GIVING ADVICE... VENTING

WaltA wrote in post #8968332
There are people who think WikiPedia is fact-based.

I think the Internet has blurred the line between fact-based, opinion-based and hearsay.

To paraphrase an old commercial "I'm not a photographer - but I play one on the Internet".

There are also people that think Wikipedia is NOT fact-based. Both sides happen to be wrong. The truth is, like almost everything on the Internet (and the rest of the media going back well before the 'net was around), much of it is indeed based on fact and much of it isn't. You have to do your own due diligence to figure what the facts really are.

stsva wrote in post #8961314
The worst may be the "I've heard all these bad reports about" or "I've been hearing bad things about" posts.

I agree that could be worse then positive things people have heard about such items.

Perfect examples are how people slam Sigma or Tamron lenses because they all have poor QC. Or, "I got a new Sigma lens and it's pretty good but I'm going to sent it to get calibrated just incase" (where the Canon lenses are all perfect of course). Fact is you'll probably get a good lense that is a good value.

People might say "oh my 40D has wayyy better high ISO performance then my 350D.. that camera was only good up to ISO400" (however the 350D was my first DSLR and I didn't know how to expose properly at the time...)

I hate how everybody recommends the nifty fifty. I've owned 2 copies and *in my opinion* it's only worth $100, you get exactly what you pay for. Based on the ones I've had I think the whole IQ/sharpness thing is highly exaggerate as other prime lenses I've used are much much better and sharper. And not only that, but I think 30mm range is more suited for a 1.6x sensor camera as a good first prime lens.

I think it's fine to recomment lens X based on good reviews and such, but I hate when people recommend a lens of different focal length or aperture (not what the person NEEDS) for the wrong reasons. That just confuses people.