Does He Speak With Forked Tongue - One Example

Ken Rockwell Said:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/nikon-vs-canon.htm

Sigma announced an 18-200mm OS (stabilized) lens, but it's only f/6.3 (not
rated to work well for AF, which needs at least f/5.6) and I suspect it
has primitive focus, not HSM/AFS/USM. We'll see,

and I avoid off brand
lenses anyway. As I explained, the whole point of a Canon or Nikon camera
is to use the superior lenses made by either, both of which are very
serious optical companies, unlike the off brands.


And Then Ken Rockwell Said:

In 2008, Tokina introduced the best lens yet, the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8,
which for about $500, is better than the best lens below, the Nikon
12-24mm. Read the rest of this if you like, however as of 2008, just get
the Tokina 11-16mm. Its only gotcha is that it won't autofocus on a Nikon
D40, D40x or D60; for those least expensive Nikons, get the most expensive
Nikon 12-24mm or Sigma 10-20mm for autofocus.


This is just an example what myself and many others have stated. Which is
correct and what does he really believe. It would be nice to be able to
trust his opinion.

Is there anybody out their that provides really accurate and CONSISTENT
information?

 

<snip anti Ken Rockwell rant>

Ken Rockwell writes his own opinion.
Just because you can't fathom his dislike of one off-brand lens and his
liking of another is no reason to "go nuts".
Do you expect consistent hatred of third party lenses and unadorned
praise for camera manufacturer's lenses?
Or, do you expect to read an opinion piece about which lenses are good
and bad, regardless of manufacturer?
Either is fine by me, but at least you could state what you expect and
then be consistent about it.

 

What's inconsistent? He avoids off-brand lenses, but is quite happy to
acknowledge the sometimes a worthy lens is available. The "best" may
simply be "Tokina's best". I mean, 11-16mm doesn't even convert the same
2:1 zoom range as either 12-24mm or 10-20mm does it? And note that he
says "for $500", which to my mind means that he is already setting his
expecations at a lower level.

I would hope that pure lab tests, properly carried out, would do that, but
as soon as you add any commentary to the numbers the results become
subjective. Remember that what may have been "the best available lens at
any price" in 1998 may not qualify for the same description in 2008.

David

 

Rockwell's only game is to publish controversial crap that will increase his
hit count. He's not a photographer, and knows nothing about photography.
Unless you believe that tripods are no longer necessary. Or that shooting
RAW is a waste of time. And you believe his "review/tests" of gear he's
never even held.

 

Well, for my way of working today, tripods are no longer necessary 99% of
the time, and I choose not to shoot raw.....

Just how has Ken led /you/ away from the straight and narrow?

David

 

He makes a case that it's superior optically to the 12-24 and pretty
close to being an APS-C equivalent to the 14-24 2.8. Whether he's
fudged his test shots or not I have no idea.

I've never found any reason to fault photozone.de, and they've tested
a very wide range of lenses.

 

If you are not shooting raw it sounds like maybe Ken led you away from
the straight and narrow.

Scott

 

He has not, because I know better. But many, many unsuspecting people read
that crap and believe it. So whenever I see someone quoting KR, I caution
them against using that site.

 

Shooting raw is the wide and boggy track

 

Which given the state of the web is going to lead them from the frying
pan into the fire unless you give them some idea of where to go for
better information.

 

Scott W wrote:
[]

Ken had nothing to do with my decision - I made up my own mind based on my
own shooting and post-processing needs.

David

 

He did not say he disliked one off brand lens.

He did say "I avoid off brand".

 

The same goes for books. Have you visited a bookshop or library
recently? Most books are rubbish.

Oh wait a minute, you said *good* books. So what's wrong with *good*
websites?

 

Stephen Bishop wrote:
[]

I don't see what the problem is. If one Web site doesn't give a positive
review of a product you're thinking of buying, I'm sure you could find
another Web site which does! <G>

Couldn't agree more about doing photography to understand what /actually/
matters to you.

Cheers,
David

 

For those that do understand the art and craft of photography, the
gear means something, but much less than most photographers here
think. In most settings DSLRs should and do give me better results
than that from my best P&S, but those denigrated cameras have the
ability to produce superb photos too. A case in point that backs up
some of KR's more controversial articles are these photos which were
just posted in a DPR reply titled "Some of mine last week...", and
which are more impressive than many I've seen from links in this ng,
taken with expensive DSLR gear costing from $5,000 to $10,000. The
P&S used is one of the more sophisticated ones, but it's only one of
several that could have easily duplicated these shots :


http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1012&message=30647248

 

Oops. The series of P&S shots I just provided a link to may be
misattributed. The poster ("twg") is usually found in Fuji's forums
and in threads such as the one I linked to, which mainly discuss the
S100fs. I just noticed that twg also has posted shots taken with a
D90, so that may have been the camera used to take the shots I spoke
of. My point still holds, namely that gear costing ten times as
much, such as a D3 or D3x with 600mm f/4 or 200-400mm f/4 won't
necessarily provide better photos. As you said, the photographer's
skill is an important factor, and Thom Hogan adds that the best,
most expensive gear won't produce better results if there are other
weak links in the chain, such as not having good workflow skills or
knowing how to maximize the output quality from even excellent
printers.

 

Looks like a Fuji DSLR, he says: "Thanks for the nice comments. I took a
Nikon Ais 500 reflex, A Sigma 150 macro plus 1.4X TC, and a Tamron 28-75
f2.8. No more room for the backpack, and I think it was near the
(weight) limit for me "

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

 

Nope. Right thread, wrong person. Your quote is from agf's reply
to twg. The link I provided (above) is to twg's post that contains
the images that I referred to. But did you notice my followup 19
minutes later? I caught my mistaken assumption in advance :

This was posted to r.p.d. on Jan 12, and two days later twg added
to the same thread in DPR's Fujifilm Talk forum :

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1012&message=30672987

and the equipment used cost 1/4 to 1/8th that of the "pro" gear I
listed. The D90 is much less expensive than the D3 or D3x and the
300mm f/4 ($1,150, 3.1 lb) lens is significantly less expensive and
lighter than the 200-400mm VR ($4999.00, 7.2 lb) and 600mm f/4 VR
($9,699.96, 11.2 lb). That kind of gear is what Rita uses to take
snapshots of her pets, so I'm not surprised that she's been fairly
silent recently. She's probably laid low, nursing dual hernias and
not in the best of spirits due to a hemorrhaging bank account!