Does He Speak With Forked Tongue - One Example

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?

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.

measekite wrote:
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.

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.


Is there anybody out their that provides really accurate and
CONSISTENT information?

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

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 wrote:
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.

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 wrote:
measekite wrote:
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.

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.

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.

Is there anybody out their that provides really accurate and
CONSISTENT information?

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.

I've never found any reason to fault photozone.de, and they've tested
a very wide range of lenses.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"David J Taylor"
wrote in message om...
bowzer wrote:
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.

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?

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.

dj_nme wrote in news:4966cbd9$0$28495$5a62ac22@per-
qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:

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".

He said he avoids "off brand lenses" which pretty much means all of them,
unless he wanted to be sensible and be specific, which he didn't.

Scott W wrote:
On Jan 9, 4:42?am, "David J Taylor" -
this-bit.nor-this.co.uk wrote:
bowzer wrote:
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.

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?

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

Shooting raw is the wide and boggy track :-)

--
Chris Malcolm

bowzer wrote:

"David J Taylor"
wrote in message om...
bowzer wrote:
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.

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?

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.

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