Do you agree with Ken Rockwell regarding CV lenses on digital Leicas?

I don't agree. Just because something is expensive doesn't mean it's going to be better. And his argument about depreciation is strange..
 
I still don't know why people cite him.

His photographs are banal. He doesn't profess to have any 'journalistic integrity.' What makes him an 'expert' on anything? He's used a bunch of cameras and pays the $20 a month to have his opinions hosted online. Why does it matter what he thinks? Has he demonstrated some sort of understanding or mastery that makes him a respected voice in any aspect of this field?

"I have the energy and sense of humor of a three-year old, so remember, this is a personal website, and never presented as fact. I enjoy making things up for fun, as does The Onion, and I publish them here — even on this page."

— http://www.kenrockwell.com/about.htm

I suppose in this twitt-era, anything 'published' online is accepted as significant, important and factual.
 
ONLY Agree with him when it come to everything shorter than 35mm.

For 35 and longer, they're good enough if you're not going to make huge print and smell the bokeh.

Currently I only own a CV12. You will have to use corner fix on it for corners.

I did use some CV lenses on M9. Just my personal feeling with them.
21/4, forget about this, it need a lot of correct (The whole left side look soft to me, may be my copy was not a good one?)
28/3.5 sharp enough and high contrast on M9, but easy to clip high light and shadow.

35/1.4 SC which is fine except for some distortion and purple fringing.
50/2 Heliar(250th) nice and sharp lens.
50/1.1 sharp enough for a fast lens. but purple fringing may be a problem.
Which is totally fine for me when it come to actual shooting. Never has a problem.

Comment on Ken? Meh, period.
 
Last edited:
This guy really, but really need attention...

I would not give any comments on his photography, but to tell that if you are using this product or this product, you are not a professional and a fool because you did't used the BEST CAMERA IN THE WORLD FOR THE MOMENT I DID WROTE THIS THIS.

The picture that did put me on the map as an artist and a professional was made with a 50 bucks lens that is almost impossible to make the focus with and is certainly not in the choice gamut of mr Rockwell.

This is kind of funny... Because he seems at the same time begging to be liked and continue to bash everything and everyone without any argument, proof or authority.

I can't have any respect :)

I'm sorry...
 
I've almost forgot...

"Sure, off-brand lenses will take swell photos. If you have no problem throwing away $6,000 for a few years of use of an M8.2, why on Earth would you humiliate yourself with cheap lenses just to save a fraction of that same $6,000?"

So that was the feeling when I did put back my 50mm 1.2L in the bag to use my 40mm f2 Voigtlander... Dude this was excruciating! :)
 
Load of rubbish.

I shall continue to avoid his site but I'll forgive you for making me look.

Did you remember to donate to his growing family?
 
Keep in mind that Ken thinks that the D40 is the greatest DSLR ever created. That is enough for me to not take him seriously.
 
"In the Day", fast lenses were matched to particular rangefinder cameras. Different manufacturers made assumptions about film flatness in their camera, and optimized lenses based on those assumptions.

Ken Rockwell does not understand rangefinder cameras and lenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom