New Tamron is (NOT)a dud

[Tannin]

I've always been a bit wary of the off-brand lenses. Well, of Sigma and Tamron mostly, Tokina has always been in a different class. You used to hear so many horror stories about faulty Tamrons and Sigmas.

But that was years ago. Everybody says both companies have improved their quality control and build standards enormously over the last few years.

Hmmm.....

Over the years I have bought about 20 Canon lenses. Failure rate out of 20? Zero.

Over the years I have bought 3 Tokina lenses. Failure rate out of 3? Zero.

I just bought my first ever Tamron. Tried it out in anger for the first time this week. Dud. Failure rate out of 1? 100%.


This is what you get at f/1./8.

http://tannin.net.au/other/ap/2017/tamron_dud.jpg

I haven't checked to see the exact point at which the fault goes away, but it does go away as you stop down.

Anyway, now that I've had my grumble, I guess I'd better send it off. Should I send it back and ask for a refund? Or trust them to fix it so that it actually works properly?

[ameerat42]

What are you complaining about? - It runs rings around... :umm:

How odd that the zones are so sharply defined. That one's definitely a return, but I don't know that
your statistical treatise is robust :p Any research shed any light?

PS: Ya didn't drop it, didja?:D

[Tannin]

Certainly not! This was the first time I've even used it.

My options:

1: return it and put the money towards a Canon 85/1.4 (three times the price, and much heavier, which I don't want)
2: return it and put the money towards a Canon 85/1.8 (half the price, no IS, cheaper build (!), inferior optics)
3: return it and put the money towards a Sigma 85/1.4 (huge, heavy, expensive)
4: get it repaired/replaced and hope for the best.

Now I really wish Tokina made an 85.

[Brian500au]

You did take the protective plastic film off the front of the lens before you tried it? :lol:

Another alternative is the Canon 85F1.2 (as long as you don't need lightning fast focus speed)

[arthurking83]

Strangest thing I've ever seen.

Is that how it shoots?
If so, I'd say something to do with an APS-C like crop, as that's roughly where an APS-C crop factor will be when shot on a 135 format sensor.

Have you tried it on one of your crop cameras too?

That is seriously :confused013

Have you tried with and without VC on? Does the VC work? .. etc.

[Geoff79]

Now that is seriously odd. I’m no expert on any of this sort of stuff and look to you guys for any good advice on these matters, but my first thought was if it was a crop/full frame sensor issue too. Would love to know what it is...

Ring aside, it’s certainly very soft too, innit? Hope you get it sorted.

[agb]

So what lens is it? On first glance it does look like what you might expect from an aps-c lens on a full frame, though I would have thought that would more likely be vignette than such a sharp ring.

[arthurking83]

So what lens is it? On first glance it does look like what you might expect from an aps-c lens on a full frame, though I would have thought that would more likely be vignette than such a sharp ring.

Lens is the Tammy 85/1.8 VC.
And you're right, put an APS-C lens on a 135 format sensor and you just get a gradual vignette that fades to black(ie. hard mechanical vignette). Some lenses can produce an image to the edge and just extremely dark.

But the inside ring pattern/size looks similar to what I used to get with my Sigma 10-20 when used on the D800, which I'd then crop to suit. Usually in a 1x1 format.

[Tannin]

Cheers all. In random order:

* It is definitely a full frame lens. http://www.tamron-usa.com/product/lenses/f016.html

* The Canon 85/1.2 weighs less than the West Gate Bridge. But not much less.

* I haven't seen any indication that the lens is soft. Have not examined anything in forensic detail yet, 'coz of the obvious fault, but it seems fine in that regard. The focus on that sample is on the foreground object; background is supposed to be blurred.

* I haven't tried it without the IS. What would be the point? It is obviously faulty. I'll just send it back and hope they fix it properly. (New items which fail straight out of the box should actually be replaced, not repaired. But I bought it a few months ago and have only just had a chance to try it out, so I might have to put up with a repair.)

[mongo]

Odd to see this of a Modern Tamron. If all else is correct with crop size and the way it is being used, then, it is clearly faulty. Mongo would prefer his money back or a new exchange less rather than have them try to fix it. It would be extremely unlikely that you will get another faulty copy and, if you do, then ask for your money back. That is first preference. Alternatively, go the "you have one opportunity to fix it or my money back".
Tony, this lens should work a treat if you get what you paid for.

