Is Ken Rockwell the only lens reviewer?

[JC1306]

Thom copies almost verbatum from people online -- while asking people to buy things directly from him -- without citing his sources makes him intellectually dishonest, a plagiarist

Can you prove any of that? And then I don't mean several reviewers coming to the same conclusion but actually copying someones original work or idea. If you can't, I'll have to file your comment under "L" for "Libel".

What a surprise, apparently you can't (or won't) back up your words. Now who's being dishonest?

Jarno
--
Photos at http://jarno.smugmug.com

 

[nunatak]

The difference is that Thom is more methodical and more artistic, so people give him a break.

the difference is — or just some differences are :

— 1. Thom is around to defend his position, while KR cowers behind his firewall.
— 2. Thom is open and transparent, while KR is closed and opaque.

— 3. Thom does not beg for change at the bottom of every article or review he writes.

— 4. Thom, doesn't have minions drop in a link to his articles and then stand back and watch as people fight.

— 5. Thom is a credible contributor, while KR froths up the community to get hits at his web site.

— 6. Thom is a good writer, whereas KR mocks those foolish enough to read what he writes.

JMO — but if people agree with any of the above points then they might also recognize the real difference is while KR is selfish, Thom often goes the extra mile to genuinely help people with real concerns.

--
the born 2 tell the difference
design guy

 

[bikinchris]

The difference is that Thom is more methodical and more artistic, so people give him a break.

the difference is — or just some differences are :

— 1. Thom is around to defend his position, while KR cowers behind his firewall.
— 2. Thom is open and transparent, while KR is closed and opaque.

— 3. Thom does not beg for change at the bottom of every article or review he writes.

— 4. Thom, doesn't have minions drop in a link to his articles and then stand back and watch as people fight.

— 5. Thom is a credible contributor, while KR froths up the community to get hits at his web site.

— 6. Thom is a good writer, whereas KR mocks those foolish enough to read what he writes.

JMO — but if people agree with any of the above points then they might also recognize the real difference is while KR is selfish, Thom often goes the extra mile to genuinely help people with real concerns.

Thom also gives a portion of his sales to charities, leads classes and photo trips and really knows what he is talking about. That doesn't mean I always agree with Thom, though. But if I have a question about Nikon or photography in general, I know who I WOULDN'T ask.

Thom is not the second coming, but to compare a guy who calls himself a jokester to a seriously knowledgable steady contibutor is irony at its best.

Let ken stand on his own and quit trying to down Thom. That doesn't raise up Ken, it just makes him look worse.

--
the born 2 tell the difference
design guy

--

“I’m not in this world to live up to your expectations and you’re not in this world to live up to mine.”

“Showing off is the fool’s idea of glory.”

Chris, Broussard, LA

 

[bobbyjones]

Let's assume most of you are correct and Ken does review equipment he hasn't used. So how does he differ from the majority of members here. DPR is full of posts praising or condemning equipment that the poster has never used. Most of it is a regurgitation of what another member has posted. I'm far more inclined to believe some of what Ken writes, knowing full well it is his opinion, than I am to believe
what the average member here posts.

 

[Lihkin]

Well said. if someone does not like KR's website or reviews, don't read it. No one is forcing anyone to go to his site. But all this KR bashing is unnecessary. I personally don't check out his website, but if he has stuff up there that people check out, that is his prerogative. ;-)

Cheers,
-------
Nikhil
http://www.lihkin.net

 

[nunatak]

if someone does not like KR's website or reviews, don't read it.

better yet, don't drop KR's turds into a public forum — leaving them for others to trip over. that's a quick way to learn about free speech.

--
the born 2 speak
design guy

 

[tbower]

http://motimotion.at/blog/2010/10/11/quick-realworld-look-new-nikon-af-s-vr-24-1204g-ed/

--
Tom, Ohio USA
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zuikosan/
http://tbower.zenfolio.com/

'One should not LIVE in the past, but one should never FORGET the past'.

'Did you ever get the feeling that the world was a tuxedo and you were a pair of brown shoes?'
---George Gobel, 1969

 

[jadot]

http://motimotion.at/blog/2010/10/11/quick-realworld-look-new-nikon-af-s-vr-24-1204g-ed/

--
Tom, Ohio USA
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zuikosan/
http://tbower.zenfolio.com/

This is a great example of the most useful that an online review needs to be. Real world samples with shot by shot information. From this you should be able to see and judge distortion, contrast, bokeh, and image quality in general.

The thing is, lens reviews are hard to reconcile with simply because lenses are going to be used in so many different ways by different photographers. Any reviews by the likes of Ken Rockwell or even Thom Hogan can only come down to personal opinion.

