11-16-2016, 08:30 AM
On the 14-42mm, I can remember all too clearly having to use non-exchangeable lenses, both "all-in-one" cameras, and point and shoot zooms that included zooming with a W-T. The worst of the breed would have its snout slowly, and noisily protrude when the camera was switched on. In the case of point and shoots this is how the cameras would typically die. The lens starts unfolding when a speck of dust in the camera would lock it up, then like a scared turtle it would withdraw its head, never to expose it again. It sounds like nothing has been learned from the past.
Try untangling, "We must honestly admit that, for a „kit†lens you deal here with a very solid construction which build quality would be hard to blame. Is it your habit to blame build quality for very solid construction? Is solid construction blameworthy? And why do people insist that we must heap blame on kit lenses. Everybody knows that the EF 18-55mm is a damn good lens. I laugh at people who trash it. I have three different versions and if you can't do good work with those lenses find another hobby!
I love Ken Rockwell reviews! You could probably get from my above rant that we are kindred spirits. He does use superlatives to an extraordinary extent. But if you read him enough, you actually get the benefit of his extensive knowledge. I admit It can annoy when he calls MFT a junk format, or he claims that sharpness is not important, and then tells you how come it makes sense to spend $11,000 on a Leica lens. Or if you want to cut corners get a Zeiss Otus for $4,000! Remember when everyone including Ken was laughing at Sigma's 200-500mm f/2.8? A lens that is big, green colored, and weighs 35 pounds. But then Ken kind of hands it to Sigma, saying that in the day, if someone was going to make a lens that had no real point other than showing off talent, it would have been Nikon, not Sigma. Yes, Ken the old champion of Nikon now at best refers to them as the redheaded stepchild of Canon. Has heaped praise on Sigma and pointed to outdated Canon designs that the the new Sigma and Tamron primes are walking all over. Ken also shares a soft spot for good quality lenses that are ergonomic and not over spec'd. EF 50/1.8 mk I, especially (the one I use) EF 85 f/1.8, EF 100/2.0, ect.
Much the same way I like "The Digital Picture" with Bryan Carnathan. Like most professionals Bryan has been seduced by the zoom. It makes sense. You have versatility. You don't miss shots I don't doubt Bryan likes EF 16-35, EF 24-70, EF 70-200, EF 70-300, EF 100-400 II. But you have to see he is in love with the white primes. Bryan spent like $8,000 to buy the discontinued EF 200/1.8. He did so right before they released the superior EF 200/2.0. I like a guy who chases the holy grail!
Reviewer Bob Atkins has been know to say at the end of a review: "I think I'll keep this one." There is your lens test! He does know tech stuff. But a statement like that, if you respect the guy, and are considering the lens is what I like to see. Bob tries to explain things like how you can simply and easily calculate the actual focal length of a macro lens at 1:1. Also, how to simply calculate the diopter value of a close-up lens. Sadly, they weren't simple enough for me. But I appreciate the effort!
Klaus, Ken, Bryan, and Bob have all made extraordinary observations. So they can interpret test results in context. But sorry if you have to understand what they are saying
Dxo sort of cracks me up, personally. I think the OP will use this site as prove that tests and reviews mean nothing. While it is fun to rate all lenses from best to worst, lets face it. It's nonsense. It is fun to look for hidden gems by going down the list. Also, I feel like I won when one of my lenses is highly rated. It's a guilty pleasure!
DPReview strikes me as the worst, perhaps. Why? Because they provide all the specs, but seem completely incapable of telling the difference between a good photo and a bad one. Still, where do I go for the specs? DPReview of course! The forum members love to go on the attack. What gives? If someone wants to prove they know more than I do, they can't know that much.
Luminous Landscape? Could somebody please inform them that a 2 or 3 inch figurine does not qualify as a macro!!! Still, they know their nature and landscape stuff. Also processing and printing. They produce a product beyond just producing an image.
