For those who don't know who Ken Rockwell is, be thankful. For everyone else...
Some sort of masochistic streak seems to drive me to frequent Ken Rockwell's website. He has a sort of village idiot/FOX News appeal to his updates, brazenly shilling random products, using dubious arguments that usually involve disparaging competing products to the point of contradicting his previous claims.
His latest abomination is this review of Nikon's 24mm f/2.8D lens. In it, he makes the claim that "It can replace both the 14-24mm and 24-70mm zooms," which is a little suspect because (1) a fixed lens obviously doesn't replace the multiple focal lengths of a zoom lens, and (2) the lens has a design more than 20 years older than the lenses against which he compares it.
What does he use to back up his argument? He states, without a shred of evidence, that the 24mm's sharpness is superior to that of the 14-24mm, and equal to that of the 24-70mm. Evidently, he's chosen to disregard Nikon's own MTF curves (24mm, 14-24mm, 24-70mm), which plainly show that he is incorrect. Beyond that, lens-testing websites (photozone.de, slrgear.com) show that the 24mm is not nearly the lens Mr. Rockwell claims it to be, particularly in regard to its performance against the other two lenses. Their actual measurements hold a little more water than his subjective ones.
Most irritating is his constant invocation of the word "pro" to lend some sort of legitimacy to his articles.
I don't know if Ken Rockwell is an idiot, or just a conniving liar. In any case, he is definitely a jackass.
Rant over.
Some sort of masochistic streak seems to drive me to frequent Ken Rockwell's website. He has a sort of village idiot/FOX News appeal to his updates, brazenly shilling random products, using dubious arguments that usually involve disparaging competing products to the point of contradicting his previous claims.
His latest abomination is this review of Nikon's 24mm f/2.8D lens. In it, he makes the claim that "It can replace both the 14-24mm and 24-70mm zooms," which is a little suspect because (1) a fixed lens obviously doesn't replace the multiple focal lengths of a zoom lens, and (2) the lens has a design more than 20 years older than the lenses against which he compares it.
What does he use to back up his argument? He states, without a shred of evidence, that the 24mm's sharpness is superior to that of the 14-24mm, and equal to that of the 24-70mm. Evidently, he's chosen to disregard Nikon's own MTF curves (24mm, 14-24mm, 24-70mm), which plainly show that he is incorrect. Beyond that, lens-testing websites (photozone.de, slrgear.com) show that the 24mm is not nearly the lens Mr. Rockwell claims it to be, particularly in regard to its performance against the other two lenses. Their actual measurements hold a little more water than his subjective ones.
Most irritating is his constant invocation of the word "pro" to lend some sort of legitimacy to his articles.
A couple sentences before this:"Why not think like a pro and take only this 24mm instead of four pounds of 14-24mm and 24-70mm along with your 70-200mm? [...] Pros know they don't need any lenses between 24mm and the 70mm end of their 70-200mm. If they need a looser or tighter framing, they simply take a few steps forward with the 24mm, or a few steps back with the 70mm."
So... every FX Nikon photographer owns/wants the lenses he's criticizing, unless they're pros, who, as everyone knows, don't buy zoom lenses that go below 70mm. Obviously, the 14-24mm and 24-70mm f/2.8 lenses are geared towards amateurs with big pocketbooks (although in a previous article, he says, "Today in 2007 most people shoot with f/3.5-5.6 zooms, and pros shoot with f/2.8 zooms." I guess a lot of things change in 2 years)."Today's FX Nikon photographer usually owns, or wants to own, the Trinity of the 14-24mm AF-S, 24-70mm AF-S and 70-200mm AF-S VR-II."
I don't know if Ken Rockwell is an idiot, or just a conniving liar. In any case, he is definitely a jackass.
Rant over.