ilkka_nissila Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 Any given article by Rockwell is likely to receive a lot of criticism because the guy writes stuff which is in contradiction with known facts a lot of the time. And because it's irritating that google always locates his pages first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_hooper1 Posted February 18, 2006 Author Share Posted February 18, 2006 I don�t know about �contradiction with known facts�, Ilkka. It�s more like, contradiction with the accepted dogma among a clique of certain closed minded individuals. And, Ken Rockwell has gotten into a lot of hot water by calling his distracters, �Measurebators�. His recent comparison of digital wide angle zooms is quite a respectable effort in my opinion. But some can never admit to that because of an emotional proclivity to dispute anything he says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony_bez Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 Ilkka, I agree with you! But give the guy some credit where it's due. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_hooper1 Posted February 18, 2006 Author Share Posted February 18, 2006 I don't know about "contradiction with known facts", Ilkka. It's more like, contradiction with the accepted dogma among a clique of certain closed minded individuals. And, Ken Rockwell has gotten into a lot of hot water by calling his distracters, "Measurebators". His recent comparison of digital wide angle zooms is quite a respectable effort in my opinion. But some can never admit to that because of an emotional proclivity to dispute anything he says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark pav Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 Ken Rockwell's reviews seem nothing more than clumsy advertising. Lens A, good; lens B, bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johninjapan2000 Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 Anthony: I agree that the test LOOKS good; it is a nice effort. But, it lacks any example photographs and it is rendered in Ken's patented dismissive prose (words to the effect of, "nobody but me could possibly see the difference, therefore there *is* no difference", a typical Ken rant or riff). I know his type. He spent a lot of time in the San Diego area, as did I. There are loads of no-nothing (or not much, just enough to be dangerous) types in SD, people who think they are soooo much more perceptive and discerning than anyone else. A kind of phoniness, perhaps due to the proximity to Hollywood? No, I'm not joking. Anyway, in my opinion, it is this dismissive and elitist quality which sets people off, I think. There are better reviews out there. There are reviews with side-by-side photo examples (can't remember the URL. Google it). There are reviews where the pluses and minuses are weighed in a more mature fashion (Nikonians, for example). Classic Ken: "the Sigma makes a funny noise when it is autofocusing", or words to that effect. This quote all by itself proves the man is a bit of an idiot. What he is saying is that because the sound of *NORMAL* operation of one lens is different than the sound of normal operation of the lens he is accustomed to, then the former lens is somehow bad. IDIOT IDIOT IDIOT. Have I made my point? No...critical...thinking...skills. Plus, dismissive and elitist. 'Nuff said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johninjapan2000 Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 Example photos and measured performance: For those looking at wide angles lenses, here are two website recommendations: 1. photozone.de, good quantitative and intelligent qualitative discussion of lenses. 2. pbase.com/cameraguy21773/sigma_1020_samples, side-by-side comparisons, with examples and discussion (forum) of Sigma and Tamron. Trying to judge a lens' performance by taking a picture of the lens itself (as Ken Rockwell did) is about as intelligent as trying to judge the seaworthiness of a ship by measuring the captain's whiskers. Perhaps less so. Go see what good reviews look like. Please. Thank you. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 FWIW, I'd read photozone's review of these lenses before Ken's review. While they provide lots of impressive looking numbers and charts, I don't think they draw conclusions that are much different from Ken's. To his credit, this is the first review I've seen in which he put some reasonable effort. In fact, he appears to be emulating the review style of dpreview's Phil Askey. There are several sample photos - I guess some folks didn't notice those pages. Let's hope this sets a new standard for Ken's reviews that he'll follow in the future. His views on the Tokina pretty much match my own far more informal observations. I tested the lens only wide open since this is how I'd normally use such a lens. I'd be using it for people photos in tight quarters, not for critical landscape or architectural photos. It's very sharp in the center and soft at the edges and corners, but not unacceptably soft. This performance is uniform from 12mm to 24mm. Contrast is good. Flare resistance was better than Ken's examples show, altho' our testing conditions were different. I also saw less CA than Ken's photos demonstrated which, again, may be due to different testing conditions. I shot from inside a camera shop, being sure to include either bright outdoor light from an open doorway or the overhead lights in the frame. While there was barrel distortion it wasn't nearly as bad as my 18-70DX at 18mm or 24-120 VR at 24mm. Surprisingly well corrected for such a wide zoom. And there was little if any distortion at 24mm. What really surprised me was the absence of any distracting amount of waveform distortion. This is the type of distortion faulted by the photozone.de review. I didn't see any objectionable amount of waveform distortion in the sample I tried. This is a major relief because serious waveform distortion is difficult to correct digitally, while barrel distortion is easily corrected. The lens is as well made as Ken describes. It really feels like a quality lens. And it autofocuses very quickly despite being a screwdriver type. There's very little movement of internal parts and the focus throw from minimum to maximum focus is extremely short. This would be a great action lens, which is what I'd want in an ultrawide. Overall I'd say it's an outstanding alternative to the much more expensive Nikkor, altho' the 12-24/4DX Nikkor is still a very good buy. I'd get the Nikkor only if I wanted the best possible edge and corner sharpness wide open and was concerned about flare. Neither would be a major factor for me considering how I'd use such a lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johninjapan2000 Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 You are right, Lex, I didn't notice the photos. My apologies to Ken and the posters here. This is by far the most impressive effort he has ever made. I look forward to more of the same. I admit I *did* grow tired of his earlier...style. Actually, all of the reviews I have seen pretty much rate all of these lenses as being very close in quality. That's why I went for the widest one (and I don't need full-frame). John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cham_saranasuriya Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 Ken Rockwell is the only guy that can compare and review even without seeing them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 I hope I didn't come across as smug when I pointed out that Ken had indeed shown some test photos. When I first read the review all I saw was the first page and