The NIKON Thread (Talk About Nikon Stuff here)

[AudioNoob]

Originally Posted by Arainach

And Godwin's Law is invoked. The Rockwell bashers have just lost the thread.

Fact of the matter is, Rockwell pisses people off because he doesn't analyze tiny imperceptible technical differences in distortion and falloff - he goes out and shoots. Unless you're out shooting sports or birds, your equipment doesn't matter. And that pisses off the rest of the camera-reviewing world, who care more about equipment than photography. You could make some strong analogies to certain Head-Fi members with a lust for equipment over music.

a) I don't agree, I honestly don't care or talk about equipment, you can make a good image with a point and shoot. but I know their limitations or errors. When you are doing professional enlargements or on the field as a photojournalist, certain things actually count

b) I, as repeated below in a quote, already have told you what I find wrong about him and if you care to look, it wasn't anything about what you've said I would also argue that he isn't a good photographer but that's beside the point

c)why is he bothering to review if he doesn't care?

[bigshot]

Opinions are not all created equal. Some are baseless and others have experience and research to back them up. It's pretty obvious that Ken Rockwell knows what he's talking about. He's a pro and he shares his experience on the internet. That's something to thank him for, not a reason to criticize him.

The people that take shots at Rockwell are usually discussion forum know-it-alls who are speaking entirely from theory, not from practical experience. They get mad because all of their armchair quarterbacking gets blown away by someone who clearly knows his stuff. The criticism I've read about him says more about the person doing the criticizing than it does about Rockwell. People just react to his tone and totally miss the content.

The review of the Tokina lens was brilliant. I don't know any other internet resource that provides info like that as clearly and puts it in better perspective than Ken Rockwell does.

See ya
Steve

[Arainach]

Originally Posted by AudioNoob

a) I don't agree, I honestly don't care or talk about equipment, you can make a good image with a point and shoot. but I know their limitations or errors. When you are doing professional enlargements or on the field as a photojournalist, certain things actually count

Funny that you mention that....

b) I, as repeated below in a quote, already have told you what I find wrong about him and if you care to look, it wasn't anything about what you've said I would also argue that he isn't a good photographer but that's beside the point

Come back when you can take anything nearly as good as these. And those aren't even his best.

c)why is he bothering to review if he doesn't care?

I never said he didn't care. I said he cared about the parts that actually make a difference in real-world performance, not the stupid technical arguments debated by people who only know equipment, not photography.

Keep in mind that he has a degree in Engineering and has worked as an Engineer. He's capable of comprehending the technical points well enough to know what does and doesn't matter.

[Towert7]

Guys and gals, STOP talking about kent rockwell.

I, as well as many others, want this thread to be related to Nikon equipment, not a website owner. Create a new thread to discuss this.

Dam I hate it when people bicker. whiny kids!

[perplex]

Hmmm when will Nikon release a 24 f1.4 and/or 35 f1.4 prime? Like Canon have had for a while now

[GTRacer]

Nikon don't need sissy primes when they have just-as-good zooms such as the 14-24mm f/2.8

[M0T0XGUY]

Hey guys - should I bother with a 17-55 f/2.8 upgrade? I've been taking a photo class recently, wherein I've been able to reevaluate the performance of both my 85 f/1.8 and 18-135 walk-around lenses - and the results are pretty obvious. To put it simply, the former lens is tack sharp and shows no distortions, whereas the 18-135 performs average at best, and mediocre at worst.

The only problem is, sometimes it's simply much more convenient to zoom out a little bit than take a few steps back - regardless of the differences in overall quality. So I'm pretty set now on replacing the kit lens with an upper end standard zoom; but don't know where to look. My dad, of course, likes to take the "don't fool around approach" to any dilemma and is keen on saving up for Nikon's pro-grade 17-55; yet I've read only mixed reviews for this lens, and would rather consider other options than plunk down over a grand for "so-so" quality.

What do you think?

[lan]

Originally Posted by GTRacer

Nikon don't need sissy primes when they have just-as-good zooms such as the 14-24mm f/2.8

It's 2 stop slower, heavy, expensive, and doesn't take filter. Great lens though if you can use it.

[GTRacer]

Yeah, it was all in jest, Nikon does need some fast, wide primes.

M0T0X: Have you considered Tamron's and Sigma's offerings? They're both pretty much equal in terms of IQ to the Nikkor, plus they're much cheaper and lighter. The Tamron seems more recommended, although I have the Sigma (HSM Macro version) and it doesn't have the problems other users were complaining about.

[M0T0XGUY]

Originally Posted by GTRacer

Yeah, it was all in jest, Nikon does need some fast, wide primes.

M0T0X: Have you considered Tamron's and Sigma's offerings? They're both pretty much equal in terms of IQ to the Nikkor, plus they're much cheaper and lighter. The Tamron seems more recommended, although I have the Sigma (HSM Macro version) and it doesn't have the problems other users were complaining about.

I've never really used both, but then again I've never been impressed by their build quality either. I know that when all boils down image quality is the deciding factor between a good lens and a bad lens, but after experiencing the solidity of the semi-pro 85, I think I'd be a little hesitant to "settle" for anything less. I mean, assuming price is taken out of the equation, is the Tamron, Sigma, or Tokina standard zoom really better than Nikon's 17-55?