I have lots more opinions on lots more sites. LOL - But I would be the last person I'd advise anyone to listen to. It's just a hobby for me. And by the time I finally get good results with little effort, I won't need any advice! The fact is, I like a lot of the reviewers, the ones that really want to help you get the most of what you want to do.
Try untangling, "We must honestly admit that, for a „kit†lens you deal here with a very solid construction which build quality would be hard to blame. Is it your habit to blame build quality for very solid construction? Is solid construction blameworthy? And why do people insist that we must heap blame on kit lenses. Everybody knows that the EF 18-55mm is a damn good lens. I laugh at people who trash it. I have three different versions and if you can't do good work with those lenses find another hobby!
I love Ken Rockwell reviews! You could probably get from my above rant that we are kindred spirits. He does use superlatives to an extraordinary extent. But if you read him enough, you actually get the benefit of his extensive knowledge. I admit It can annoy when he calls MFT a junk format, or he claims that sharpness is not important, and then tells you how come it makes sense to spend $11,000 on a Leica lens. Or if you want to cut corners get a Zeiss Otus for $4,000! Remember when everyone including Ken was laughing at Sigma's 200-500mm f/2.8? A lens that is big, green colored, and weighs 35 pounds. But then Ken kind of hands it to Sigma, saying that in the day, if someone was going to make a lens that had no real point other than showing off talent, it would have been Nikon, not Sigma. Yes, Ken the old champion of Nikon now at best refers to them as the redheaded stepchild of Canon. Has heaped praise on Sigma and pointed to outdated Canon designs that the the new Sigma and Tamron primes are walking all over. Ken also shares a soft spot for good quality lenses that are ergonomic and not over spec'd. EF 50/1.8 mk I, especially (the one I use) EF 85 f/1.8, EF 100/2.0, ect.
Much the same way I like "The Digital Picture" with Bryan Carnathan. Like most professionals Bryan has been seduced by the zoom. It makes sense. You have versatility. You don't miss shots I don't doubt Bryan likes EF 16-35, EF 24-70, EF 70-200, EF 70-300, EF 100-400 II. But you have to see he is in love with the white primes. Bryan spent like $8,000 to buy the discontinued EF 200/1.8. He did so right before they released the superior EF 200/2.0. I like a guy who chases the holy grail!
Reviewer Bob Atkins has been know to say at the end of a review: "I think I'll keep this one." There is your lens test! He does know tech stuff. But a statement like that, if you respect the guy, and are considering the lens is what I like to see. Bob tries to explain things like how you can simply and easily calculate the actual focal length of a macro lens at 1:1. Also, how to simply calculate the diopter value of a close-up lens. Sadly, they weren't simple enough for me. But I appreciate the effort!
Klaus, Ken, Bryan, and Bob have all made extraordinary observations. So they can interpret test results in context. But sorry if you have to understand what they are saying
Dxo sort of cracks me up, personally. I think the OP will use this site as prove that tests and reviews mean nothing. While it is fun to rate all lenses from best to worst, lets face it. It's nonsense. It is fun to look for hidden gems by going down the list. Also, I feel like I won when one of my lenses is highly rated. It's a guilty pleasure!
DPReview strikes me as the worst, perhaps. Why? Because they provide all the specs, but seem completely incapable of telling the difference between a good photo and a bad one. Still, where do I go for the specs? DPReview of course! The forum members love to go on the attack. What gives? If someone wants to prove they know more than I do, they can't know that much.
Luminous Landscape? Could somebody please inform them that a 2 or 3 inch figurine does not qualify as a macro!!! Still, they know their nature and landscape stuff. Also processing and printing. They produce a product beyond just producing an image.
I have lots more opinions on lots more sites. LOL - But I would be the last person I'd advise anyone to listen to. It's just a hobby for me. And by the time I finally get good results with little effort, I won't need any advice! The fact is, I like a lot of the reviewers, the ones that really want to help you get the most of what you want to do.