plane not being parallel to the target but having it the same in all 4 corners? That's field curvature to ya. I still do not believe that the focus accuracy is an issue in any of the test samples on thedigitalpicture. One can focus with the LV very accurately, even if the mechanism itself is acting up. In my own tests I direct a bright beam from an LED flashlight that's mounted to a light stand onto where I'll be focusing. Then I zoom in to 100% in LV and engage the AF a few times to "get the feel" for the sharpest obtainable image. After I'm satisfied with the focus I then often fiddle with the focus ring to make sure that I didn't miss a point of an even more accurate focus. After that I may engage the AF again or simply return the focus manually to the "in focus" point, by visual inspection. I do that when I sense that there may be a problem with the consistency of the AF. I am sure that Bryan does his best to keep any focusing errors within a very small margin. * I use a flash to capture the test image itself, obviously and I like the fact that someone out there actually cares about the vibrations introduced by the shutter. There may be some benefit in popping the flash several seconds after the shutter has opened. I don't believe I used the technique in my own tests, however, I used it quite a lot when I was doing macro work in a studio. That was back in the day when I was shooting with my F5. Locking up the mirror was not very viable because it would, potentially, offset the composition and/or focus, so, I would turn off all the lights, open up the shutter in Bulb and manually set off a few bursts (the required amount), because the lens was often stopped down to f/16 or f/22. That would take care of any unwanted movement. Also, I would use my "flashlight" technique to determine the desired DOF and the optimal focus point. Live View is a godsend, I can tell you that much.

At first I didn't really understand what you meant but on a second, very long look and after squinting very hard I think that now I do. Because of the fairly significant vignetting, which you would normally get at this kind of setting, the parts of the frame that are further away from the center have registered less light and some of the blacks have dropped below the threshold. In the center, however, all of the blacks are above the zero. So, the mid-frame and corner samples display deeper blacks. What that causes is that the more gradual transition which occurs in reality, here, appears to be happening more abruptly, because the intermediate tonal values are clipped. The ever-so-slightly darker edges give the illusion of an increased sharpness and the slightly deeper blacks impart an overall feel of slightly more contrast. Also, the absence of the same fine lines in all the sample but the center one does not help the issue. The very fine lines in the center appear more blurry by comparison, than the thicker ones in the other samples. It is an illusion. I had no problem with these very samples before and I don't have one. And no, I did not get to run my tests on the new 70-200 FL Nikkor. Regardless, all the test samples from the familiar to me lenses have been in line with my own tests / experience so far. In regards to any lens's sharpness this has been my go-to site for a long time and I haven't been let down yet. However, I do realize that there are variations in the production as well as "lemons" and a number of below-spec copies of lenses, apparently, is featured at thedigitalpicture.com. So, the test samples that you see there should be taken with a grain of salt. And if there is a similar web site that lets you compare test shots in a comprehensive manner from a large selection of concurrent photographic lenses, please take me to it. My point being this is as good as it gets and we have to start somewhere, I know I do. You yourself implied that MTF graphs don't always do justice to a lens, so what is better for assessing any given lens's sharpness other than the actual photos, especially ones taken under test conditions? And, Andrew, just so you know, Bryan does sometimes repeat his tests if there's a reason to believe that there's a problem with the samples he already has on file. Samples from more than 1 copy of a lens are available on select lenses. It's usually 2 but I've seen even 3 variations on a couple of lenses and maybe even 4 on one. If there are samples from an additional copy, you will see a small drop-down menu right next to where you select the camera body. Here's a comparison between 2 different copies of the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD G2: Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD G2 Lens Image Quality