The Sleeping Giant's Sea Lion

by Jakub

submit your photo


Hall of Fame
View past winners from this year

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

30

I find that when it comes to stuff like reviews (including, but not limited to photography equipment), you probably don't want to put all your eggs in one basket for anything important. If you look at two or three (or more) reviews, however, you should start to see some common themes emerging -- ie, the lens is soft wide-open, or it focuses slowly, or ...


20

The answer is here, from Nikon: Minimum Focus Distance The minimum focus distance is the shortest distance at which a lens can focus. In the case of digital SLR cameras, the distance to the subject is measured from the focal plane mark on the camera body, not from the front of the lens. Since the lens has a minimum focus distance of 18.5cm, and is ...


18

I think these two sites should not be completely lumped together. Let's let each man talk for himself. From Ken Rockwell's "About" page: Apparently the world finds my opinions very useful, but remember, they are the opinions of one man. I have a big sense of humor, and do this site to entertain you (and myself), as well as to inform and to educate. I ...


10

K-rock has some interesting opinions, but I often think of him as the Matt Drudge of the Photography world. I suspect most of his opinions are to generate views, and to that end, he has succeeded. Here is how I judge the opinions of online photographers; how do their own personal galleries look?


9

Websites like kenrockwell.com and bythom.com are entertaining and idiosyncratic. They are an expression of their owner's personality and deserve reading for that reason. But when you are looking for good guidance when selecting a lens you should rather go to one of the several sites that approach the matter in a serious disciplined way. There are a ...


8

Interesting that you put Ken Rockwell and Thom Hogan in the same question; my take is that these are very different types of people. As others have said, Ken is kind of a nut. On the other hand, I find Thom Hogan's reviews particularly compelling because they relate real experiences and read very sane - for example, Thom has a good attitude (IMO) about when ...


7

If it looks exactly like that lens, why wouldn't it be that lens? I don't know what Ken Rockwell is on about when he says "Nikon calls this the Nikon AF NIKKOR 80-200mm f/2.8 D ED Macro", when Nikon does not actually appear to do any such thing. This appears to be the official page from Nikon for that lens: ...


5

Thom Hogan is a very reputable guy and his site has a lot of insightful info especially when it comes to lenses. I read a lot of great lens reviews from Dpreview and such, but Thom goes a step further than all of them, he actually tells you why this particular lens behaves this way in this particular situation, or what makes it underrated or overrated lens. ...


4

The short answer is that Bythom is one of the best places to get high-quality, honest, hands-on opinions on (mostly) Nikon equipment. Ken Rockwell is opinionated, fishes for page views but I personally like a good proportion of his own photographs so I don't dismiss him of out of hand. Having said that, the fact that the OP lumps together the two makes me ...


2

For me buying a gear is a completely objective process (well.. mostly). If I was buying a lens, I'll know what focal length i'd want and how much money I'm ready to put into it. Then I'd head over to sites like photozone.de which do indepth analysis of each lens.. Kenrockwell.com at the end of the day is just a blog that tries to communicate the author's ...


2

For general info, there are three commonly found versions of that lens: The AF and AF-D (push-pull zoom) (1988-1997) The AF-D (ring zoom), with focus limiter with two options: full and limit. The AF-S (ring zoom), with focus limiter with two options: full and ∞-2.5m These three are easy to disinguish if you look at pictures on Ken Rockwell's site or ...


2

I want to add just a cautionary note about one particular often-referenced Thom Hogan article, Meters Don't See 18% Gray. Take a look at Jerry Coffin's response to that in this question/answer: What is the 18% gray tone, and how do I make a 18% gray card in Photoshop?


2

Some of the replies have expressed quite forthright opinions though mattdm contributed an informed and balanced analysis. To continue in that vein I show below how many times they, and other respected authors, are cited in photo.SE. Like the citation index in academic literature, this can be an important indicator of the interest this community, as whole, ...


1

As an aside, the "M" for macro designation also appears on the barrel of the venerable 75-300mm. I think it must have been in fashion for marketing purposes to slap a "macro" designation on these big zooms back in those days, even though it's nothing of the sort. I can see why it would cause confusion for someone not familiar with the long history of Nikon ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible