uccmmcpo wrote:
Yup , KR is controversial but the insults thrown out at him from some of the supposedly knowledgeable Nikon forum gentlemen here sure doesn`t make them look too good in the credibility dept. either.
They had ought to be ashamed of themselves for stooping to the levels usually associated with those who would attempt to make themselves look better by denigrating / besmirching someone elses reputation.
KR is what he is, an overly opinionated professional shooter and writer not much different than the others but in his style. It works good for him and those who know more can usually read between the lines he writes and still enjoy the gist of it.
When those particular critics or any one else get to the point where they get to be as well known as he is or receive as many hits as his site does then maybe they get some wiggle room too but until then they might just want to stop acting like they are superior and more knowledgeable than they really are. This kind of stuff might fly on Dpreview but isn`t the FM forums supposed to be a step up?
.John
Edited by uccmmcpo on Jul 24, 2008 at 01:52 PM GMT...Show more →
John,
Exactly why is KR controversial? That answer seems to be what fuels much of the debate. Therefore, KR's opinions will engender some extreme viewpoints. Not sure why you feel the need for "denigrating and besmirching" those whom you disagree. Why not just state your position on KR and drop the Psychology 101 stuff? You sir have not earned the right to decide who has a right to express an opinion on FM. Only Fred has that right.
snegron wrote:
Gee, thanks for the insult. Calling me "geezer" was uncalled for, but it does demonstrate that you obviously don't have the maturity to engage in adult conversation without casting childish insults.
You are being overly sensitive as geezer is the english term for man
Dont go all sooky bubba on me now you have perceived that I have insulted you by using the english term geezer. Although I suspect that because I am challenging your points that all I really had to do to "offend" you as to look "sideways" at you
On the flip side, it does strengthen my point that not only is KR's writing nonsense, but inexperienced little know it alls are the only ones who spew his nonsense as actual fact.
Really the only nonsense that is being thrown around is by those who despise the man for merely having an opinion (albeit one generally at odds with the person doing the hate'n). You proved your biase by selectively using a quote from him and then deliberately chosing the ignore the context from where that quote was made...which is a tactic generally used by those who dont like his opinions.
AND Im still waiting for you to back up your earlier claim about him "reviewing" hardware he doesnt have (where I said he makes it clear when he has gear in his hands and when he doesnt).
Oh, and look at the multiple posts to this thread. It appears that the majority of the people here agree with me that KR is not a trusted source.
Really, a billion [insert what ever religion here] cant all be wrong about their omnipotent being can they?
But this is the great thing about the internet, opinions are like a-holes, everyone has one
For some unkown reason you have chosen to snip at me. Did I hit a nerve? Should I say how knowledgeable and wonderful KR is in order to please you?
I have chosen to challenge your opinions on KR, nothing more. If you are getting all hot and bothered over that challenge then that is your problem...geezer.
Debate is good, what seems to be your beef is that you dont like your ideas being challenged. I really couldnt care less whether KR is the next best thing since sliced bread and right footed socks but if you are going to make particular claims, you really shouldnt be surprised if those claims are then challenged.
At the end of the day though argueing on the internet is just like running in the special olympics
the two defocus control lenses are some of Nikon's best (but some would say worst)
wasn't the 43-86mm zoom one of the first 35 mm zoom lenses?? I was more into cinema when it came out, but I recall my friends saying "not so great BUT IT ZOOMS!!"
MailmanNZ wrote:
Again, KR has his opinion which doesnt make him any more right or wrong then you.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.
Much of the stuff KR presents as fact is incorrect. Much of his opinions are presented as facts, or simply without any foundation (e.g., "... the best..." syndrome).
The primary thing of worth on his site is the nikon lens compatibility charts. They appear to be accurate. Everything else is catch-as-catch-can. Oh, and the lens measurements (e.g., filter sizes) appear to be accurate. But I can get those from manufacturer's sites as quickly as from his.
I have tremendous respect for his SEO capability, and for his article about money, and not much else. It does a new photographer more harm that good to read his site - e.g., the stuff about 'vivid'.
esquire1954 wrote:
I was actually interested in what people thought where Nikon's best & worst, instead this post became a K.R. fest....
From lenses I used I would say that optically superior to anything else are the super teles
200 f2, 300 f2,8, 400 f2,8, 500 f4, 600 f4 and 800 f5,6
Optically excellent I would rate the 16mm f3,5, 85mm f1,4 Ai-S, 105mm f2,8 (Ai-S and AF-D), 135mm f3,5, 180mm f2,8 Ai-S and 200mm f4 Nikkor-Q.C
Optically very good, the 80-200 f4 Ai-S with head and shoulders over any of the 80200 f4,5 or 80-200 f2,8 versions. 70-200 f4, 14-24 f2,8
I have never used any of Niukons standard zooms so can't comment there
Now all the rest are lenses with obvious flaws. But often these flaws can aid in creating a photograph so I would never say that there is a bad Nikkor lens. Every phhotographic opertunity favors it's own lens and there is an opertunity for every lens to shine. It only takes a photographer to see which lens suits the opertunity
Reincarnating a 9 year old thread to talk about KR? Sounds like fun.
