Ken Rockwell, Has Posted A Comparison Sharpness Of Leica 35mm Summicron-M Lenses.

[BRJR]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1. The review was just posted this month (Jan 2011); and, he says a full review of these lenses will be done.

 

2. Here's the link, for any of you that have not already seen it, and for others that are interested:

 

LEICA 35mm SUMMICRON Sharpness Comparison

[stunsworth]

Why would anyone trust anything that charlatan writes?

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[k-hawinkler]

1. The review was just posted this month (Jan 2011); and, he says a full review of these lenses will be done.

 

2. Here's the link, for any of you that have not already seen it, and for others that are interested:

 

LEICA 35mm SUMMICRON Sharpness Comparison

 

BRJR,

 

Thanks for the post. Interesting.

I have a chrome 35 made in 2001.

It's just a wonderful lens on the M9.

 

Best, k-hawinkler

[*Mark*]

[[/img]

 

Ken Rockell is all about publicity.

 

if you dont like him dont read him ... or give good Arguments ... but this is unbearable rubbish

[masjah]

I've just taken 5 minutes out of my life reading this. I should have heeded Steve. Noteworthy only by its self-importance, for example:

 

"Get one of these before everyone else reads this."

 

I wish I hadn't bothered.

[elgenper]

OK, while I´m not a great admirer of KR, his results here closely matches mine when comparing the 8-element (V.1) and the brand new ASPH on my M9. The other two (V.2 and V.3) haven´t passed my hands; judging from the results I haven´t missed too much.....

 

I do use the ASPH as my standard lens, and I avoid using the V.1 wide open, but otherwise it´s surprisingly small differences in resolution. That elusive, unquantifiable ´look´ of real images is another thing. I won´t sell my old one; there are times when I prefer it´s classical drawing.

[rosuna]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Ken Rockwell Facts....

 

* Ken Rockwell is the Chuck Norris of photography

 

* Ken Rockwell's camera has similar settings to ours, except his are: P[erfect] Av[Awesome Priority Tv[Totally Awesome Priority] M[ajestic]

 

* Ken Rockwell doesn't color correct. He adjusts your world to match his.

 

* Sure, Ken Rockwell deletes a bad photo or two. Other people call these Pulitzers.

 

* Ken Rockwell doesn't adjust his DOF, he changes space-time.

 

* Circle of confusion? You might be confused. Ken Rockwell never is.

 

* Ken Rockwell doesn't wait for the light when he shoots a landscape - the light waits for him.

 

* Ken Rockwell never flips his camera in portrait position, he flips the earth

 

* Ken Rockwell ordered an L-lens from Nikon, and got one.

 

* Ken Rockwell is the only person to have photographed Jesus; unfortunately he ran out of film and had to use a piece of cloth instead.

 

* When Ken Rockwell brackets a shot, the three versions of the photo win first place in three different categories

 

* Before Nikon or Canon releases a camera they go to Ken and they ask him to test them, the best cameras get a Nikon sticker and the less good get a Canon sticker

 

* Once Ken tested a camera, he said I cant even put Canon on this one,thats how Pentax was born

 

* Rockwellian policy isn't doublethink - Ken doesn't even need to think once

 

* Ken Rockwell doesn't use flash ever since the Nagasaki incident.

 

* Only Ken Rockwell can take pictures of Ken Rockwell; everyone else would just get their film overexposed by the light of his genius

 

* Ken Rockwell is the only one who can take self-portraits of you

 

* Ken Rockwell's nudes were fully clothed at the time of exposure

 

* Ken Rockwell once designed a zoom lens. You know it as the Hubble Space Telescope.

 

* When Ken unpacks his CF card, it already has masterpieces on it.

 

* Rockwell portraits are so lifelike, they have to pay taxes

 

* On Ken Rockwell's desktop, the Trash Icon is really a link to National Geographic Magazine

 

* Ken Rockwell spells point-and-shoot "h-a-s-s-e-l-b-l-a-d"

 

* When Ken Rockwell went digital, National Geographic nearly went out of business because he was no longer physically discarding photos

 

* For every 10 shots that Ken Rockwell takes, 11 are keepers.

