Does He Speak With Forked Tongue - One Example

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by measekite, Jan 9, 2009.

  1. measekite

    measekite Guest

    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?
     
    measekite, Jan 9, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. measekite

    dj_nme Guest

    <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.
     
    dj_nme, Jan 9, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. 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
     
    David J Taylor, Jan 9, 2009
    #3
  4. measekite

    bowzer Guest

    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.
     
    bowzer, Jan 9, 2009
    #4
  5. 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
     
    David J Taylor, Jan 9, 2009
    #5
  6. measekite

    J. Clarke Guest

    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.
     
    J. Clarke, Jan 9, 2009
    #6
  7. measekite

    Scott W Guest

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

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Jan 9, 2009
    #7
  8. measekite

    bowzer Guest

    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.
     
    bowzer, Jan 9, 2009
    #8
  9. Shooting raw is the wide and boggy track :)
     
    Chris Malcolm, Jan 9, 2009
    #9
  10. 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.
     
    Chris Malcolm, Jan 9, 2009
    #10
  11. 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
     
    David J Taylor, Jan 9, 2009
    #11
  12. measekite

    measekite Guest

    He did not say he disliked one off brand lens.

    He did say "I avoid off brand".
     
    measekite, Jan 10, 2009
    #12
  13. 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?
     
    Chris Malcolm, Jan 11, 2009
    #13
  14. 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
     
    David J Taylor, Jan 12, 2009
    #14
  15. measekite

    ASAAR Guest

    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
     
    ASAAR, Jan 12, 2009
    #15
  16. measekite

    ASAAR Guest

    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.
     
    ASAAR, Jan 12, 2009
    #16
  17. measekite

    Paul Furman Guest

    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 :p"

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

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
     
    Paul Furman, Jan 25, 2009
    #17
  18. measekite

    ASAAR Guest

    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! :)
     
    ASAAR, Jan 25, 2009
    #18
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.