Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 47 of 47

Thread: Ken Rockwell's recommendation

  1. #41

    Default Re: Ken Rockwell's recommendation

    Well said Daredevil123...

    Have a great day everyone...

  2. #42
    Senior Member Cheesecake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    I live in a haunted house!!!!!
    Posts
    16,385

    Default Re: Ken Rockwell's recommendation

    Quote Originally Posted by s1221ljc View Post
    More power to KR. He's very American in that he speak what's on his mind & what he feels & everyone is free to agree or disagree. I find his writing perhaps a bit brash, in your face, even irreverant , quirky at times as is atypical of some Americans/Texans but I believe he is honest & he just enjoy what he does & share. We can take it or leave it, simple as that. At the least I dont find his writings overly technical, boring or arrogant unlike some comments here which are like they are from a better person or one who knows best.

    I observe some people are quick to dismiss or condemn him but the irony is that these people's recommendations or views dont differ much from his in the end, except the style & approach. What has these people to offer us that is more accurate, interesting or enlightening, other than to just trash someone who cant defend himself here? I feel many people, especially newbies, have benefited from what he posted & the trove of information available on his site through his passion & effort. Of course we dont follow blindly or believe everything he or anyone says, even by the so called gurus here. The final judgement & decision still rest with us. Appears to me many KR haters are those who are too caught up with reviews like they are the gospel truth to be defended, or attacked.

    As to making money what is wrong if it is done upfront & upright? We earn our living in different ways, for most of us its just a non paying hobby, his is, thats all... Just my personal opinion & viewpoint.

    TS, sorry for this OT. Your queries have been well answered by many here so I have nothing to add.
    well, controversy creates cash!

    that works very much in his favour!

    huat ah!
    You'll Never Walk Alone! - i have the best job in the world!

  3. #43

    Default Re: Ken Rockwell's recommendation

    imo most of his reviews/comments are meant to generate traffic and entice you to buy stuff by following the links from his site. The articles that recommend you not to buy stuff are just to distract you from his main motive, and also lead you to another piece of equipment which he claims is better. I'd take all his comments with a huge pinch of salt.

  4. #44

    Default Re: Ken Rockwell's recommendation

    Quote Originally Posted by daredevil123 View Post
    There are only three 35mm lenses currently available from Nikon now.

    35/1.8G - cost around $330, great for DX, sharp contrasty.
    35/2D - cost around $500, FX lens, but not as sharp or contrasty as the 1.8 and max aperture is not as large as 1.8.
    35/1.4G - Cost over $2k. FX lens, very very good but price also reflects that.

    So in the end, for a DX cam like D7000, the 35/1.8 is cheap and good.

    And why 35mm for D7k? because on D7k it gives FOV similar to 56mm lens on a FF cam. This makes it close to a normal lens (view of human eye). And a normal lens is used a lot by photographers from old days till now.

    BTW some of KRW's advice you have to take it with a pinch of salt.
    Thanks everyone for your advice.
    I am aware about the differences between G & D lenses.
    There was a typo about the lenses, I wanted to say 50mm (both has D&G) instead of 35mm, heh.
    Besides KRW's personal differences, I was wondering if there are any specific reasons related to technology or performance.
    From recent posts, I suppose not.

  5. #45

    Default Re: Ken Rockwell's recommendation

    Quote Originally Posted by george671 View Post
    Here is the 17-35 review.. http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/1735.htm .Care to show us where he is wrong??? or "FOS" as you say???? And here is his review of the 14-24...again, care to point out the "s#$%" in it as you put it???.... http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/14-24mm.htm And for the record, He has one of the largest readerships for a "photo/equip" web site on the planet!!! I only wish I could make the internet work as well for me to collect $$$$$...More power to him!

    Cheers
    I have no idea this thread would generate such a controversy about KRW...
    Anyway, I postulate some reasons why he is so highly successful:

    1) He is fairly easy to understand.
    A novice like me enjoys reading his comments and reviews because it is simple to grasp. I have small issues however, with his large fonts (either he is severely myopic or his fan base comprise of septuagenarians...)

    2) He is highly personable.
    He posts pictures of his family and thus we all can relate to his congenial nature (admittedly it can also a fund raising gimmick)

    For the abovementioned reasons and more (He likes the D40, which I use, heh), KRW is one of my first points of reference (besides CS of course! )

  6. #46

    Default Re: Ken Rockwell's recommendation

    Well said daniellcs...I guese if we all agreed on stuff this forum would be pretty boring...

    Cheers

  7. #47
    Moderator daredevil123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    lil red dot
    Posts
    21,627
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Ken Rockwell's recommendation

    Quote Originally Posted by daniellcs View Post
    Something's been puzzling me a little and I hope members can shed some light on this matter.
    Ken Rockwell recommends a D7000 with a 35mm 1.8G AF-S DX.
    http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/recommended-cameras.htm

    Is there a reason why he chooses G lenses for a D7000 although it already has an integrated auto-focus motor?
    Compared for a 35mm 1.8D for example, does a G lens make focusing faster of the image sharper?
    Just asking... Thanks.
    Quote Originally Posted by daniellcs View Post
    Thanks everyone for your advice.
    I am aware about the differences between G & D lenses.
    There was a typo about the lenses, I wanted to say 50mm (both has D&G) instead of 35mm, heh.
    Besides KRW's personal differences, I was wondering if there are any specific reasons related to technology or performance.
    From recent posts, I suppose not.
    Relating your initial post to 50mm,

    The new 1.8G version is sharper than the older 1.8D. And it produces much more pleasing (smoother) bokeh, as well as less CA.
    The older 1.8D can be used as a macro lens by reverse mounting. The new 1.8G cannot. The new 1.8G also cannot work with older film Nikon camera bodies.

    You can see more in this video

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •