Was reading Rockwell's review of the 16-35mm F4

"Moonlight, 08 July 2014. Canon 5D Mk III, 16-35/4 L IS at 16mm, f/4 at 1/3 second hand-held at ISO 12,800.

Hand-held at 1/3 of a second and sharp in the corners wide open! This is shot at LV -1.5, which means super dark.

The old 16-35/2.8 L II isn't this sharp in the corners at f/4, and it has no IS for sharp shots this slow hand-held. With the 16-35/2.8 L II you'd have to use a tripod, with which then you'd shoot at f/2.8 at 30 seconds at ISO 100 — but wait, at f/2.8 the old 16-35/2.8 L II isn't sharp, so to use the exposure you'd really want, f/11 at ISO 100, you'd need a remote release and an 8-minute exposure! "

Regardless of the other differences, is he seriously comparing shutter speeds with one shot at ISO 12,800 and the other at ISO 100? I'm not quite sure the point is. Yes, the 16-35mm is sharper at F4 and has IS, but this seems like exaggeration.

http://kenrockwell.com​/canon/lenses/16-35mm-is.htm

well, he has shown in the past he can be a bit of an idiot...

DreDaze wrote in post #17436931
well, he has shown in the past he can be a bit of an idiot...

+1. He often compares apples with oranges... and blames third-party lenses.

www.the-digital-picture.com is a much better option.

Rockwell has a nearly full "review" of the 5Ds up, calling it the "best digital camera in the world" and yet in a more recent post, he calls out reviewers that have posted 5Ds samples as Canon shills. Many, many hypocritical things on his site.

That being said though, I still frequent his page as he does provide some things I can't get anywhere else:

- Excellent product photography
- Clear, concise gear specs and details
- Consistent examples of sunstars, bokeh and maybe a few other things

I don't take his reviews seriously though. He loves to use Perfectly Clear plugins on ALL of his photos, even review sample photos, and sometimes the results are really jarring. It seems he caters more towards casual family users, but again, there have been many cases where he contradicts this stance.

but he got your attention and your help promoting him on the internet. see ya at the bank. mission accomplished

Masa Yume wrote in post #17436872
I'm not quite sure the point is. Yes, the 16-35mm is sharper at F4 and has IS, but this seems like exaggeration.

Seems clear enough to me. He is saying you can get some kind of picture with the f/4 IS but not with the f/2.8. He goes on to specify exactly under what conditions and what the biggest compromise would be. It's up to you to decide its relevance to you. I do actually think it's a useful observation. He doesn't mention the compromise in giving up depth of field, perhaps because he thinks his audience is shooting small for the web.

melcat wrote in post #17438672

Masa Yume wrote in post #17436872
I'm not quite sure the point is. Yes, the 16-35mm is sharper at F4 and has IS, but this seems like exaggeration.

Seems clear enough to me. He is saying you can get some kind of picture with the f/4 IS but not with the f/2.8. He goes on to specify exactly under what conditions and what the biggest compromise would be. It's up to you to decide its relevance to you. I do actually think it's a useful observation. He doesn't mention the compromise in giving up depth of field, perhaps because he thinks his audience is shooting small for the web.

But why would he not use ISO 12,800 with the 16-35mm?

Masa Yume wrote in post #17438719
But why would he not use ISO 12,800 with the 16-35mm?

Because it still doesn't get him there - no 4 stops of IS (working from memory here - when I first read it I scratched my head, counted stops and decided he was right). Since he can't hand hold, he then needs a tripod, so then he might as well lower the ISO.

It's another restatement of a theme which runs through his site, that lenses and cameras are tools that are good for different things. Contrast that with the tendency in a lot of forums to try to "rank" equipment.

It seems a lot of people on this forum don't care for Ken Rockwell. But I like his reviews. Even when I don't agree with him I find his reviews interesting and informative. So I agree with your statement about his theme.

Mike

I don't mind reading his reviews at all. I rather enjoy them regardless if he's hammering something...Just someone elses point of view thats all...He spends some serious time with the detail he goes into..

His reviews are pretty bad when he's giving a review on something without actually any hands on experience with it...

Fro Knows Photo (aka Jared Polin) has discussed several times some of the issues with Ken Rockwell's reviews, most recently on episode 82 of RAW Talk.
http://froknowsphoto.c​om/rawtalk-82/

DGStinner wrote in post #17439478
Fro Knows Photo (aka Jared Polin) has discussed several times some of the issues with Ken Rockwell's reviews, most recently on episode 82 of RAW Talk.
http://froknowsphoto.c​om/rawtalk-82/

Jared Polin is insufferable.

Smart guy though. Just really annoying.

ed rader wrote in post #17437548
but he got your attention and your help promoting him on the internet. see ya at the bank. mission accomplished

+1

Sometimes he is just plainly mistaken, sometimes he does it on purpose.

The shot he took with the 16-35 f/4 IS is a technical abomination even at web size, let alone the bigger version of the image. Ken's tendency to oversharpen and oversaturate did backfire in this shot, making things even worse.

"Spray and pray" with proper technique at lower ISO would have probably produced much better results.

The "corner softness" argument is nonsense for this image, as only the lower-right corner has some detail in it.

And finally, there is no need for remote release in a 8 minute exposure.