One thing about KR worth noting is that his site is satire. He has not set out to provide valuable information, he's set out to entertain himself (and make some money while doing it). Read the following from his About page:
"I continue to do this site all by myself for fun — probably the last remaining 1990's for-fun website that hasn't sold out to other interests. Even though it has become popular, presumably because so many people find it helpful, it is still run just for fun. I am this site's only author. I have no one to proofread, spell check or fact check for me, so there will always be errors and omissions. Apparently the world finds my opinions very useful, but remember, they are the opinions of one man. I have a big sense of humor, and do this site to entertain you (and myself), as well as to inform and to educate. I occasionally weave fiction and satire into my stories to keep them interesting. I love a good hoax. Read The Museum of Hoaxes, or see their site. A hoax, like some of the things I do on this website, is done as a goof simply for the heck of it by overactive minds as a practical joke. Even Ansel Adams kidded around when he was just a pup in the 1920s by selling his photos as "Parmelian Prints." I have the energy and sense of humor of a three-year old, so remember, this is a personal website, and never presented as fact. I enjoy making things up for fun, as does The Onion, and I publish them here — even on this page."
So KR has some decent photos of lenses, but you can't trust any of his advice or reviews. If you're experienced and just go there to amuse yourself, it's a great site. If you're trying to get information from the site, you risk being dangerously mislead. So whenever new photographers ask about that site or mention it it's important to point out that it is satire and should not be used when choosing gear or learning photography, but it's a perfectly fine place to find entertainment if you're not taking anything he says seriously.
As for Nikon's best and worst lenses, the best I own has to be the 200-500. Not as good as a telephoto prime, but great lens for the price, not too heavy, and very versatile. I wouldn't say there's a worst lens though - all my other Nikons have their pros and cons but serve their purpose nicely.
I go to Ken's site time and time again for the wealth of information he presents. I really need to make a cash contribution to his good efforts.
But, I disagree about the 18/2.8D, I find its rendering to be unique and pleasing. Not pixel peeper please, but overall rendering pleasing. I also think the 105 DC is significantly better than the 135 DC.
Danner wrote:
I go to Ken's site time and time again for the wealth of information he presents. I really need to make a cash contribution to his good efforts.
But, I disagree about the 18/2.8D, I find its rendering to be unique and pleasing. Not pixel peeper please, but overall rendering pleasing. I also think the 105 DC is significantly better than the 135 DC.
Ken has his own point of view and, disclosed, style of photography. He has a phrase regarding pro gear that he has little use for "You Pros Know Who You Are." He does little of my style of work and rates equipment accordingly.
When I was starting digital photography-11 years ago-his site was a great help. Even now I pay attention when he says a product is great or a dud. I have sent him a lot of money for value received. He has a really wicked and outrageous sense of humor. Look for it otherwise you might just get crazed. He really cracks me up.
The current F1.8 primes are very very nice indeed, with a good performance to price ratio. The 60mm F2.8 AFS micro, 105mm F2.8 AFD micro, 200mm F4 AFD micro and 85mm F2.8 TS micro are superb. This won't be a surprise to most people. Really, the better review sites will give a reasonable idea of which are the mutts nuts, and which are mutts.
The "worst" one I ever owned was the Nikon AF Nikkor 35-70mm f/3.3-4.5 Lens because mine got bumped and locked up at some odd focal length. I couldn't ever get it to focus well anyway. I actually still have it and never bothered to get it repaired, even though the lock-up happened in the first year of ownership.
One lens that often ends up of various "worst" lists that I loved was the 28 F2.8 AF-D lens.
Some of the best photos I ever took content-wise were with that lens and BW film. I suspect people who hated it shot chrome or color film often.
I still have that lens and I won't ever part with it, even though I doesn't really have a use today.
My worst was the 70-300 AF (pre-VR), and now I think it was the D, not the G version. It was my first telephoto lens, acquired as a package deal with the D50, along with a 28-200 Tamron.
Just couldn't get anything sharp out of the 70-300D. The VR version turned out to be significantly sharper, although once I got hold of the 400 5.6 ED AIS, the 70-300 VR did not match the older AIS prime quality either, despite VR and AF. Between the 70-300 VR and the 400 5.6, I also tried out the 150-500 Sigma (first version), and the image quality to weight ratio was just not very positive.
Too many "best" lenses, but there's a few like the 55 1.2 S in the normal range, the 85 1.4 AIS and AF-D, and 105 2.5 (pre-AI, AI etc) in the portrait range, and the 135 f2 AI as a medium telephoto really stand out. Among my somewhat current lenses, the 14-24 2.8 stands out, while the 24-70 2.8 G and 70-200 VR are workhorses but not necessarily the "best".
Worst lens: I owned a couple "budget" AF-D nikkors back in the day with plastic mounts that were horrible!
P.S. Now that I think of it, I need to stop complaining about Nikon lenses with polycarbonate shells as if the materials have gotten worse over the past 20 years as those with plastic mounts were real POS's.
If you mean by that all manual focus micro lenses, the 200mm F4 AIS micro is not so good, it has lots of CA and contrast and resolution are nowhere near the standards set by the more modern micro lenses.
I notice that back in 2008 many insist the 200-400 should be on the best list. Curious if they still feel the same. I seriously disliked the 3 different tries I owned. I'd put it on the worst list, seriously, because the cost verses the poor performance.