concluded that it was yet another classic Rockwell puff piece. But after spending another hour reading every page I had to admit that he'd done a good job, especially considering that he had to borrow the Tokina, Tamron and Sigma for this comparison test. I doubt that I have enough clout with my local shops to pull that off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johninjapan2000 Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 Lex: No, not at all. I thought you were quite nice about it, considering that there I was with major egg on my face. :-) I finally let Ken get my goat (unintentionally on his part, I'm sure) and what happened? I was totally off base. Just goes to show: it's best to be diplomatic 'cause we might just be WRONG. :-) So, everyone: Ken has pics and a generally very well done review. Make sure you check out his "index", etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 Robert, it doesn't matter what he writes, good or bad, right or wrong, he has written so much stuff which is just plain incorrect (I've got a lot of Nikon equipment, and I find no correlation between quality of a product and Ken's findings). It's like "idle ramblings of a photographer who doens't care whether his statements hold water or not". He just puts out stuff off the top of his mind, so there's no way of telling whether he actually knows what he writes or just makes it up. At least that is my experience with his articles. He for example complained about the autofocus of the 180 mm AF-D with his F100. It turned out his F100 was faulty and was replaced and the new one focuses correctly. But of course he wouldn't update his article on the 180mm. He also wrote a high recommendation of the Epson 4990, saying that it's practically as good as the highly respected Minolta medium formatfilm scanner. I bought one, found that it couldn't do an acceptable 3x enlargement from 6x7 no matter what I did to put the film in position, and got rid of it after its very existence drove me nuts. There is absolutely very little information among the buzz in his articles. His site is like a parody of a reviewer. Now I'm not talking about this particular article, since I have none of these zooms, I can't comment. But in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_hooper1 Posted February 18, 2006 Author Share Posted February 18, 2006 Thank you for the examples. I do see your point, Ilkka, and your criticisms are the first of those I have read which I would consider valid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony_bez Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 On reflection I think Ken might be having a chuckle at his detractors expense. People expected his normal lightweight review. But instead he produces the most in depth review one could imagine. He upped his game but his detractors can not bear to give him his due credit. Can anyone explain why the 17-35 f2.8 performed so badly? Or is it due to Ken's poor testing techniques. I'm amazed how bad it was? Anthony Bez Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebogaerts Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 "He upped his game but his detractors can not bear to give him his due credit." Did he up his game? I guess in this review he did. Still, in general I find it puzzling that even though his 'reviews' leave a lot to be desired, he has somehow (and I would like for someone to explain this to me) gained a lot of noteriety and his website is cited often. Years ago I had some email exchanges with him, and when I pointed out some problems, his seemingly "canned" response for all of them was that I should not take his reviews seriously. Which I don't, and never will again. There *are* people on the web (like Bjorn Rorslett and others) who *do* take their reviews seriously. If I want comedy, or satire, there are lots and lots of outlets for that. If I want equipment reviews, I want that aspect eliminated or kept to a bare minimum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivek iyer Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 <i>If I want comedy, or satire, there are lots and lots of outlets for that.</i> <p> Name one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runkel Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 My favorite:<p> <a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/45.htm">"Performance<p> I have no idea since I've never tried one."</a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gluteal cleft Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 Jennifer, don't get your shorts in a knot over my comment. I even said right in my comment that my argument was silly. I wasn't being serious! steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivek iyer Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 Mathew, I think I agree with Roco's contention, "For making photographs this obsolete Tessar design is worth $70 US. It should be Nikon's least expensive lens." It does not matter if he tested it or not. The 45/2.8 AI-P should be priced below the 50/1.8 AF-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebogaerts Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 Vivek - One I can name off the top of my head is theonion.com :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runkel Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 But, Vivek, the 50/1.8 AF-D is mass-produced in China using a lot of plastic. The 45 was made in Japan (by Cosina, they say), of metal, presumably in small batches, presumably targeted at a narrow segment of buyers. You might as well argue that the Leica 50mm Elmar-M f/2.8 should be priced below the Nikon 50/1.8 AF-D because, after all, it's an "obsolete" tessar-type design too. In fairness, the 50 Elmar is the least expensive Leica M lens, but all the Leica lenses are built to the same standard, so that's at least an apples-to-apples comparison. Anyway, the price issue is beside the point. When someone is willing to "review" things he has never seen, how much stock should we put in any of his reviews? If the guy will write a review of a lens he's never tried, what other corners is he cutting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jd_s Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 Wow! Here I sit as a recent 'returner' to photography. What is the beef with Ken Rockwell?? I spent a significant amount of time researching before taking the plunge with a Nikon D70s. During that phase, I came across his website. He is quite clearly opinionated: so what? He captures, every so often, significantly better than average photos - how many of his detractors here have published work at his level? He writes in a refreshingly honest style, and states quite clearly that his views are his own, and beholden to no one else. At the end of the day, his central thesis is - don't agonise over the kit, 'get out and take photos'. Seems good to me. His site inspired me to get back into a hobby I'd given up some 20 years ago. As a result, tonight I took a number of pictures of the constellation Orion. Do I agree with everything he says? No. Is he refreshingly un-seduced by the marketing hype that tries to make us all spend, spend, spend? Yes. Is his central thesis - it ain't the tool, it's the craftsman - correct? Very probably. Take pictures, enjoy them, but keep an open mind people... He is not the anti-christ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 Don't worry, JD, I doubt that Ken minds the controversy. He seems comfortable with the attention, good or bad. "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." -- Oscar Wilde Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now