MailmanNZ wrote:
If you are a beginner, then he has something for you.
He certainly does... bad advice.
Enjoy his musings as fictional entertainment, but don't take them seriously.
MailmanNZ wrote:
...I doubt you will ever her good old KR telling people that they shouldnt listen to you simply because there are others out there that say something different.
Actually, Ken often goes to great effort to invalidate and belittle opinions that are contrary to his, although he never "names names"...
Everything's relative... having owned and used the Nikon AF 35-70 f3.5-4.5, I can confirm that it handily outperformed some of the more expensive zooms I've owned...
Yes, but Robert Capa said that if your photos are not good enough, you are not close enough... KR is full of sh*t, but he at least is thought provoking for arguments sake.
James R wrote:
This is my fav comment from KR's 18-200 pick: "If you need anything longer, you'll get better photos by getting closer with the 18-200 VR than you will by using a longer lens like the 600mm VR."
The list is like most lists, just one person's opinion, which I generally don't agree
molson wrote:
At least he's consistent... continuing to "review" lenses he's clearly never used...
Ok, don't shoot me but is this still the case? I thought that that only happened a couple of years back, with the Pentax *st D or something. I think he learned his lesson back then. There are a couple of lenses on his list of reviews that he states he hasn't used and thus can't comment on. And going by all his "shootouts" he does seem to have lots of Nikkors. Unless he faked side-by-side tests of 10-15 lenses, which would go past even his level of buffoonery
The only sad thing is, far too many uninformed people take him seriously.
To be honest, I think that's the point of his site. It's not meant for people who are up to speed on these things through forums or by other means, like most here. It is meant for the uninformed, both for the complete beginner and for the beginner in danger of spending $kkk and blaming the gear. His consistent message is "it's not about the equipment", which does deserve to be taken seriously IMO.
Of course I take exception to over-simplification, blanket statements or requests for donations. But the thing is, he expects people like most here to be able to read between the lines. Personally, I take his sweeping comments with a bucket of salt, look at whatever particular detail interests me and compare it with other sources. I think I recognise his frequently-inserted "practical jokes" when I see them - and just filter 'em out. With the humour/BS/generalisation subtracted, he can actually provide some useful information.
Oh Lord, what have I said?! [*makes a dash for the air-raid shelter*]
MailmanNZ wrote:
To be fair to Ken, he makes it quite clear when he is reviewing something he has in his hands and when he is looking at a spec sheet.
Either way, he is just as entitled to state his opinion as you are to state yours.
Mailman
And you are absolutely correct, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. In my opinion, I will only take seriously those reviews from people who actually have used a lens for more than just one session or from others who are giving an opinion based actual usage instead of just a spec sheet. If I am about to spend a serious amount of money on a lens, I would much rather hear from actual people who have used that particular lens. Again, that is my opinion, and as you have stated, we are all entitled to our opininons.
If KR's reviews work for you and you are willing to invest a considerable amount of money on a lens based entirely on his review, then by all means enjoy your equipment!
Richard.P wrote:
Oh Lord, what have I said?! [*makes a dash for the air-raid shelter*]
I pretty much agree with what you wrote; nicely done.
That said, I don't take a lot of his advice on lenses, but I did buy a 28-200 several years ago based mainly on his comments (and some reviews on other sites) and have been very happy with it.
jay tieger wrote:
Having owned/used the 43-86 and 35-70 I can confirm their right to the worst 10 list.
My 36-72/3.5 Series E was quite bad as well. Detail degraded seriously away from the center and CA was severe. It seemed like a good idea for a travel lens back in 1982.
However, the worst Nikkor for me was the original 24-120. The best overall was probably one of the micros, such as the 55/2.8.
Agree on the first 28 3.5. A real woofer. Ditto first 24-120.
Back when 28 2.0s were new I had a Soligor that was reviewed as sharper than the Nikon, which it might have been precisely in the center. It had two itsy bitsy problems: Flare, flare and more flair and the fact that edges were about what you would expect if you put your glasses on a bellows and used them.
Really nice lenses: any Nikkor 300 2.8, most micros, 28 2.0, 18 4.0 (gets so so reviews; mine was great), 50 1.4..........................
KR's laughing all the way to the bank. If you want a review ask someone who actually owns and shoots with the lens
in question. My best lens pick is the 200 f2 VR, I'm constantly amazed by it.
snegron wrote:
And you are absolutely correct, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. In my opinion, I will only take seriously those reviews from people who actually have used a lens for more than just one session or from others who are giving an opinion based actual usage instead of just a spec sheet. If I am about to spend a serious amount of money on a lens, I would much rather hear from actual people who have used that particular lens. Again, that is my opinion, and as you have stated, we are all entitled to our opininons.
Ok, can you point out a "review" he has done in the last year or so that he hasnt made clear he hasnt got the gear in his hands?
Because all I can see is you throwing accusations around with nothing to back yourself up with.
If KR's reviews work for you and you are willing to invest a considerable amount of money on a lens based entirely on his review, then by all means enjoy your equipment!
If you take ANYONES word without taking the time to investigate the lens yourself, then you only have yourself to blame if the affair doesnt turn out as you had hoped.
Oh dear, if anyone polarises opinion in the photography world, it is Ken Rockwell!
14-24 2.8 and 200 f2 VR would make my best list. KR's reviews have an audience in mind and it's not the serious amateur or pro photog. There are far more serious lens review sites than KR. But, in photography, there is room for many views. Some don't want real technical jargon and find KR just right.
Ok, can you point out a "review" he has done in the last year or so that he hasnt made clear he hasnt got the gear in his hands?
Because all I can see is you throwing accusations around with nothing to back yourself up with.
[
To quote KR regarding his review of the 18mm, "I have no idea why it's so bad, but it is."
Gee, I think that the one who doesn't use any real, solid evidence to back up anything is your hero KR! Is this sample good enough, or do you really want me to go through all of his "reviews" and provide even more evidence?
Let's save everyone here the headache of having to read his comedy sketch reviews. Again, you make your lens buying decissions your way, I will do them mine.
p.s. You can further show your support of KR by donating funds to his website if you haven't done so already!
i think it's funny that my favorite lens is his 2nd worst(right?).... i love my 18mm f2.8 AF-D, because it's the only 18mm f2.8 prime i know of, and it has a great compact size, nice rugged build, and i got it for $200 from a good friend! Works well enough for me!
[*makes a dash for the air-raid shelter*]
