Wow kenrockwell is famous...

[zamanakhan]

I had some stuff on local classifieds here, some of it has sold quite quickly while some of it is just up for a little while. "

I just got a great email today offering $75 for a 28 2.8 series e, i was actually going to take it maybe try and get an extra $5 for an even $80. Then all of a sudden i get another email saying no they thought it was a 1.8 not a 2.8, fair enough you thought it was something else but in all honesty a 28 1.8 would cost heck of a lot more than $100 and would be an amazing deal even at around $300. Its still all good...


Then all of a sudden i get this:


Its a e-series not a nikkor there is a large difference in element construction and coating of the lenses. read kent rokwells nikon series e 28mm 2.8 review



Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 10:39:56 -0400
Subject: Re: Reply to your "Nikon 28mm 2.8 Lens" Ad on Kijiji
From:
To:

Sorry, I cannot sell for $70, $75 is a little low as well.

I just checked online on some resale sites and its selling for $140+ even $75 is a little too low.

From: d
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 10:30:22 -0400
To: Z
Subject: RE: Reply to your "Nikon 28mm 2.8 Lens" Ad on Kijiji

its a 2.8 sorry thought it was 1.8 70$ is the most as it is also only manual


I didn't realize how much stock people actually put into ken rockwell's reviews. I thought most people, like me, thought he was just a goof with a few useful things on his site (such as the compatibility chart.)

Now i am not in the least bit mad i lost the sale, the guy thought it was a 1.8 not a 2.8, legitimate reason to back out, hell even if you just change your mind its all good... but Stating something is a piece of **** cause ken rockwell says so?

If that was the case than all the "pro" photographers would drop their trinities and shoot with nothing else but a 50 1.8 and a 16-35 on FX and a just a 35 1.8 on DX as these lenses are the best ever. Not saying they are bad lenses but what kind of pro actually just shoot with just one lenses? i understand there are pros that shot with just one lens like Henri Cartier but he was more of an artist, not a studio photog or a wedding photog. You certainly can shoot with just one, but when money is riding on a gig, yours and the person your taking money from you need to be prepared.

I guess to each his own but quoting kenrockwell really fires me up for some reason, the guy has maybe 4 good shots in his portfolio, the rest are all of motels and signs and his children. He is more of a goofy dad with a camera than a professional.


WHO THE HELL BUYS A $4000 CAMERA TO SHOOT JPEG ALL THE TIME?!!? jpeg has its uses for photojournalism but for EVERYTHING?!?! comon?!

 

[12sndsgood]

It's not always about how much you know, its about how many followers you have

 

[o hey tyler]

He is more of a goofy dad with a camera than a professional.

quoted for truth

 

[HughGuessWho]

People have to be smart enough to separate the wheat from the chaff. It’s the internet. Anyone can setup a website and post anything for $4.95 per month. Just because you read it on the internet, doesn’t mean it’s true. In fact, you can find that out for free. Try starting a string on this forum, giving your opinion about something and see how many people disagree with you.

 

[zamanakhan]

People have to be smart enough to separate the wheat from the chaff. It’s the internet. Anyone can setup a website and post anything for $4.95 per month. Just because you read it on the internet, doesn’t mean it’s true. In fact, you can find that out for free. Try starting a string on this forum, giving your opinion about something and see how many people disagree with you.

its true but i am just taken back at how he bashes some of the greatest equipment available to support something that is not half as good. What is even more baffling is that he is usually one of top hits for most review searches, how is one of internet's most hated photographer the most loved by everyone who buys a new d3000 and a uv protector out of best buy.

 

[12sndsgood]

He is likely hated by those who have a really good idea of what equipment is good and bad, where as if your just out buying your first camera and have no experience about anything camera related he will sound like he really knows what he is talking to and you will follow him. there are a lot more people buying D3100's then there are buying D3's

 

[HughGuessWho]

He is an internet "entertainer" not a photographer. Most knowledgeable photographers disagree with 75% of what he says.

 

[DiskoJoe]

Henri Cartier used Leica too. Big difference from what you are stating. But your price on your 28mm f2.8 is very reasonable imo. And Ken Rockwell is a windbag that cares more about product endorsement revenue then you getting a good product at all.