[mpb]

As others have said, most unusual.

The sharp margins and image outside the ring suggest to me that it is camera generated not lens generated.
This may be caused by a communication or firmware issue with the camera thinking that the lens is a cropped sensor lens, but I am just hypothesizing.
Does it do the same on other bodies?

Good luck with getting it sorted.

[Tannin]

An inventive idea Mark, great thinking! Not applicable in the Canon world though, where there have never been any electronic or firmware steps taken with regard to crop vs non-crop lenses because Canon crop lenses physically do not fit on full-frame bodies - they use a different lens mount called EF-S. (Third-party crop lenses don't use it, but Canon studiously pretends that third-party lens makers do not exist.)

[Tannin]

Well knock me down and put me to bed with a shovel ... it is combination-specific.

Tamron 85 & 5D IV - effect as shown above at f/1.8, 2.0. 2.2, 2.5. Lesser effect at f/2.8 (just the outer corners). Perfectly OK at f/3.3 and beyond.
Tamron 85 & 5D II - no effect.
Canon 35L & 5D IV - no effect. (Not even at f/1.4.)
Canon 35L & 5D II - no effect.

The Canon 35/1.4 is the only other lens I own faster than f/2.8, and the old 5D II is the only other full-frame camera I have. So that's it for testing.

I have done a quick search for known incompatibilities and firmware fixes (for both camera and lens) without result. But there was a Canon firmware update (1.1.2) available for the 5D IV so I applied it anyway. Made no difference. Possibly there is an update for the Tamron but I lack the means to apply it. (I.e., a Tamron dock. I think these are available now.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATE:

On experimenting, I have discovered that the culprit is the Peripheral Illumination Correction (anti-vignette) function. Turn that off, and the Tamron and the 5D IV work together just fine. Unfortunately, there is no apparent way to turn it off for the Tamron lens only: it's a global setting. Looks as though I'm stuck with that. Shouldn't be too difficult to work around. (And sooner or later there will probably be a fix for it.) And there really isn't another 85mm lens I want. Nothing else has reasonable size and weight plus IS. The Canon 85/1.4 comes closest, and is by all reports so perfect you would want to marry it, but substantially heavier and overkill for my needs.

Special kudos to Mark (mbp) for landing his ball closest to the pin and thanks to all.

Case closed.

[mpb]

....On experimenting, I have discovered that the culprit is the Peripheral Illumination Correction (anti-vignette) function. .....

Ahh yes "Peripheral Illumination Correction" should have known, except I have never heard of it as a non Canon user.

So I googled it, appears to happen with Sigma lenses as well. This page (https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/canon-5d-mark-iv-and-third-party-lenses-minor-bumps.510162/) suggests that it only happens with the jpeg file and not the RAW file, which could be good news.

[Hawthy]

A bit of Googling suggests that if you shut off the "In-camera Lens Correction" it will go away. I don't have a Canon so I am not sure about this feature but it is worth a shot.

Edit: Found this https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/08/canon-illumination-correction-and-third-party-lenses/

Hmm...came to this realisation after you, apparently. Always too slow...:o

[arthurking83]

Well knock me down ....

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATE:

On experimenting, I have discovered that the culprit is the Peripheral Illumination Correction (anti-vignette) function. Turn that off, and the Tamron and the 5D IV work together just fine. ..... .

Ah! I was going to suggest something like that with your last reply(pre update).

So it seems that the anti vignette has something to do with the way the lens is coded to allow the 5DiV to recognise it.

From my understanding(but I could be wrong).
The third party manufacturers have to code the lens in a way that the camera makers don't see it as a Tamron XXX/XX lens, they just see it as a generic lens usually from 'yesteryear'
I've seen info to that effect about Sigma lenses and Nikon cameras.

That is, the lens announces itself to the camera with some hex code, and that hex code needs to be of a type that the camera will work with(ie. AF, IS/VC .. etc.)
If it was hex coded to tell the camera that it's a 85/1.8 VC lens, the camera doesn't know how to handle the VC if it's not in it's internal lookup table.

So, almost 99.999% certain it'll be a lens firmware issue, where Tamron may have an update for it(via those USB dock devices).

I just had a quick peek on the Tamron support site, and there is a firmware v3(up from v2) which was for operation on various Canon cameras, 5D IV being one of them.

[Tannin]

Cheers lads.

Arthur, the camera correctly recognises the lens as "TAMRON SP 85mm F/1.8 DI VC USD", adds "F016" (the firmware version perhaps?) and then says "Correction data available".

I'm vague about this as I can't remember whether "Correction data available" in Canonspeak means "I know all about this lens" or "I can deal with this lens but you will need to download the info file from Canon for me". As I recall, Canon cameras come pre-loaded with a selection of data for the most popular lenses, and you can add others. In the old 5D Mark II (one of the first cameras to have optical correction capability), you got 25 lenses pre-loaded and (if I remember correctly) there was limited room for more but you could delete the data for some lens you didn't own to make space if needed. Possibly the 5D IV is similar, but it is many years newer, the firmware file is huge, and it probably contains ... oh I don't know ... 50 or 100 pre-loaded lenses 'coz modern electronics makes this sort of thing so easy.

So, possibly, I'll be able to use the EOS Utility to install a new lens data file for the 85mm Tamron. I'll look into that tonight. But it's no longer a priority as I can simply switch the PIC off if I'm (a) using the 85, and (b) using the 5D IV with it, and (c) going to f/2.8 or wider. That wouldn't really matter much. And this problem aside, it's a very sweet little lens. I was really enjoying using it for the first time until I saw the black circles.

(Ever since I went full frame, I have missed the wonderful little Canon 60mm f/2.8 macro (which is an EF-S lens and does not fit on a full frame body). I used it for macro work only a little, and for landscapes and general photography quite a lot. That field of view really suits me. On full frame, 50mm is too wide, 100mm too long: that 75-85mm range is my sweet spot. And adding IS to the recipe makes it even better as you often want to be stopped down quite a long way for depth of field.)

[arthurking83]

I'll try to find more info about what I was trying to explain.
I remember I@M had issues with his Sigma 100-300/4 years back, so of course, I went searching for more info.
Couldn't help Andrew but he got them updated firmware at Sigma and they got sorted.

I'm sure it was via exiftool that I found this info
And it was really weird stuff too. something like a Sigma 70/2.8 was recognised (in hex code) as a 60/2.8 lens .. or some weird thing like that.
If you're curious as to what I'm referring too, have a peek on the exiftool site, HERE (https://sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/TagNames/Canon.html)
Scroll down to LendID tag table.

The exif always comes up perfectly correct tho, that isn't the issue. it's this weird underlying code that isn't commonly known about.

Basically a camera has a finite amount of storage for a lens database(firmwares update this, and hex codes get reused).
The manufacturers never allow for thirdparty lenses, so the third party makers use known hex codes.
In the case of the 85/1.8 tho, this would seem normal, and you'd expect the camera to think that the tammy 85/1.8 is a Canon 85/1.8(as that lens exists). But without IS.
So how would the camera operate the VC if it thinks the lens is a Canon 85/1.8.
(remember exif is a separate issue, not part of the operation of the camera).
So the camera has to be able to operate the focus in a specific manner(ie. same travel and speed, etc) and also the VC which won't exist in a canon 85/1.8 lens.
And Canon dont have a Tamron SP 85mm f/1.8 VC lens into their camera's database. they usually struggle for room for all their own lenses.

On the exiftool site, I can't locate a search tool, so I copy/pasted the table into a document and searched for that lens term. Doesn't exist. So Tamron probably used another lens ID code, but may have botched it for that lens type.
That is, lens is older than the camera, and camera was updated with different info.
If you have a look at the table, you see entries for the Tammy SP 35 and 45mm f/1.8 VC lenses tho.

ps. I didn't know that the lens ID tags used a numerical value for Canon tho. In Nikon world, the lens tags are in hex.


Sorry for the long post again, but it's kind'a hard to explain it with a short reply.

The F016 info on the lens is the actual lens model.
eg. Tammy make three electronic 90/2.8 macro lenses. Each as it's own lens model number, even tho they're all the same lens spec type. late models are 172/272E and the earlier one is the 72E.
Some models use A as a prefix for the alphabet value, others use a suffix(usually a D or E)
There's more detail in the Nikon lens ID table than the Canon one.

