Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

NIKONS 10 WORST LENS LIST
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri May 01, 2009 5:46 pm    Post subject: NIKONS 10 WORST LENS LIST Reply with quote
Some of you may have seen this but I thought I would post it anyway.

Nikons 10 worst lens list according to this site.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/10-worst.htm


PostPosted: Fri May 01, 2009 6:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
BINGO!!! Laughing Counting my son's EM, I only have 2 Nikon lenses: the E 50 and the #1 worst Nikon: 43-86mm F!!

I feel fortunate, and have been thinking of buying an FE or earlier just to use this beauty... and yes, I've mounted it on my Pentax and the results weren't HORRIBLE, indoors under subdued lighting.

I didn't go out of my way to get this lens, it came with a Tamron 52bb I got very cheap from goodwill.


PostPosted: Fri May 01, 2009 6:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks for the link - very entertaining.


PostPosted: Fri May 01, 2009 6:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Whenever I read this author, I always have the unpleasing impression that he's writing to show himself off, rather than to talk about the subject.


PostPosted: Fri May 01, 2009 6:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Laughing LOL Laughing
Rockwell's at it again!

Funny but not at all true (just like his usual utterances).

I have used the "Nikon 35-70mm f/3.3-4.5 AF" on a Fuji S2 Pro and it's a darn good lens ... very, very sharp!
I don't care if it was made by Nikon, Cosina or HumptyDumpty as long as it delivers a good performance - and this it does!


PostPosted: Fri May 01, 2009 6:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ken Rockwell is notorious for making quality statements about lenses he has not even tried out. The man is first and foremost a money grubber - he is in that website business to make money. I am not sure how anyone can take a digital photographer seriously who dismisses RAW format in such a cavalier fashion and uses heavily sharpened small jpg's to "prove" his point. He is humbug.


patrickh


PostPosted: Fri May 01, 2009 6:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Rockwell Files Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes

Well if Kenny says it, it must be true.


PostPosted: Fri May 01, 2009 6:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
He is actually plagiarizing several other, much better, reviewers.


patrickh


PostPosted: Fri May 01, 2009 6:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yeah, I know that about Rockwell... he is entertaining... and does this invalidate my BINGO of owning the WORST NIKKOR? Rolling Eyes I hope not... When I get into Nikons, I want to start at the bottom Laughing


PostPosted: Fri May 01, 2009 7:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
A person that uses sharpened JPGs for his tests, instead of RAW, is a charlatan.


PostPosted: Fri May 01, 2009 7:32 pm    Post subject: 10 worst Nikkors Reply with quote
I don't know Mr Rockwell and I certainly bear him no malice, but I find his style of writing irritating and some of what he says debatable, to say the least.

Nobody should be put off buying the 43~86 zoom because of what he says - it was a remarkable lens when it came out and deserves a place in the collection of anyone who's interested in the progress of lens design and performance. The late Herbert Kepler (should that be Keppler?) regarded it as one of the iconic lenses - one whose vices were completely outweighed by its virtues. I had one, and I liked it for what it was.

As for denigrating the 45mm f2.8 because it is a Tessar design, well ... words can only fail one. It's a brave, or foolhardy, person who takes a patronising attitude to Rudolph's creation and its modern incarnations. Maybe Mr Rockwell can tell us which "better" lens lets a Nikon F be little bulkier than an M series Leica.

Perhaps we should offer a collective prayer that the scales fall from his eyes, as well as giving thanks for those who tell the tale better.


PostPosted: Fri May 01, 2009 7:36 pm    Post subject: Re: 10 worst Nikkors Reply with quote
scsambrook wrote:

As for denigrating the 45mm f2.8 because it is a Tessar design, well ... words can only fail one.


Should I send to Mr. Rockwell this link of mine? Wink

http://forum.mflenses.com/tessar-2-8-50-icarextm-on-5dmkii-t16343.html

Laughing

oops... no, wait... mine was from RAW, not JPG Razz


PostPosted: Fri May 01, 2009 8:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:
Laughing LOL Laughing
Rockwell's at it again!

Funny but not at all true (just like his usual utterances).

I have used the "Nikon 35-70mm f/3.3-4.5 AF" on a Fuji S2 Pro and it's a darn good lens ... very, very sharp!
I don't care if it was made by Nikon, Cosina or HumptyDumpty as long as it delivers a good performance - and this it does!


I have the MF 3.5-4.8 version. It's an O.K lens, I wouldnt go out of my way to praise it. I like it well enough to keep it around, although I rarley use it. It really is a cheesy lens though. The build quality is awful, everthing is plastic. I understand that Cosina manufactured this lens for nikon.

It is fairly sharp. I find it to be sharper than my 50mm Rikenon and the color saturation is also better.

I used the 50mm Rikenon to shoot the Nikon



A JPEG shot 35-70 at 70mm @ f/8



PostPosted: Fri May 01, 2009 10:57 pm    Post subject: Re: 10 worst Nikkors Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
scsambrook wrote:

As for denigrating the 45mm f2.8 because it is a Tessar design, well ... words can only fail one.


Should I send to Mr. Rockwell this link of mine? Wink

http://forum.mflenses.com/tessar-2-8-50-icarextm-on-5dmkii-t16343.html

Laughing

oops... no, wait... mine was from RAW, not JPG Razz


Sounds like a plan - go for it !


