I just can't stand this guy!

[Carlos Lindado]

I hope you don

[Dave Johnston]

Meh... let him blabber on. You notice all of his shots were 24mm or less. I could hand hold everything at that focal length without IS. Try hand holding a macro at its minimum focal distance with a shallow depth of field and tell me that tripods are useless.


I agree with you whole heartedly. That is why I come to Bryan's page for reviews and don't leave it up to someone like KR.

[bob williams]

I agree with you whole heartedly

Ditto---Besides, He is simply wrong, even from an amatuer's perspective.

[Chris White]

I agree with you whole heartedly

Ditto---Besides, He is simply wrong, even from an amatuer's perspective.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Amen.


Form his glowing review of the EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM:

Ken Rockwell]You can pay almost three times as much for the [url="http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/24-105mm.htm]24-105mm f/4 L[/url],
(about $1,100 versus $410), and I still prefer this 28-135mm because
it's lighter and easier to handle. This 28-135mm is easy to focus and
zoom, while I found the 24-105mm f/4 L a pain to zoom precisely at the
wide end, and the focus ring of this 28-135mm is much better placed. [/quote]


[quoteuser="<span style="text-decoration: line-through;"]Ken Rockwell]I've coveted this Canon 28-135mm lens ever since it was introduced in February 1998.

Ken Rockwell]Now that I've waited almost 10 years to try one, how good is the Canon
28-135mm IS? Very good; in fact, it's my favorite Canon midrange zoom.

When I saw that review referenced by someone on Craigs List, I knew then he was not a good source. Owning both the EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM and the EF 24-105mm f/4 <span style="color: #ff0000;"]L IS USM, I would be hard pressed to tell you the last time I used the EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. (I should check to see if I even still have it.) I used the EF 24-105mm f/4 <span style="color: #ff0000;"]L IS USM in the last two weeks. I can not even see it as fair comparing them as equal, much less giving the 28-135 the edge.





Edited for un-Christian behaviour, sorry.

[neuroanatomist]

I have a theory. KR somehow managed to sell an image as an amateur photographer. Then, he started calling himself a 'pro' and launched a website with the express mission of spreading as much misinformation as possible, inan effort to keep any other amateurs from getting so lucky. Mediocre lenses are the best. Wash your filters in your sink along with your dirty dishes. Etc. But as I stated, it's just a theory...

[Carlos Lindado]

Ha ha, I

[DavidEccleston]

And now he has two more links to his page, increasing his importance on google. :-(


I remember when I was shopping for my first DSLR. Ken

[HDNitehawk]

The funny part of the article is.....


The main sponsor ad on the side of the page is Gitzo


I wonder if they know what the guy is saying and what he is recommending. Which seems to be, you don

[neuroanatomist]

Reverse psychology. After reading that drivel, you

[Daniel Browning]

<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="content-type" />
Top seven "Ken Rockwell Facts":



<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="content-type" />[*]When photographers go to sleep at night, they check their closets for Ken Rockwell.[*]Ken Rockwell doesn't read books. He just makes stuff up.[*]There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures smarter than Ken Rockwell.[*]Outer space exists because it's afraid to be on the same planet with Ken Rockwell.[*]Ken Rockwell's alien abduction web page is the reason why Waldo is hiding.[*]There is no chin behind Ken Rockwell's beard. There is only another misconception.[*]When Ken Rockwell does a pushup, he isn't just lifting his ego up, he's also pushing his intelligence down.