No idea how you'd find the firmware version without the use of the TapIn console from Tamron.
I'd say almost certainly to be the issue.
Even tho you got he lens recently, it may have been made prior to March this year(when Tamron updated the firmware from v2 to v3).
If it's was a local lens, I'd say almost certainly this is the case. If you got an import(eg. from HK), then more likely it's a later than March build.. but again no certainty.

But I'd recommend to look into getting one of the USB attachment devices.
Any issues with the lens in future with any other newer camera, where a firmware may be needed(hope not, but always plan for contingencies) you're prepped to do so.
I think they cost about $100.
The upside, if your geekily inclined(ie. like me) you also have options to play with focus speed/accuracy in a much nicer manner than any in camera feature allows.

I also reckon to give it a go with VC off and anti vignette on to see if it changes behaviour of the anti vignette feature.
More than anything else, I'm curious as to what would happen. if it changes the strange ring.

The other even stranger aspect to your issue is(and this is really weird to see!). if the camera is set to Peripheral Illumination Correction as on, you'd expect to see a brighter circle, not a darker one(as in your images). :confused013
That is, it's an anti vignette feature, yet it's set a strange circular vignette .. the opposite of what it's supposed to do.

[mongo]

Good to see problem solved albeit not in an ideal way but at least in a workable way for now. Still a little disappointing about apparent lack of better communicating these features to buyers at the time of sale and not having to find out much later.

not thrilled about having to buy docks for various lenses but understand it is a way of now updating/improving the lens' potential. This should be made available with the lens or be made available for free for use through major retailers who stock the brand. Owners willing to call in and update can do so. THe dock is useless the rest of the time and often only used once in its lifetime depending on ownership of the brand.

Again, today' Tamron , at its upper end products, is up there with the big boys re engineering and quality

[arthurking83]

.... This should be made available with the lens or be made available for free for use through major retailers who stock the brand. Owners willing to call in and update can do so. THe dock is useless the rest of the time and often only used once in its lifetime depending on ownership of the brand.

....

That would be the ideal scenario, for sure.
Have docks at various retailers, of the lens was bought from the retailer, it'd be a free of charge service for the life of the lens.(it really takes no time to do a firmware update)

If the lens was purchased from 'other sources' then a very small fee could be easily accepted just for the time of the retail staff to do the process.

You don't need any special skill to do it, just connect, check for updates, confirm ... etc.

USB dock tho isn't so much useless the rest of the time, at least possibly for a short time as the owner gets used to a product.
It also allows certain features to be tweaked and adjusted to suit the owner.
Stuff like AF speed and accuracy, the two are co dependent, so if AF speed is more of a priority, it may (in some situations) result in a bit less accuracy, and vice versa.
I'd guess that the Tamron(being a VC lens) may also have some tweaking ability to adjust the VC operation to be smoother, more stable, or whatever.

I only have the Sigma dock, and one Sigma lens, and the multitude of adjustments are quite a little overwhelming at first, but once you work through them, they start to make a little sense.
Not saying that this Tamron lens has any of all of those additional features too(as I don't have one), but I suspect that they'll have at least some commonality.

But, overall, Mongo is right. Once the lens has been set to a specific user preference, it really does become kind of 'useless'.
I have even looked at my Sigma dock for at least a year or more now. But it's nice knowing it's there, if I get a new camera and there is any weird operational situation with the lens, it's a matter of waiting for Sigma to provide the firmware to allow it to be loaded into the lens.

[Tannin]

Curiously, the Tamron lens was reasonably priced via official Australian sources (I used Digital Camera Warehouse) and very dear from my normal Hong Kong retailer (DWI).

DWI don't stock the Tamron dock. In Australia, it is as dear as bloody poison - around the $180 mark. Out of the question at that price. But you can get one from B&H, including postage, for close to half that price.

Nevertheless, I don't plan to buy one. I only have the one Tamron lens, no particular plan to buy any other ones - the 85/1.8 was just about the last hole in my rather-too-extensive lens collection ... er ... except for a 400/4 DO II of course ... and ... er ... one or two other things - and it's no hardship to switch off the anti-vignette function for this particular lens-body combination.

Admitted, I haven't had the lens for very long - only the one soon-aborted session with it so far - but now that I know how to work around this issue, in all other respects it seems just fine. It's sharp, it focuses nicely, the IS seems to work well. That'll do me.