 

* Ken Rockwell's digital files consist of 0's, 1's AND 2's.

 

* Ken Rockwell never focus, everything moves into his DoF

 

* Ken Rockwell's shots are so perfect, Adobe redesigned photoshop for him: all it consists of is a close button.

 

* The term tripod was coined after his silhouette

 

* Ken Rockwell never produces awful work, only work too advanced for the viewer

 

* A certain brand of high-end cameras was named after people noticed the quality was a lot "like a" rockwell

 

* Ken Rockwell isn't the Chuck Norris of photography; Chuck Norris is the Ken Rockwell of martial arts.

 

* Ken Rockwell never starts, he continues

 

* Ken Rockwell spells point-and-shoot "h-a-s-s-e-l-b-l-a-d"

[Mauribix]

1. The review was just posted this month (Jan 2011); and, he says a full review of these lenses will be done.

 

Did he mention the name of the reviewer as well:rolleyes:, or will it be included once A REVIEW is done?

[stunsworth]

Well, I've now read the review and all I can say is that if you want to read equipment reviews read Erwin Puts or Sean Reid. Honestly, how can you take someone seriously when they state...

 

"Even at f/2, everything is pretty much in focus with a 35mm lens"

[pgk]

Ken Rockwell's opinions seem to be quoted on many photographic websites. I have to admit that I am completely baffled as to why this should be the case. They are just that - opinions - and his lens test methodology leave a great deal to be desired, his language is anything but objective and having visited his site 2 or 3 times I am frankly amazed that anyone takes any notice of his opinions at all.

 

What he IS very good at (or so it would appear) is getting search engines to find his site!

[jacarape]

Some have counted too infinity, maybe even 2 times but Ken is the only one to have counted to infinity backwards.

 

Skipping through the article I read now that it's just an Infomercial for OC Camera. There is nothing wrong with that, it is what it is. But you really can't begrudge a guy for making a living.

Edited January 16, 2011 by jacarape

[Nicoleica]

Some have counted too infinity, maybe even 2 times but Ken is the only one to have counted to infinity backwards.

 

I can count to infinity sideways! 1..2..3..4..5..6..7.. 8

[Jaybob]

Ken Rockwell's digital files consist of 0's, 1's AND 2's.

 

I didn't want to laugh when I read that list, but this line was completely hilarious.

 

Jay

[pico]

if you dont like him dont read him ... or give good Arguments ... but this is unbearable rubbish

 

Apparently a moderator thought the same. My post has been deleted.

[cbretteville]

He opens up saying that "let's shoot a sample of every 35mm LEICA SUMMICRON ever made", it seems to me hat hes is limiting his set to four lenses, one would think/hope that Leica has built more than one of each of four of the five versions of the 35 Summicron.... .

 

His 2nd version looks more like a vIII, but that is impossible to say without a serial number.

 

C

[lct]

...His 2nd version looks more like a vIII, but that is impossible to say without a serial number...

It is the v2 (1969-1971) with aperture tab apparently.

[lct]

...how can you take someone seriously when they state... "Even at f/2, everything is pretty much in focus with a 35mm lens"

He should come here from time to time, we could teach him a couple of things eventually. Now his comparo is not useless to be honest. I did not recall that v2 and v3 were so poor in the corners in FF format.

[adan]

Who cares what someone WRITES abaout lens performance? Surely the pictures/samples are what count - and these samples are very informative.

[jaapv]

I think it is not bad for this type of review, decent images and a few silly statements, but overall, about what one can expect.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[haroldp]

if you dont like him dont read him ... or give good Arguments ... but this is unbearable rubbish

 

Mr Rockwell is often technically accurate in his observations as long as you carefully review the test conditions. This is why I check his site, sometimes there is useful information.

 

His conclusions and analysis however are usually based on the assumption that his priorities and constraints must be everyones. He also changes these priorities daily or varies them according to his bias du jour.

 

I recommend reading his observations, but always draw your own conclusions based on what matters to you, and the conditions under which you operate.

 

Remember. " if you leave your mind sufficiently open, some will fill it with rubbish. "

Maybe even me.

 

Regards ... H

 

 

 

xt