For example: I love Kenneth's idea that I can throw away all of my lenses and just carry one body with the 28-300 planted on there and away I go, but it just doesn't work for me. I generally carry a two body/3 lens kit, and the lenses are all 2.8 or faster. I can't shoot the way I do with a maximum 5.6 aperture on the long end, so the 28-300 is out for me.

My point is that I'm a wedding photographer, and to shoot the way I want to I shoot I use fast lenses. If I were to review the 28-300 I'd probably conclude that it has a great range, but isn't fast enough. Therefore, not actually the second coming kit bag liberator. It's my opinion.

Ken's review is his opinion. Any review is the reviewer's opinion based on what is gonna work for him or her. It does appear that ByThom might have a grasp on the fact that there are different kinds of users out there where Rockwell will just assume that doing it his way is the way to salvation, but either way, these reviews shouldn't really mean anything to the person who's considering buying the lens.

There is a chance that catching up with these infamous reviewer's is actually just a comforting confirmation of what the reader wants to hear. Want to justify blowing next years holiday savings on a 'Pro' Lens? Drop in to Ken's. Want to marvel at your efficient and performance adjusted kit bag, and know that you made the right choice for that Safari trip you keep planning? Swing ByThom's - and Nikon market strategies be dammed!

Perhaps the most reliable way to review a lens would be to hire one and take it out for the weekend and shoot what you like to shoot. Better still, get a client to pay for the hire. If it saves you, helps you, enables you to shoot like never before, then you can say "Yes! I'm going to buy one of these lenses" If it doesn't improve your current set up, or isn't necessary then you can save a lot of money and keep on shooting the way you like shooting.

In the mean time who gives a rat's tail what any of these reviewers have to say when it comes to lenses? It's all subjective, and generally of no use to the reader.

Here's a couple of things I'd like to say about the 50mm1.8:

I love this lens, it's cheap and fast (enough) and pretty sharp most of the time. I wish it could see a bit better in the dark, and was always in focus no matter where I pointed it all of the time, but it's generally pretty good. If you are in exactly the same situations as me and shoot in the same way as I do with the same cameras, it will probably work pretty much the same. You should buy one.

--
examples of my photography at http://www.alexanderleaman.co.uk

 

[SiPat]

What can I say? I've used some of his recommendations and haven't done badly out of them.

BUT... I got the last version of the 24-120mm VR lens as part of a D700 kit, and based on both Ken Rockwell's and Thom Hogan's assessment that the lens was an absolute dog, I nearly got rid of it without even taking it out of its box.

Also based on both KR & TH recommendation, I acquired the 24-85mm AF-S lens (new lens, old stock, with 2-yr Nikon warrantee).

Tested both lenses and guess what? My copy of the 24-120mm out-performs the 24-85mm hands down.

BTW, KR doesn't purchase every Nikon lens ever produced, but he does get to use a lot of lenses sent in by various people. The best thing about his info is the tables for correcting distortions in Photoshop, which he claims are from first-hand experience. Using his tables you can enter values in PS without having to do your own experimentation.

Call me mad or stupid, but I have purchased KR's guides to D40, D90 and D700 for my iPhone -- so useful if like me, you don't carry heavy books & manuals with you all the time.

 

[antoineb]

Photozone do much more serious reviews than Ken's - and they don't have such high economic interests in new lens sales!

Unfortunately, due to their lesser clout with manufacturers and retailers, and the much lesser financial means of the site's owner, they tend to NOT get the lenses early on, and they mostly only rely on lenses lent by photographers for their reviews.

 

[Bryan Decker]

Here's my links I have in my favorites file (I do enjoy an occasional Rockwell review - sort of like reading the Onion after the NYT):

http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html#rating
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/
http://www.imagepower.de/equipm.htm
http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm
http://www.maxwell.com.au/products/nikon/nikkor/index.html
http://home.zonnet.nl/famwakker/nikonlinkslenseswelcome01.htm
http://www.nikonlinks.com/equipment_lenses_general.htm
http://www.photographyreview.com/defaultcrx.aspx
http://www.photozone.de/bindex2.html
http://www.digital-images.net/Lenses/lenses.html

--
Bryan

 

[tbower]

I sincerely hope DPreview does a workup on the new 24-120f/4 also, and soon because I'm looking seriously at this lens. I might, I said MIGHT consider selling off my 24-70f/2.8 to help finance the purchase...but the lens would have to be very good, especially to give up a full stop wise open.

--
Tom, Ohio USA
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zuikosan/
http://tbower.zenfolio.com/

'One should not LIVE in the past, but one should never FORGET the past'.

'Did you ever get the feeling that the world was a tuxedo and you were a pair of brown shoes?'
---George Gobel, 1969

 

[Claus P]

best regards
Claus

 

[Grevture]

Well, Thom hasn't reviewed the 24-120 or 28-300 (yet), as he?

Probably because he, unlike some other reviewers (do I need to mention a name?), actually prefer to test them before he writes a review about them ...

