Latest Thread Images

The NIKON Thread (Talk About Nikon Stuff here)
Dec 21, 2008 at 6:59 PM Post #2,853 of 5,895
Quote:

Originally Posted by meat01 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Ken Rockwell?


Yes, that's him. Though I do agree with some of his reviews, he might have gotten his hands on one of the "bad" samples of that 18-105mm VR kit lens. Other samples of that lens are "excellent" for the price that it costs.
 
Dec 22, 2008 at 10:51 AM Post #2,854 of 5,895
Oh Ken Rockwell. Guy has a family to feed you know. Gotta keep the revenue stream going and obey what advertisers told him to do so.

By the way I just ordered a Panasonic LX3 - looks like I am not strong enough to resist a good camera that is not made from marketing crap. Hopefully it will be here before New Year. Anyone would like a review?
 
Dec 22, 2008 at 7:31 PM Post #2,855 of 5,895
Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Oh Ken Rockwell. Guy has a family to feed you know. Gotta keep the revenue stream going and obey what advertisers told him to do so.


That makes sense.

By the way, I also read his "review" of the new AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G lens. He said that it is only an evolutionary improvement overall over the previous (and stll-available) AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D despite its newer optical design (slightly sharper than the older lens at larger apertures, a bit more distortion than the older models). Still, the AF-S is the one lens to consider (outside of the two f/1.4 offerings from Sigma) if you want an f/1.4 lens which can autofocus on a D40, D40x or D60. (Be advised, however, that the consumer Nikon SLR bodies might not achieve accurate autofocus with such large-aperture lenses; their autofocus systems are optimized for apertures between f/2.8 and f/5.6.)
 
Dec 24, 2008 at 12:07 AM Post #2,857 of 5,895
Ken Rockwell doesn't say that the 18-105 is a bad lens. He says that it's overpriced compared to other lenses in the Nikon line. He points out that the 18-55 VR has slightly better sharpness at less than 1/3 the price, and if you need a little more long end that that, it's worth paying a little more and getting the either the 18-200 VR or the 16-85 VR. I'd say that's pretty practical advice.
 
Dec 24, 2008 at 12:41 AM Post #2,858 of 5,895
I think his infatuation with the 18-55 VR is what throws me off - I've used the non-VR version which he's also spoken of highly and found it to be soft and annoyingly slow to focus. It has good colour reproduction and is more than worth the very cheap price, but I think the 16-85 has much better sharpness and less distortion, while the 18-200 has more general utility while retaining good colour and image (except for distortion, but what can you expect for an 11x zoom!), and anyone with the prosumer's itch will want to grab either of those two.

Perhaps if you always shoot in JPEG with ungodly amounts of saturation then the 18-55 is fine... I'll stick with my 17-55, please and thank you!

Also - you've got love how KR makes "reviews" without having ever tried a lens (something he even cops to in the reviews). His site is useful to get some quick specs about lenses, but I don't trust it too much beyond that, myself.
 
Dec 24, 2008 at 1:23 AM Post #2,859 of 5,895
Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok /img/forum/go_quote.gif
For some reason my 30 bucks Helios has very similar bokeh as the new Nikon 50mm 1.4 AFS


Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
biggrin.gif
 
Dec 24, 2008 at 1:32 AM Post #2,860 of 5,895
Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok /img/forum/go_quote.gif
For some reason my 30 bucks Helios has very similar bokeh as the new Nikon 50mm 1.4 AFS


How is the new AF-S version? I've got one of the older AF-Ds... it's OK...
 
Dec 24, 2008 at 6:20 AM Post #2,861 of 5,895
Quote:

Originally Posted by lan /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
biggrin.gif



Actually, after looking at it properly, it's quite different and I think (yes, flame me, go on...) the 30 bucks Helios has much better bokeh than 50mm 1.4 AFS.

By the way, I don't own 50mm 1.4 AFS but just by looking at the bokeh samples posted by owners.
 
Dec 25, 2008 at 8:16 AM Post #2,862 of 5,895
Quote:

Originally Posted by oogabooga /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I think his infatuation with the 18-55 VR is what throws me off - I've used the non-VR version which he's also spoken of highly and found it to be soft and annoyingly slow to focus.


I own one myself, and I don't find either of those things to apply to that lens. It's lightweight plastic, but optically, it's as good as any Nikon lens, with the single exception of speed. Rockwell is right on this one.
 
Dec 25, 2008 at 8:22 AM Post #2,863 of 5,895
"Here we go again"
:sigh:
 
Dec 25, 2008 at 8:45 AM Post #2,864 of 5,895
Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I own one myself, and I don't find either of those things to apply to that lens. It's lightweight plastic, but optically, it's as good as any Nikon lens, with the single exception of speed. Rockwell is right on this one.


bigshot, which body are you using? I'll admit I found the 18-55 sharp enough when I was using a 6MP D40, and I have 5x7 prints I made from it that look great. However, I find it soft compared to the 17-55 when I'm looking at 100% crops on my D300. I tend to play with my photos and crop heavily nowadays, so I need all the sharpness I can get.

I do have to strongly disagree that it's as good optically as any Nikon lens though! Setting aside primes and the exotic 200-400, the 14-24 and 17-35 blow both our lenses out of the water.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top