• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Are Leica lenses getting too expensive for Ken Rockwell?

So I've read through this thread and I'll comment.

I like his site. It's generally funny and there is a lot of good information in it. He's reviewed a LOT of gear and sometimes that's one of the few places to get some detailed information about certain things.

I'm an adult and like any information source, I have to evaluate how reliable it is when using it...just like the APUG. Some here are less knowledgable (I'm in that camp) and some really know their stuff. We all have to pick and choose our sources.

The sad thing is that the internet age has spawned this weird "keyboard warrior-lawyer" sort of mentality already mentioned and it really sucks the fun out of a lot of threads where useful information might be had.
 

I really don't like those fun suckers.
 
Alan Gales said:
Fun Sucker.

I like that. It sounds like something Justin Kirk or Kevin Nealon would call someone on "Weeds".

http://www.sho.com/weeds

That show cracks me up!
Click to expand...

Never seen that show.

I never agreed with everything Herbert Keppler said, but didn't go out of my way to bad mouth him like the internet bullies/babies do with KR. yes I put Ken Rockwell in the same arena as Keppler, KR is a modern version of him.
 
I guess we weren't reading the same Herbert Kepler.
 
Not just KR but I see that some Youtubers and bloggers tend to stick with these brand items. Such as Japan Camera Hunter, Big Head Taco. Contax, Ricoh, Leica, and that rare lens. Some sense of Hasselblad but not that much maybe they are less slow to operate. Mamiya, Bronicas hardly get a mention, have they ever got a mention?
 
fstop said:
Never seen that show.

I never agreed with everything Herbert Keppler said, but didn't go out of my way to bad mouth him like the internet bullies/babies do with KR. yes I put Ken Rockwell in the same arena as Keppler, KR is a modern version of him.
Click to expand...

I remember reading Herbert Keppler. What was that, Modern Photography Magazine? I worked at a Venture store as a kid in the Cameras and Sporting Goods departments. We also had Books and Records so I would get the new Photography magazines (Modern, Popular, and Petersons Photographic) and put them in the stockroom and read the articles that interested me when I had time. I liked Petersons Photographic the best. Customers would ask about an item that we were out of and I'd apologize and tell them we were out. We actually were out. A few idiots would jump on me to check the stockroom. I all ready knew what was back there but I would go back and read for a while and then come back out. Usually they were gone. If not I'd tell them that I checked every single shelf for them and we were completely out.

Getting back to Ken. I mean, who agrees with everything anybody says? Like you, I take what Rockwell says, use what I want and leave the rest. There are people out there that I don't care for. I don't bad mouth them. I just don't read their websites.


Weeds is on Netflix if you get Netflix. My brother told it was funny. Watch it if you get a chance. It's pretty crazy. Kevin Nealon is especially funny.
 
Eric Rose said:
What is the OP's real motivation behind his post? I suspect it has nothing to do with KR.
Click to expand...
I'm the OP.I love Ken's review of the 50mm DR Summicron-it's sublime. I just want to know if he thinks that the the new 50mm APO-ASPH is now the best Leica lens ever (incl. build quality, which I doubt).
 
Last edited:
Alan Gales said:
Getting back to Ken. I mean, who agrees with everything anybody says? Like you, I take what Rockwell says, use what I want and leave the rest. There are people out there that I don't care for. I don't bad mouth them. I just don't read their websites.
Click to expand...

I don't understand the KR hate. I really dig him. Very entertaining, and like most people not always right. I do wonder at some things he says, like lens hoods are unnecessary and a waste of money if they don't come with a lens. But he is right about lots of things, like the Mamiya 6 & 7 and the Leica 50mm lens.
 
Ken Rockwell is a pioneer of modern photography. These days, if you want to make a living as a photographer, you have to market yourself as an expert in a field and charge hobbyists for your advice. There’s no money in selling photographs, so you don’t need to actually be a good photographer to make a living at it. He’s done this as well as anyone.
 

Yeah, that is a whole truck load of incorrect.

I make healthy six figures as a commercial and fine art photographer and in the past 3 years have seen annual gross revenue increases of 20%. Disclaimer, I don’t shoot weddings or portraits.

Maybe get to know more photographers?
 

+1*1042
 

I'm impressed! How about you share your website with us.
 
Eric Rose said:
I'm impressed! How about you share your website with us.
Click to expand...
If Dan is unexpectedly too humble to do so, PM me and I'll send you the link.
 
It could be that KR's sponsors will not pay for Leica lenses, only Nikon lenses therefore since he needs to write something to get paid, he is taking his frustrations out on Leica.
 

Well, you can look at anyone who does what Ken does and they all seem to have plenty of haters. I guess it goes with the territory.

Lens hoods that come with lenses are designed for that lens. Some aftermarket lens hoods vignette or have some other problem. They don't fit well or whatever. Even some proprietary lens hoods don't fit well. I don't use lens hoods for my large format camera but I do shade my lens with a dark slide. Some people use a hat, lens hood or compendium shade. I don't know why he would say shading a lens is unnecessary. That wouldn't make any kind of sense.

Oh, that little Fujifilm X100f camera he shoots. He bought an aftermarket hood for that.

Ken also says digital photography eliminated his need for a tripod. Yeah, you can get away with not using a tripod more often due to low light capabilities of digital cameras and also lens stabilization but anything critical that is going to be blown up large I'd still want a tripod. That's just common sense.

You are correct that he is right on a lot of things. I also like the fact that in his reviews that he brings up things that everyone else fails to mention. Often times it's little things but sometimes the little things can mean a lot to you as a photographer.

Like I said before, I like Ken. He is highly opinionated but aren't we all?
 
Last edited:
I don't think much of his reviews, but he has amassed a significant collection of technical specifications and other factual data over the years which I find helpful when I am curious about a product.
 
Huss said:
He could always rent them for a weekend. But yes, it seems that he only reviews what he has on hand or people lend to him.
Click to expand...

In fact, he says as much. He also plainly states that everything on his site is my "aggressive personal opinion," and not a "logical presentation of fact."
 
faberryman said:
I don't think much of his reviews, but he has amassed a significant collection of technical specifications and other factual data over the years which I find helpful when I am curious about a product.
Click to expand...

+1

I also find the way he presents data fairly useful and I don’t find it particularly difficult to just move past the self indulgent statements he makes.
 
First let me say.......I am not a photographer. Photography is simply my hobby.
Granted, i am just a hack "Street Photographer". I do no shoot Fashion Models, or do Product Placement and Commercial Work.
I have probably read (and maybe asked) the question before, but... What is the big deal with "fast glass" .?
I understand there might be Artistic or Composition reasons for wanting an aperture of 0.95. But aside from that.?
Street, Family Photos, Basic Photography...does it really matter if your lens is f/1.8 or f/1.4.?
I understand that it can be a plus where focusing is concerned in low light. There can always be a justification.
But like with the OP in this thread.......0.95. What is the attraction To/For that.?
The price(s) are Super Expensive..
People must be willing to pay that for some reason.......
 

Available light photography
Narrow depth of field
Simulating the economy
 
Sirius Glass said:
Available light photography
Narrow depth of field
Simulating the economy
Click to expand...

Lol, love the last one.

But yeah, even I have my limits. I rented the .95 Noct once and it was just silly on a rangefinder, not very practical in terms of size, crazy expensive and really would work much better on an SLR since it really needs an amazing alignment of background to pull it all together and rangefinders are not very well suited to that.

I never see anything posted by that lens that makes me say wow, I need to have it, the photos almost all reek of gimmickry and eye candy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register