Photo gear review sites are weirder than audio sites

I want a UV filter for my new 35mm lens so I've been reading some photo website reviews.
 
It turns out my brand new 35mm lens sucks and that I should have bought a cheaper lens because it is much sharper, has better contrast, and generally outperforms the lens I purchased.
 
I just took the time to scrutinize two website reviews that included detailed full resolution photos made with both lenses. I got to see the proof that the cheaper lens is better by looking at the relatively soft and fuzzy images made with it and then comparing them with the sharper and crisper images made with the lens model I bought. The results seem pretty obvious when you look at them.
 
It was interesting to see the photos offered as proof and the conclusions reached by the writers... because as we all know the proof is important.
 
It's sort of entertaining to encounter such bold claims but it is also interesting to consider how compelling such claims can seem and how they can undermine your confidence.
 
Crazy times!
 
 
best regards,
mike
 

I bought my lens right after reading a Ken Rockwell review. He seems like straight shooter. :-)

I kinda like my EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM.

I just passed on the Canon 50mm f1.2L because of similar reviews about Canon f1.8 lenses.
 
The reason I started this thread is that the reviews with the example photos I read last night, the reviews that say my new 35mm f1.4L Canon is sucky, show that the Canon takes clearer and crisper pictures than the lens that they say is much better and cheaper too.
 
It is as if they show pictures that defy the conclusions they have made and seem confident you will not look at the photos and decide for yourself but rather just react to the conclusions.
 
Weird!!!

It's almost the opposite.
 
It's as if someone provided a noisy and grainy sample of a Soundblaster and then provided a beautiful sounding sample from something else and then said "listen... the Blaster is soooo much better and you're a fool if you don't agree"... and then after you read that you think you must be a fool or something.
 
I guess it's kinda like reading amp sim blog-o-sphere reviews.
 
I'm not saying I don't like the Blaster... it ain't no Realtek of course, but I just made up the nosy and grainy part.
 
best regards,
mike

Aren't decisions just thinly veiled impulses?

mike_mccue
I thought they were isions that came in batches of ten.

Bakers Dozen?

mike_mccue
...
The reason I started this thread is that the reviews with the example photos I read last night, the reviews that say my new 35mm f1.4L Canon is sucky, show that the Canon takes clearer and crisper pictures than the lens that they say is much better and cheaper too.
... 
 Weird!!!

Nikkon is considered a "professional" camera, and up until the beginning of the digital revolution 10/15 years ago, there were not many Nikkons that were inexpensive that were designed for the home market, because Nikkon did not make them.
 
This has changed, of course, and now, both Canon and Nikkon feature a huge list of digital units.
 
At the photo lab we had Nikkons for the photo shoots, and then the expensive 120 cameras for the portraits and group pictures in sports and such. Spendy turkeys, let me tell you, but they are/were worth it.
 
When I got the Canon AE-1, I think it was around 1985, Canon was making a point of going for the "home" market and make the cameras easier to use. The auto feature was not bad, but did not balance things too well for me, and I learned how to use the F-Stops and Exposures at that time, although it would be another 5 years before I learned about film ... and paper! ... which made things even better ... you use sharp film, and if you print it on sharp paper, you will have a hard time color balancing it ... that kind of thing ... or the bad one ... you use flat film (usually school pictures are done on flat film) and then print them on flat paper, and it will look poor and cheap, btw!
 
Thus, as time goes by, I think the "differences" between a pro camera and a domestic camera will only be on the price ... and nothing else. But you won't see a "professional" photographer with a lot of Canon stuff, unless he is being paid to use and show it. You see that on some big sport events with those huge long distance lenses.
 
Digital ... is still new, and the paper thigns are printing on is an issue right now, and they do not compare to the digital image that you can show here ... STILL! ... and it might be another few years before that happens ... the issue being the process is crap and bad ... the thermal paper thing is slow and cumbersome and not designed for commercial/bulk use, and the other ... is a poor excuse for a color something or other.
 
Lenses or cameras, only make those details more visible.

Mike,

Your lens generated a 5 star rating with 548 reviews on the B&H site. That's not too shabby. Looks like a real nice lens.