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every moment of it!

By the way, film is not dead.
It just smell funny

 

[RBFresno]

Hi!

Some quotes from KR's site and a few comments

"Donate"

"Donate"? I don't see this on most other review sites

Caveat Lector! (reader beware!)

Res Ipsa loquitur ("The thing speaks for itself")

I do this site for fun. It is my personal website. I do this site all by myself. This site is provided only for the entertainment of our kids and our dogs.

Oh really?
The site is "only for the entertainment of our kids and our dogs".?

While most of us realize that this is a joke, many of the users of the site never see this, or worse, believe it/

And, despite what Ken says, the site is not "only" for that purpose. Ken was up in arms about legislation that would cut off his cash flow. Scroll down to 24 February 2010, Wednesday:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/2010-02.htm

I've never promoted this site. If you're reading this, you got here on your own.

Either by accident or design (you decide), KR is among the elite in directing web traffic to his site.

I've never advertised this site. Search engines often find find this site because much of the information I provide is more relevant than many other sites, but it's all pulled out of thin air from my own imagination.

One advantage of getting "reviews" out fast and in "proper format" is that search engines snatch up the site preferentially.

Please don't believe anything you read anywhere on this website. Although most of the technical information is probably true most of the time, the rest is all pretend. I love to fool around, pretend, and make things up.

Res Ipsa loquitur ("The thing speaks for itself")

I'm just one guy with a computer who likes to take pictures. I have the playful, immature and creative, trouble-making mind of a seven-year-old, so read accordingly.

Having a real job back in the day was so much less work than this.

Yes. But, Ken didn't have the turbo Porsche working his other job (nice to know where some of the $5 donations that KR asks for to "provide for his family" go):
http://www.kenrockwell.com/porsche/cayenne-turbo-s/index.htm

While often inspired by actual products and events, just like any other good news organization, I love to stretch the truth if it makes an article more fun. In the case of new products, rumors and just plain silly stuff, it's all pretend. If you lack a good BS detector or sense of humor, please treat this entire site as a work of fiction.

This disclaimer would be more credible if were on every page of KR's website, as opposed to one page among "thousands".

Read this site at your own risk. I make a lot of mistakes. I have no proof-reader and there are plenty of pages, like this one, which have been around since the 1990s and may no longer apply or be correct. I'm just one guy. No matter how stupid something may be, if I don't catch it, it gets out there anyway and stays wrong for years until someone points it out. I can't track everything; I've written thousand of pages and write a few more every day.

If you find anything out of whack, please let me know, since there are a lot more of you than there are of me.

We let him know all the time. Has anyone seen KR ever change a wrong opinion?

If KR was half the photographer that he is a businessman, his works would be hanging in museums, gracing the covers of prestigious magazines, and winning Pulitzers.

RB

http://www.pbase.com/rbfresno/profile

 

[edwardaneal]

Bjorn Rorslett is a very good source of information. He has stopped doing his formal reviews, but he still posts his findings in threads on Nikongear.com.

you can find what he thinks about these newer lenses in these threads:

http://nikongear.com/smf/index.php?topic=28962.0

http://nikongear.com/smf/index.php?topic=29127.0

http://nikongear.com/smf/index.php?topic=27876.0

http://nikongear.com/smf/index.php?topic=24462.0

--
My kit - D200, 10.5mm f/2.8D, 35mm f/1.8G, 50mm f/1.4G & 70-300VR
Wifes kit – D80, 18-105VR
SB800, SB600 and other misc lighting equipment

Lenses worth mentioning owned and sold– 12-24 f/4, 17-55 f/2.8, 35-70 f/2.8, 80-200 f/2.8, 20mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4D, 60mm f/2.8D, 85mm f/1.8, 105mm f/2D-DC, 180mm f/2.8, 300mm f/4D-ED

 

[GlobalGuyUSA]

"What a surprise, apparently you can't (or won't) back up your words. Now who's being dishonest?
Jarno"

Are you his lawyer -- or his wife? haha Let it up. People were making huge blanket attacks against Ken. I brought it to Thom based on another user's comment about who is "qualified". In my opinion Thom copies half the stuff he writes, thinks he is god in the world of nikon and otherwise has irrationally religious followers ON THIS SITE cough cough Jarno COUGH who accuse other members of libel just for mentioning his name in a non-loving way.

Sorry, but Thom is a load of steaming.. hot air.

And if someone can say that about Ken without you jumping down their throats, they should be able to say it about the plagarist named Thom, who for some time should have just renamed his webite "ByNikonRumors.com". He constantly presents FACTS about what he "knows" is coming out in the Nikon lineup -- the day AFTER the rumors sites post about them. Then he NEVER gives his RUMORSITE sources for his information.

