06-22-2010, 10:33 AM
[quote name='genotypewriter' date='22 June 2010 - 05:19 AM' timestamp='1277176786' post='647']
There are always things to take and not to take from any review. Guys like Lloyd Chambers and Ken Rockwell are fairly heavy on opinion before objectiveness and technicality. For example, see how much fluff they write compared to the actual technical bits and results they show.
In the sorts of tests I do, I clearly show aspects that I'm comparing/measuring and emphasize on demonstrating the observations that were made so that the reader can make their own judgments. Descriptions I give are about how the tests were conducted more than personal opinion. After that, any opinions I give on what's shown is only good as anyone else's.
Plus I challenge Chambers, Rockwell or any experts to challenge me on the technicality of my tests or to repeat the tests I did and produce different results, if they can <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
[/quote]
<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />
I'd like to see a test on 16:9.net with the 24L II and Nikkor 24 F/1.4G included in their world class comparison <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. I think I know which lens wins.
Anyway, I think the quality of these lenses is a bit of a moot point. They are both world class lenses. Personally I prefer the Canon, but that's just me. I do like this competitor thing hotting up, though, It does result in lenses beyond what we were used too, IQ-wise, and that is only a good thing AFAIAC <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.
Kind regards, Wim
There are always things to take and not to take from any review. Guys like Lloyd Chambers and Ken Rockwell are fairly heavy on opinion before objectiveness and technicality. For example, see how much fluff they write compared to the actual technical bits and results they show.
In the sorts of tests I do, I clearly show aspects that I'm comparing/measuring and emphasize on demonstrating the observations that were made so that the reader can make their own judgments. Descriptions I give are about how the tests were conducted more than personal opinion. After that, any opinions I give on what's shown is only good as anyone else's.
Plus I challenge Chambers, Rockwell or any experts to challenge me on the technicality of my tests or to repeat the tests I did and produce different results, if they can <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />[/quote]
<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />I'd like to see a test on 16:9.net with the 24L II and Nikkor 24 F/1.4G included in their world class comparison <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />. I think I know which lens wins. Anyway, I think the quality of these lenses is a bit of a moot point. They are both world class lenses. Personally I prefer the Canon, but that's just me. I do like this competitor thing hotting up, though, It does result in lenses beyond what we were used too, IQ-wise, and that is only a good thing AFAIAC <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />.Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
