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

[BRJR]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Have you noticed, Ken is being discussed in another thread on this forum: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/161096-m9-dng-color-problem-irresolvable.html.

 

1. Yes, and I've been noticing for quite some time now, that the KR web site is the main site where most non-Leica shooters/especially young ones are starting to get their first exposure to anything "Leica"; or, photography in general, for that matter, as seen in the "Ken Rockwell Intro", by a young member of the US Armed Forces, at the link below:

 

 

2. Also, that KR appears to becoming more and more fascinated with Leica and all things Leica; has actually been purchasing Leica gear for his personal use; that the Leica section of his online web site has been consistently growing, and that even he says more Leica reviews are on the way.

[Advertisement]

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

[spydrxx]

Personally glad to see Ken jumping more into the Leica brand. Many of the forum members' earlier criticisms have substance to them, some are just poor attempts to be witty. The bottom line is that rightly or wrongly, Ken often illustrates his opinions with photographs, which are more tangible to newbies than MTF charts or reading the technical details of Puts analyses, or even well intentioned technical assistance by many helpful contributors on this site - but often well over the head of the OP, who may be a newbie. At least Ken is attracting attention to our favorite topic - Leica, even if he may be superficial in his "reviews".

[pico]

Personally glad to see Ken jumping more into the Leica brand [...]

 

IMHO, he does so because he has found a relatively uncritical brand of brothers which he can exploit.

 

.

[k-hawinkler]

Well, Ken seems to help to enlarge the Leica community. Thanks for that.

That's good for all of us. Hopefully, Leica will be around for a long time.

The M9 with old and new lenses, Visoflex III, and Bellows is just an amazing amount of fun.

Part of the fun for me is to get it all working correctly - no matter if old or new gear.

So, it ain't perfect - but nothing in live is! Not even the Leica community.

 

Best to all of you, k-hawinkler

[ho_co]

FWIW, I find Ken Rockwell hard to take in many ways; but I often find his take interesting, and he is never pompous.

 

He tells it as he sees it, and moves on to another point; his format and style are much less sophisticated than some reviewers, but that also makes his articles easy to scan for the information you're looking for.

 

He's not my first choice for information, but he's always there and up front about what he thinks.

 

Personally, though I've posted a negative thing or two about him (and others), I don't think it's worth getting worked up over what he does or doesn't do that we like or dislike.

 

I don't know that we've gained a lot by reading all the "I hate Ken Rockwell" posts in this thread. I know it's nice to jump on the bandwagon and find that we're not alone in our opinions, but there are worse sites on the Web.

 

Ken does his thing; if you don't like his thing, don't read him. Bashing him doesn't hurt or help, but is probably a waste of time.

 

 

As a couple others have mentioned, if BRJR hadn't mentioned Rockwell's Summicron articles, many of us wouldn't have known about them. If we weren't going to read them anyway, what good does it do to read them and then come back and say, "I wish I hadn't"?

[pgk]

As a couple others have mentioned, if BRJR hadn't mentioned Rockwell's Summicron articles, many of us wouldn't have known about them. If we weren't going to read them anyway, what good does it do to read them and then come back and say, "I wish I hadn't"?

IMHO its not about KR at all, its about the information that is being linked to and why. Using the search system here on the forum will yield an incredible amount of in depth information about all the 35mm Summicrons, some of it comparative and much of it based on long term users experience and familiarity with these lenses. This is a far better resource and will provide a wealth of information on the characteristics and qualities of each lens. So I would say that (and I am trying not to be at all offensive) linking to a VERY supreficial review by someone who is at best controversial and who has a very mixed reputation is bound to cause some annoyance and irritation, especially to those who have put time into providing information here (without asking for donations).

[coup de foudre]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

 

just an FYI: you don't know what you're missing by not using the v.1 wide open. it is a stunning, stunning lens!

 

i like to use this as my sunny day lens because the lower contrast, higher micro contrast, brings out every ounce of nuance capable in the sensor of the camera. (i shoot mostly to convert to b/w and this is huge for me.)

 

i was in a situation in Scotland, however, where the light was getting low, and i slowly had to open the lens up... what i got wide open floored me! it may not be pristine, but the glow is unmistakable. possibly the most gorgeous bokeh of all my wider lenses too.

 

the only fault i've found was that with smaller sensors (R-D1, M8) the v.1 can get very murky at high ISO's. the lower contrast turned everything into a slush pit! i look forward to playing with it on the M9, though, to see if it's as bad. (waiting for it's return after my boyfriend was too rough trying to take off the UV/IR filter so he could use it on his E-P1 and loosened the front element.)

 

for reference, i have the one without the goggle... and i've never been tempted to "upgrade."

[elgenper]

just an FYI: you don't know what you're missing by not using the v.1 wide open. it is a stunning, stunning lens!

 

i like to use this as my sunny day lens because the lower contrast, higher micro contrast, brings out every ounce of nuance capable in the sensor of the camera. (i shoot mostly to convert to b/w and this is huge for me.)

 

i was in a situation in Scotland, however, where the light was getting low, and i slowly had to open the lens up... what i got wide open floored me! it may not be pristine, but the glow is unmistakable. possibly the most gorgeous bokeh of all my wider lenses too.

......

 

Well, you´re right; I oversimplified quite a bit....

 

Much of my 35 mm use is people indoors, in abysmal light. So I have to shoot wide open, and I want sharp eyes on at least one prominent person. So this is the situation when I use the ASPH, and ´avoid´ the oldie...

 

In other situations, less pressed for time, and maybe wanting to ´let the lens do its part of the artistry´, the V.1 is indeed wonderful, esp. if one sees B/W as the final result.

 

Here are 2 examples from the V.1; the last one is wide open:

 

 

So you´re right: it IS a stunning lens! But it won´t be my only choice in 35 mm.

[coup de foudre]

Well, you´re right; I oversimplified quite a bit....

 

Much of my 35 mm use is people indoors, in abysmal light. So I have to shoot wide open, and I want sharp eyes on at least one prominent person. So this is the situation when I use the ASPH, and ´avoid´ the oldie...

 

In other situations, less pressed for time, and maybe wanting to ´let the lens do its part of the artistry´, the V.1 is indeed wonderful, esp. if one sees B/W as the final result.

 

Here are 2 examples from the V.1; the last one is wide open:

 

 

So you´re right: it IS a stunning lens! But it won´t be my only choice in 35 mm.

 

ah, see the character of that lens just warms my cockles!

 

wonderful shots! they show the beauty of the lens -- much, much better than M. Rockwell, but i guess that's no surprise

 

i'm totally with you, btw, on indoor shots of people with crappy lighting. i use my 35 Lux Asph for that.

[KevinA]

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!

 

Beaujolais nouveau, a KR review will start a race among thread writers to condemn the article as rubbish. Just like getting the first bottle of Beaujolais nouveau into your restaurant.

You are on pretty safe ground with your critism knowing there is also a race to agree with the first critical post about it. All in all KR gets the PR and takes the hits, mostly on his web site where hits are gratefully received.

You gotta love how he does it.

 

Kevin.

[tomasis7]

Never mind all this nonsense. Does anyone know if Steven Segal uses an X1?

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

I heard Chuck Norris use both X1 and M9

[pop]

I heard Chuck Norris use both X1 and M9

 

Wasn't this the X-9 ?

[tomasis7]

Wasn't this the X-9 ?

 

Did he told you?

 

It must be quite durable.. hence name "Xtreme"

[Nicoleica]

I heard Chuck Norris use both X1 and M9

 

I thought that he used an M-16 mostly.

[ho_co]

I mentioned above (http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/160965-ken-rockwell-has-posted-comparison-sharpness-4.html#post1581172) the mirror reversal of Rockwell's homepage picture.

 

That has always bugged me; but since no one else has commented on it, am I right to assume that that most of you aren't bothered by a photo site that leads with an obviously reversed self-ID image?

 

Thanks.

[coup de foudre]

I mentioned above the mirror reversal of Rockwell's homepage picture.

 

That has always bugged me; but since no one else has picked up on the matter, I suppose that that most of you aren't bothered by a photo site that leads with an obviously reversed self-ID image?

damn! you made me look!

 

guess i never saw it before because i've never purposely gone onto his site

 

that is really bad.

[pop]

OMG!

 

As if this was the only thing which is wrong with that picture. And as if this was the only thing he got reversed.

 

Let's all be grateful it isn't upside down.

[IkarusJohn]

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"

 

I'd never heard of him before (rather, I'd never bothered with him), but I stopped reading when I got that comment - baffling ...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[scsambrook]

Aww, c'mon folks and let the guy alone . . . he's reversed the image so it fits his page layout, surely that's why? It couldn't possibly be because that's the only way he ever sees himself . . . could it?

 

About fifty years ago I was told by a professional photographer that she (yes, she) always reversed the prints of portraits for customers who commissioned pictures of themselves. She swore she never had a disappointed subject that way.

[Xmas]

Aww, c'mon folks and let the guy alone . . . he's reversed the image so it fits his page layout, surely that's why? It couldn't possibly be because that's the only way he ever sees himself . . . could it?

 

About fifty years ago I was told by a professional photographer that she (yes, she) always reversed the prints of portraits for customers who commissioned pictures of themselves. She swore she never had a disappointed subject that way.

Hi

 

One clever clever lady

 

Noel