Wide-Angle Lens for Nikon?

Denny, I appreciate that this can happen, and that anyone in the public eye is open to nit picking. We all make mistakes (especially me). I'm absolutely a pedant and will point out things that are incorrect, but I don't intend minor errors to be held against people; I hope others do the same to me. Some experts have a higher signal-to-noise ratio than others, and some just have different ways of doing things (I tried the McNally grip, and it gave me a stiff neck...) etc.

I realise this thread has gone way off-topic, but there are fair criticisms and unfair ones. I absolutely don't criticise Ken for choosing to make his images hyper-saturated, for his choice in workflow, or how and what he chooses to shoot. There are more than personal preferences involved - it's a known thing that there are regional differences in image preferences, for example, and I believe that it's generally considered the Asian market responds better to a camera set to produce vivid colours than the European market. I won't criticise Ken for preferring one camera over another (we all do that). I'll even put the patent disclosure thing down to a misunderstanding or lapse in judgement, especially if others report well on his character.

Where I object, it's because he has presented as fact, from a position of authority, both highly questionable opinions and factually dubious technical reports. If you say "I don't find the need to use tripods any more because dSLRs are so good at higher ISOs", that's a factual statement which allows for others to have different opinions. If you say "nobody needs to use tripods any more", that's a very different thing - you should have awareness that there are other opinions in the world than your own, and that some of your readers won't be able to appreciate that distinction. If you say "this lens is amazingly sharp" that's an opinions with limited context, but tends to get interpreted relative to other things you've said, whether or not you've actually taken any shots with the lens in question. If you say "I tried it on a D100 and didn't see any problems at that sensor resolution", that is a statement you can compare to other reviews, although not as effectively as a more technical test. If you make sweeping statements about other countries, even if you're trying to be tongue in cheek about it, that can just plain be offensive; it's possible to be proud of your homeland without resorting to this. And if you must be ironically jingoistic, be better

I hope everybody understands...when i write the word "You"...it is in the generic sense. I am not referring to any one individual. It is just a generalization.

Jared Polan is another one of these examples. Lots of viewers and Lots of people criticizing him.

To be honest, i think i take WAY MORE exception with the people that follow "Ken Rockwell" than the guy himself.

Example.........I was selling a bunch of Canon and Nikon lens on Craigslist for Super cheap. All were in Excellent condition. 5-6-7 lens for 150 Dollars.....You know the kind 80-200 zoom at f/5.6......lens that have little MONETARY Value. 30-70 zooms that hardly fetch 20 bux.

You would not believe the number of people that backed out from buying these, just because "Ken Rockwell" said XYZ is a lousy lens. I used all of them, they are "fine". Nobody.....including YOU Mr. Craigslist Guy.....is a Pulitzer winning photographer. Just buy the F'ing things. They are too cheap to even worry about the....dare i say the word without getting vomiting sick...Sharpness.!

If you say "this lens is amazingly sharp" that's an opinions with limited context

Denny: A case in point - I'm researching a future lens purchase. I'm considering the Nikkor 24-120mm/4. Ken gives the following review regarding sharpness:

"... the Nikon 24-120/4 is quite sharp. It's a bit softer on the sides and corners at f/4, but so what: it's still quite good, and in the conditions under which you'd be shooting at f/4, it's unlikely you'd have anything in focus in the corners as well as in the center at the same time. It is as sharp as the 28-300 VR. When Nikon makes a great lens it's easy to review: it's sharp."

He also includes Nikon's MTF curves, but does not include exemplar images. Ken's review is only really meaningful if one can read MTF curves and apply them to real-world outcomes (which I cannot, but I bet Andrew can!). Ken does include subjective comparisons to various alternative lenses, but, again, those are only useful if one has experience with those other lenses. His statement at the end of the quote is the most prejudicial, as it creates a blanket assessment that seems at odds with the rest of the data presented. This has a very high potential to be confusing to the inexperienced. At the end of the day there are very few lens or body purchases I make without first consulting Ken's site, but I always do so in concert with advice from a lot of other sources, including people I trust here.

Um. However much I can justify it on factual grounds, I realised that I've resorted to providing an unwanted criticism of a third party, and in the beginner forum no less, where we're really supposed to be even more friendly than usual. I normally try not to do that; apologies for lowering the tone. And whatever my concerns, Ken does offer a useful service in sharing good information, no matter what else he shares.

Denny: I was making a general defence of the position rather than thinking you were picking on me personally - but I probably should have moderated even that, given the forum. And yes, anyone getting snobbish about a piece of equipment based on one person's opinion is asking for trouble. And yes, you get what you pay for, and sharpness is a tiny factor that contributes to image quality - I've recently bought a Mitakon 4-4.5x macro and a 58mm Petzval, and I wouldn't use "optically perfect" about either. But they do interesting things, at an acceptable price point. Besides, there's no such thing as a perfect lens, at any price! There are bargains out there (to a point), but there's a reason some of us have spent so much on glass as well. For a while, I held onto the position that I shouldn't buy any lens between £600 and £1500 - below that the lenses were cheap but not optimistic about what they could do, so they tended to work within their limits and be forgivable for the expenditure, and above that range a lot of money had been thrown at making the lens work properly, but in the middle you get lenses trying to do a lot, but still built to a budget. That generalisation is a bit broad, but for the price you're quoting, pretty much anything would be reasonable, and useful to the right person. To the wrong person, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

David: I can read MTF curves, but they're not as meaningful as one might hope. (Also, the 200 f/2's MTF curves don't look that good compared with how well the lens behaves.) This doesn't stop me drooling over the curves of the big supertelephotos. I, too, look to see what Ken has to say about lenses (and bodies) I'm going to buy in case he catches something that others haven't (and he does sometimes have images), but I certainly check other places as well. He's quite good at replicating the technical specs, if you're after them - Nikon tend to redesign their layout to make things inconsistent, periodically. Unfortunately the good reviewers tend to be backed up in reviewing the latest lenses, so Ken and others with somewhat limited reviews tend to get there first, but you have to work with what's available. Or ask in a reputable forum full of people who aren't selling you anything but who get their kicks from reading reviews. :-)