PS: Arthur, I see you have been promoted to blue ink. Would you be so kind (if policy allows this) as to change the thread title to something like "New Tamron is NO dud"? The lens seems pretty much blameless here and the headline seems rather unfair to it now.

[arthurking83]

Thread title edited:


... The lens seems pretty much blameless here and the headline seems rather unfair to it now.

I think the lens still is to blame, but not fully entirely.
I know my last post re the lens hex code was arduous(tl;dr), but it is what it is. The forgiveness aspect comes into it because almost certainly the lens is older(in tech/model/epoc) than the camera, hence the main reason why thirdparty lenses can be a bit of a lottery, where manufacturer lenses most likely won't be.

Other options for the TapIn dock could be to locate an accommodating member that may have a Canon dock you could use, if the retailer or importer end up being more difficult to deal with.

Speaking of difficulty in dealing with product issues, back in more ideal times, when I was a courier, we used to have Maxwells(out in BoxHill area) as a customer.
I had(still have) my old Tammy 28-75/2.8(old model) and it backfocuses at the 75mm end.
I once asked Maxwells(the Tammy importer at the time) about getting it looked at and the chap at the dispatch department was obliging, called out a tech to have a chat.
They were massively helpful, and simply explained to bring it in, they'll look at it and get it sorted.
Firmware for lenses was a service department process only back then .. no such thing as docks and such like.
Never once asked in the convo, if I have receipts, or of the lens was brand new/under warranty .. etc.
Stupid me tho, never took them up on the offer.
Now I have to send the lens to WA, and .. well it's going to be a massive muck about.

Then I had two issues with Nikon products.
80-200/2.8 lens backfocused at 200mm, took it in to the authorised Nikon service centre(will remain nameless for now) and they explained .. it'll take a few days(maybe 5 or so, can't remember) and it'll cost a min of $50 to have it looked at, but I also need to leave the D300 for them to calibrate it to my camera or some carp!
My question was, why can't you just calibrate it to focus correctly on any body? .. err ... came their vague response. Absolutely not interested in customer satisfaction/assistance at all these people.
Ended up selling the lens, as I didn't want it to work only on the D300, what about the D70 .. and any future camera I know I'll end up with. To me is smelled a lot like BS.
Later I had trouble with my D800, and Nikon only wanted to know how much money I was willing to donate to their CEO's new Rolls Royce :rolleyes:

Got it repaired at a nice independent shop(at considerable expense tho).

[Tannin]

Other way around, Arthur. The lens is a new model; 5D IV has been around for a few years now. I daresay there will be a 5D V next year, or possibly the year after - Canon's 7D II is their oldest frontline model, followed by the 1DX II and the 5D IV. They have recently replaced the 6D with the 6D II and the 5D SR with refreshed models. By rights, the 7D II -> 7D III upgrade should be next, but Canon seem to run the pro-grade APS-C line on a slower upgrade cycle than the other two.

(Have to run. Back to the rest of your post later. Thanks for changing the thread title.)

[arthurking83]

Aha! I'm not really up to speed about exact release dates, I do remember the Tammy 34/45 f/1.8 VC lenses came out roughly 4 years back.
but you're right, my bad, I wrote it the wrong way round.

So like you said, and as I was s'pose to write. The newer lens won't be included in the older camera lens database, which could result in certain anomalies.

Are you planning to get it looked at to work properly fully?

Other than the retailers, I don't know where the Tammy service centre establishments are now.

[Tannin]

I don't think so Arthur. Not unless it happens to be cheap and easy for some reason. It's not something I'd bother buying a dock or packing a lens up in a box and it sending off to a service centre for.

I mostly use that lens (or the 60 macro before it, which served the same role) around f/8 or f/11, very seldom under f/4, and it is perfectly OK at those apertures. It only does it at f/2.8 and below. And I'm just as likely to use it with the 5D II as the 5D IV - it's only the 5D IV that does it. And I can always switch off the anti-vignette function and (if desired) achieve the same result in post. And it only affects the in-camera JPG, not the raw file.

To confirm this just now, I looked at the raw files using Bridge and Photoshop. Interestingly, the thumbnail Bridge displays includes the error (if I remember correctly, the raw files contain a JPG thumbnail, which Bridge must be using) but after the whole folder has finished reading, Bridge must go through one-by-one again recalculating the thumbnails direct from the raw, because the thumbs change, one by one, to a non-corrupted version. (You might miss seeing this on a very fast system with an SSD, but it is easy enough to see on this five-year-old i7 laptop which has an SSD but stores most of the pictures on mechanical drives.)