PostPosted: Fri May 01, 2009 11:38 pm    Post subject: My Hero! Reply with quote
I won't have a word said against Ken (but I'll accept entire paragraphs gladly....)

He mentions in one of his more self important blogs that he charges out at several hundred dollars an hour - and is too busy with all the work that's coming in to do this, that and the other..

So how come he needs our paltry contributions to help support his family?

Inconsistency is the hobgoblin of Ken's mind? lol

Doug.


PostPosted: Sat May 02, 2009 12:58 am    Post subject: Re: 10 worst Nikkors Reply with quote
scsambrook wrote:
As for denigrating the 45mm f2.8 because it is a Tessar design, well ... words can only fail one. It's a brave, or foolhardy, person who takes a patronising attitude to Rudolph's creation and its modern incarnations.


Rockwell's point is that the 2.8/45 P is inferior to the 1.8/50 AFD AND it costs MUCH more.

Far from denigrating the Tessar design he is actually quite complimentary. See for example a fuller description of the 2.8/45 P...

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/45.htm

where he describes the Tessar as "....a great hundred-years-old lens design."

I am in no position to know whether or not Rockwell's views are valid since I have no experience of the 2.8/45 P. Is there anyone here who has compared a 2.8/45 P and one of the 1.8/50s ?


PostPosted: Sat May 02, 2009 2:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Interesting and entertaining. For what Kenrockwell says, I would usually take it with a pinch of salt. It does not really affects my decision on getting any Nikon lenses based on his reviews. Everyone have different feel and preferences on how the photos turns out, I feel its best to test yourself, if you don't like it, dump out on some auction sites ! Very Happy


PostPosted: Sat May 02, 2009 6:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
John
I have both and frankly he is full of horse manure. They are very different lenses in character - as one would expect. They are also very different in build quality - as one would expect. The 45 in its way is at least as good as the 50/1.8, and if you are into architecture, there is no comparison - the 45 is hands down winner. I seriously doubt if Ken actually used both.


patrickh

PS and what does cost have to do with whether a lens is good or not?


PostPosted: Sat May 02, 2009 8:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks for your comments Patrick.


PostPosted: Sat May 02, 2009 9:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Patrick nails it.

I have the older GN version of the 45mm. Slight vignetting wide open, stop it down to f/4 to get rid of it. From f/5.6 to f/11 it produces best results, excellent colors and high in contrast.

Click here for samples in original size


PostPosted: Sat May 02, 2009 9:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
My Rockwell pick is this one:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-killed-my-tripod.htm


PostPosted: Sat May 02, 2009 9:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Very good link, Yalçın! Thanks.

yalcinaydin wrote:
My Rockwell pick is this one:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-killed-my-tripod.htm


Shocked "Tripods are no longer required, and actually often degrade sharpness..." Shocked (Quoted from the linked site!)

Of course people! Throw away your expensive tripods, but make sure to thore them into my direction! Wink Laughing

Last edited by LucisPictor on Sat May 02, 2009 9:43 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat May 02, 2009 9:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:
Vry good link, Yalçın! Thanks.

yalcinaydin wrote:
My Rockwell pick is this one:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-killed-my-tripod.htm


Shocked "Tripods are no longer required, and actually often degrade sharpness..." Shocked (Quoted from the linked site!)

Of course people! Throw away your expensive tripods, but make sure to thore them into my direction! Wink Laughing


Hahaha what a plank!! IS makes little difference in low light IMO. Maybe he was shooting at ISO 128000 or something Laughing


PostPosted: Sat May 02, 2009 10:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Shrek wrote:
LucisPictor wrote:
Vry good link, Yalçın! Thanks.

yalcinaydin wrote:
My Rockwell pick is this one:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-killed-my-tripod.htm


Shocked "Tripods are no longer required, and actually often degrade sharpness..." Shocked (Quoted from the linked site!)

Of course people! Throw away your expensive tripods, but make sure to thore them into my direction! Wink Laughing


Hahaha what a plank!! IS makes little difference in low light IMO. Maybe he was shooting at ISO 128000 or something Laughing


Hmmm... the problem I feel with KR is his attitude, but his attitute is something forced, I mean without it I think he'd have had a lot less visits on his site and less free advertisement for it worlwide.

But he's not a complete ignorant.

For example if you use VR lenses you have not to use a tripod or switch the VR off otherway it wouldn't behave correctly resulting in an unsharp shot.

New digital sensors (especially the full frame ones) have incredible low light possibilities, a lot better than any high ISO film. The 5d MkII blown me out at 3200 ISO with its image quality and limitate noise.
And believe me, having to use a tripod sometimes means no shot at all when freedom and speed of use is everything.

I really don't want to be his defense lawyer, but don't step on the opposite exaggerating side just for the fun to say he's dumb.

Unless you also have a website to advertise.


PostPosted: Sun May 03, 2009 12:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
He does come out with some utter tripe...

"Look at a photo magazine from the 1940s or 1950s: amateurs used 5x7" cameras for shots of their babies, and pros shot 8 x 10!" 4x5" was a small format for slackers."

So, I suppose all those millions of 6x9s, 6x6s, 6x4.5s that were sold from the 1920s onwards were mere figments of the manufacturers' imaginations? Really, that such an ignoramus has a website read by thousands, many of whom will believe the comic utterances of that fool, fills me with something like despair.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2