 

[Derrel]

An E-series 28mm f/2.8 is not worth all that much money. It was an economy lens when it was made. The build quality is quite below that of a Nikkor of the same vintage.

 

[TCampbell]

Not saying they are bad lenses but what kind of pro actually just shoot with just one lenses? i understand there are pros that shot with just one lens like Henri Cartier but he was more of an artist, not a studio photog or a wedding photog. You certainly can shoot with just one, but when money is riding on a gig, yours and the person your taking money from you need to be prepared.

I agree with your summation of Ken Rockwell. But as to shooting a wedding with one lens... this used to be the norm. Hasselblad, Mamiya, Rollei, etc. medium format film cameras with a single prime lens were VERY popular wedding rigs.

As for Ken... it's always good to remember that being "successful" as a photographer can be split into the technical/artistic skills vs. the marketing/promotion skills. People who are good at promoting can be crappy and yet still make a name for themselves and earn an income. Astonishingly talented photographers with very poor business/marketing/promotion skills will probably starve. It's a tragic reality.

I don't want to be unrealistic about bashing Ken. I DO think he's whacked on his opinion of JPEG. As a photographer... he's not an utterly miserable hack, but he's no great artist either. His technical awareness is... a bit weak, ok... a LOT weak (I was trying to be nice.) Though sometimes he gives good advice, other times he gives advice that is so shockingly bad that I seriously question how much knowledge he really has and am trying to figure out if he's really just trying to be "controversial" to drive traffic to his website. I feel like the first thing he does after he unloads a photo out of the camera is to grab the saturation slider and mash it over to the right. If he were a chef instead of a photographer, I suspect he'd be over-salting the food.

 

[HughGuessWho]

Not saying they are bad lenses but what kind of pro actually just shoot with just one lenses? i understand there are pros that shot with just one lens like Henri Cartier but he was more of an artist, not a studio photog or a wedding photog. You certainly can shoot with just one, but when money is riding on a gig, yours and the person your taking money from you need to be prepared.

I agree with your summation of Ken Rockwell. But as to shooting a wedding with one lens... this used to be the norm. Hasselblad, Mamiya, Rollei, etc. medium format film cameras with a single prime lens were VERY popular wedding rigs.

As for Ken... it's always good to remember that being "successful" as a photographer can be split into the technical/artistic skills vs. the marketing/promotion skills. People who are good at promoting can be crappy and yet still make a name for themselves and earn an income. Astonishingly talented photographers with very poor business/marketing/promotion skills will probably starve. It's a tragic reality.

I don't want to be unrealistic about bashing Ken. I DO think he's whacked on his opinion of JPEG. As a photographer... he's not an utterly miserable hack, but he's no great artist either. His technical awareness is... a bit weak, ok... a LOT weak (I was trying to be nice.) Though sometimes he gives good advice, other times he gives advice that is so shockingly bad that I seriously question how much knowledge he really has and am trying to figure out if he's really just trying to be "controversial" to drive traffic to his website. I feel like the first thing he does after he unloads a photo out of the camera is to grab the saturation slider and mash it over to the right. If he were a chef instead of a photographer, I suspect he'd be over-salting the food.

Well said. He is a master at getting attention (read: traffic) and going against the mainstream does gain him attention.

 

[ann]

and then......he reviews equipment he has never even touched. That probably drives me the craziest

 

[zamanakhan]

An E-series 28mm f/2.8 is not worth all that much money. It was an economy lens when it was made. The build quality is quite below that of a Nikkor of the same vintage.

fair enough, but like i said it wouldn't of bothered me if he thought the same... I know what the lens sells for used and i think $80 is a fair deal, not the biggest bargain in the world but fair.

 

[Dillard]

What truly baffles me is that you let someone like Ken Rockwell bother you so much. Who cares? If you agree and value his opinion, then great. If not, well don't visit his site. Its the way life is, don't get worked up over it

 

[zamanakhan]

What truly baffles me is that you let someone like Ken Rockwell bother you so much. Who cares? If you agree and value his opinion, then great. If not, well don't visit his site. Its the way life is, don't get worked up over it

you are absolutely right, infact i was going over the same thing yesterday at night on my computer. I just got heated over nothing, i honestly could care less this morning. Sometimes all you need is sleep and you realize how small the things that bother you are.