He words everything like a complete egotist. Ken is -- in fact -- an EGOIST -- but Thom is an EGOTIST. And the "T" makes all the difference. And THANK YOU to Paulo for pointing out the fact about Ken's site. Ken's site is just one guy's hobby. The bashers shouldn't apply. Thom, by contrast, runs a business, actively pursuing his status. Jumping from photo site to photo site guarding it. And so I have a right to be far harsher on him than on Ken. If Thom is the competitive nerd cheating off his neighbors papers to try to get ahead to get on a review board at Harvard, Ken is a pothead at a liberal west-coast university. I wouldn't trust what either of them has to say. Thom can be 100% replaced by these guys, who actually deserve attention:

http://mansurovs.com/product-reviews

But Ken is just another character. Like reading a comic book. And he doesn't ask for it to be any other way. If a comic book touches on philosophy you should be merrily amused, folks! You shouldn't criticize a comic book for not being an infinitely philosophical tome. While they simultanously bash Ken, some guys here make Thom into the Steve Jobs and his advice their apples. Meanwhile Thom deserve none of that kind of status. (And even Steve is a bit thiefy himself, ha.) The fact that Thom constantly gets compared to Ken should just prove how Thom fails.

Point 1.) Ken's site isn't meant to be serious -- so its AMAZING for what it is.

Point 2.) Thom's site IS meant to be amazing -- and it SUCKS, hes an egoTist and robs the thought content of other more notable sites and camera thinkers,

Point 3.) These guys really deserve your praise: http://mansurovs.com/ Love what they are doing, hope they keep it up.

--

Sincerely,

GlobalGuyUSA

 

[GlobalGuyUSA]

You know what. I might be wrong about Thom. Maybe I just feel as strongly about him as some do about Ken. If I'm biased, then I surrender the points against Thom and apologize.

But I'm still pretty sick about Ken always being attacked. I still think that what Ken has done is a good work for the non-pro. And I still think that Thom is poor reference. But I don't want to become like the people who attack Ken. I've already gone too far. So I apologize to all and Thom for that.

I wonder if anyone who attacks Ken could think in a similar way. Anyway, I'm wondering why I even care. Ken doesn't really WOW me or anything. And sometimes I wonder what the hell he does on his site until I realize its just his site and what I am demanding has no relevance there. Maybe I care because Ken helped me get really interested in photography by his sharing his enthusiasm even when he readily admitted his art only looked good to him. It was encouraging also that I didn't need a degree in Astrophysics to basically understand what lens would do pretty well for me starting in photography.

I don't care what people think about Ken or Thom. I'm just sickened that Ken is bashed all the time, when he's just a regular guy like any of us here -- with his own quirks (again, just like any of us here). Meanwhile Thom is handled like a god. I don't get it! So I tried to turn the table.

But nothing personal against anyone who likes Thom or against Thom. I just don't see the wow factor with him. And I don't see how they can tear about Ken while simultaneously praising a very comparable character. Again, Thom and Ken are compared time and time again for a reason. They are in the same class of quality site. Sorry to Thom for that fact. Its just their styles are different. Ken offers much more at far less exacting standards with deliberate misinformation for his own humor. Thom offers far less with higher standards yet while taking far too much credit for his place in life.

Nice try, both of them.

Thanks to both of them for being free, because if I think about it.. if either were to compress their sites into a DECENTLY edited book... it would be worth buying. Ken's would be Part I (the one you flip through in your new excitement of your new hobby), Thoms might be Part II (the one you fall asleep to in the boring details of your aging hobby). You don't buy a third book from these two. haha
--

Sincerely,

GlobalGuyUSA

 

[PJ2x]

In our french side, we have Jean Marie Sepulchre with his web site:
http://www.pictchallenge-archives.net/

and with his lens's test in Le Monde de la Photo:

http://www.lemondedelaphoto.com/Prise-en-main-et-formule-optique,5170.html

Enjoy, schedule are universal.
)
A+

 

[cmo56]

I agree with what you said about Ken and Thom.
They have a very different approach and thus have a very different public.

The photo gear fanatic likes pixel level comparison and loves seeing "scientific comparisons", brickwall photos and feature by feature comparisons. Quantitative comparisons versus qualitative ones. To say 3 is more than 2 is safer, who can argue that.

On the other hand to say I like A better than B, or A is more practical or confortable than B is much more difficult. It requires real life experience and much more knowledge.

I really like KR due to his approach to the public who really enjoys photography. He is concerned about balancing real features that are useful on the field. He talks about carrying less equipment, price, usability, availability with your needs on the field. That is what interests me.

KR uses a tongue-in-the-cheek language too much often but on the other side, he is sincere and shows a deep knowledge and experience on real life situations.

Thom's site looks a compilation of a die-hard internet photo user that has never done serious photography in his life. I actually gave up visiting his site many years ago.

--
Clovis