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
 

Agree with you Mike. I've been getting Popular Photography for quite a few years now and read all of their reviews. I really like Ken Rockwell's website and usually check to see if he has reviewed a product.

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

Hi,
 
Even from my days on working the photo lab, it was hard to get good information, and even here in the metro, Pro Photo would be the place to ask questions, but I noticed that they always lean the answer towards the sale they currently have!
 
Previously, I learned most of what I got from the folks that distributed the paper and the chemistries from the lab ... I knew from them what people bought and what the results were ... for example ... putting the school pictures on flat paper, sharp paper or the glossy paper, and which film they used ... you could tell easily enough ... kodachrome or ektachrome ... and the like.
 
The lenses for a camera is not something I got lucky with though I always had a wide-angle macro zoom lens that went 35-220 ... which I bought in Santa Barbara cheap, one time ($200) and used it for 25 years ... it was just a comfortable lens and moved in and out fine ... though moving out ... was too far away! All the pictures I took came through that lens.
 
In general, I NEVER used the standard cheapo that came with all cameras, and those lenses are crap, and distort the results and what you like to do. or are trying to do.
 
I do not expect the digital to be any different ... and sure enough ... the same crappy lens, but I'm not finding a good zoom wide angle lens ... as most of those out there are exactly the same thing ... glorified crap, and designed for the straight ahead shot and no periphery!

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

I've got the 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 that came with my Nikon.  I bought a 70-300mm F3.5-5.6 a couple of years ago to handle telephoto.  I am really leaning towards a faster prime 50mm F1.8 now for low light.  I was drooling over a 50mm F1.4, which is twice the price, but the reviews that I have read say that the F1.8 is every bit as good a lens and only 2/3 an F stop difference.  I don't have a full frame Nikon, so 50mm would be like 75mm; nice portrait lens.

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!!!

In every field of endeavor the must exist a "soundblaster" so as to have a frame of reference as to what is good and bad.
 
Is that the git of it?

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

Sometimes people have an ax to grind with a company and allow it to cloud their judgment. Or they want to believe in some other company's product for whatever reason.
 
That's why objective testing is necessary when we are not making purely subjective decisions.