So Bridge reads every file in a folder twice, and performs a CPU-hungry recalculation of the thumbnail for every single file! No friggin wonder it is so bloody slow and horrible! It shows impressive attention to detail, granted, but is horribly resource-wasteful and so very, very Adobe.

[arthurking83]

....

To confirm this just now, I looked at the raw files using Bridge and Photoshop. Interestingly, the thumbnail Bridge displays includes the error (if I remember correctly, the raw files contain a JPG thumbnail, which Bridge must be using) but after the whole folder has finished reading, Bridge must go through one-by-one again recalculating the thumbnails direct from the raw, because the thumbs change, one by one, to a non-corrupted version. (You might miss seeing this on a very fast system with an SSD, but it is easy enough to see on this five-year-old i7 laptop which has an SSD but stores most of the pictures on mechanical drives.)

So Bridge reads every file in a folder twice, and performs a CPU-hungry recalculation of the thumbnail for every single file! No friggin wonder it is so bloody slow and horrible! It shows impressive attention to detail, granted, but is horribly resource-wasteful and so very, very Adobe.

I was going to suggest that test too. Good to see you tried it.
That's the way Adobe's software operates.
It initially uses the embedded jpg preview file from a raw file, and it's updated as it then updates it's catalog. Lr works the same way.
Once done tho and no further raw files added to the system, it no longer uses those resources for that process. Still slow tho.

Curious if you can also see it in Canon's DPP.
It should have the ability to selectively turn the peripheral lighting setting on an off(obviously on a raw file only), no matter what the camera setting was.
That's how Nikon's software works, so I assume DPP has similar settings abilities.

[Tannin]

As per your suggestion, I tried it with DPP. On first sight, DPP simply displays a from-the-raw thumbnail (not the embedded JPG one with the error). But on more careful testing, by copying a folder to a new location, thus making sure it is not cached anywhere, you can, if you watch carefully as DPP populates the folder, just see DPP display the embedded JPG for a fraction of a second before it switches to the one it calculates from the raw. This is vastly faster than the sluggish Adobe method. It is doubtless more efficient in several ways (in programming terms, being more efficient than Adobe is like, in biological terms, showing more vital signs than a corpse) but the stand-out obvious one is that the Adobe method is guaranteed to create cache misses, thus forcing physical re-reads of the drive. DPP (like any sensible program) reads the file once. The Adobe method not only reads it twice, it reads the entire content of the folder between first read and second read of any given file, thus guaranteeing the lowest possible file system performance for it. Adobe at their classic blundering worst.

Why am I not surprised?

As for turning the peripheral setting on and off, yes, you can do that in any raw converter from any manufacturer. No, wait! I've got that wrong. Most likely you can ONLY do it in DPP (for Canon raws) or the equivalent other software for Nikon, Pentax, Olympus, etc. I don't expect that third-party raw converters would be able to read and honour Canon's in-camera post-processing instructions - though possibly Adobe does to at least some degree, they can be quite good at that stuff. In all other converters, you would expect it to be OFF no matter what - but, of course, you are always free to use that program's native anti-vignetting function.

One more thing. Adobe's second-guess-the-thumbnail process also resets the white balance and exposure of all the thumbnails! I reckon this is probably one of the many reasons I have never warmed to Bridge. Subconsciously, I have no doubt been turned off by the weird and ugly colours in the thumbnails as compared to the thumbnails I see in most other programs which are generated from the JPG and in consequence have (in 99% of cases) the correct white balance. (I generally get my WB right in-camera.)

Adobe is doing god-knows what with thumbnail white balances - possibly its own auto-WB at a guess. As near as I can estimate by eye, DPP honours the in-camera settings.

And another thing - neither one seems to provide an option to adjust the thumbnail size. This is a basic. Good image viewers (PMView, XNView, etc.) have had this for decades. The DPP one is good on a big screen (mine is 2560 x 1600), no good on a small screen - say 1360 x 768). The Bridge one is fine on little screens but hopelessly small on a big screen.

[kwaal]

Not techie at all but love my new Tamron.