Mike Johnston's review of the new Pentax 35mm macro

[Juno]

MJ's effusive - perhaps enthusiastic would be more charitable - review of the Pentax 35mm f2.8 DA lens has rocked a few boats over at photo.net. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it but it appears that not everyone agrees with the conclusions he and Carl Weese reached.

I think there may be something more going on here than meets the eye and which might cast a little doubt on Mike's impartiality. I've noticed that Mike's great The Online Photographer blog appears to have taken on a more commercial slant in recent weeks. His glowing review of the Pentax lens was accompanied by several exhortations to buy it. Mike said:

"If you'd actually like to buy this lovely device, please link from here so we can rake in the profits. I'll go mad I'll be so awash in money. I'll buy a sailboat. O what heaven the sea....
Er, sorry. Got carried away there for a moment. Still, I'll be very pleased on the off chance that somebody buys one as the result of the article. Here are the links:"

OK, it's presented in a jokey way but there's a serious message behind it - and it's not the only examples of what seems to be a new, commercial approach. Since that post, there have been more posts encouraging readers to buy books, one which did nothing more than list a whole load of photographic goodies - all with links to Amazon, etc - under the title "Stuff we can buy", a BH Photovideo link for a new Tokina lens and a post drawing attention to Mike's weekly "recommended product" link and the fact that hardly anyone checks it out. And all of that in the last week. I don't have a problem with this. It's a great blog that's very entertaining and informative and which we get to read for free. You can't blame Mike for trying to make some cash from it. But when the plugs are coming thick and fast and blatant, then I think there comes a time when you have to ask if the reviews/recommendations are there for our benefit or Mike's.

I remember when Michael Reichmann's Luminous Landscape website used to be a source of info but now looks more like a shop window sometimes. It would be a shame - but I suppose understandable - if TOP were to end up the same way.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

Ahhh. . . give Mike a break. So he doesn't want to go broke running his website. Geez. Go run a business, why don'tcha?

It is expensive providing all of this "free" space. The "control" on the process is reputational. As in: his credibility is really all he has as a writer whose focus is the world of commercial photography products. If he gets a reputation as a "shill" then no one will pay any attention to his likes and dislikes. Personally, I see this in a different light: Mike has found a product that he genuinely likes and wants to spread the good news. When you see him flogging a mid-range plastic wunder-zoom, then you should start to worry. My sense is that he is a very straight shooter, and I'd think twice -- and I would have to have something better than a hunch in my back pocket -- before suggesting otherwise.

Ben Marks

 

[Roger Hicks]

MJ's effusive - perhaps enthusiastic would be more charitable - review of the Pentax 35mm f2.8 DA lens has rocked a few boats over at photo.net. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it but it appears that not everyone agrees with the conclusions he and Carl Weese reached.

I think there may be something more going on here than meets the eye and which might cast a little doubt on Mike's impartiality. I've noticed that Mike's great The Online Photographer blog appears to have taken on a more commercial slant in recent weeks. His glowing review of the Pentax lens was accompanied by several exhortations to buy it. Mike said:

"If you'd actually like to buy this lovely device, please link from here so we can rake in the profits. I'll go mad I'll be so awash in money. I'll buy a sailboat. O what heaven the sea....
Er, sorry. Got carried away there for a moment. Still, I'll be very pleased on the off chance that somebody buys one as the result of the article. Here are the links:"

OK, it's presented in a jokey way but there's a serious message behind it - and it's not the only examples of what seems to be a new, commercial approach. Since that post, there have been more posts encouraging readers to buy books, one which did nothing more than list a whole load of photographic goodies - all with links to Amazon, etc - under the title "Stuff we can buy", a BH Photovideo link for a new Tokina lens and a post drawing attention to Mike's weekly "recommended product" link and the fact that hardly anyone checks it out. And all of that in the last week. I don't have a problem with this. It's a great blog that's very entertaining and informative and which we get to read for free. You can't blame Mike for trying to make some cash from it. But when the plugs are coming thick and fast and blatant, then I think there comes a time when you have to ask if the reviews/recommendations are there for our benefit or Mike's.

I remember when Michael Reichmann's Luminous Landscape website used to be a source of info but now looks more like a shop window sometimes. It would be a shame - but I suppose understandable - if TOP were to end up the same way.

This is always a bugger.

Because of my enthusiasm for (most) Leica products, some people assume I'm in Leica's pay. Well, put it this way: the most recent Leica product I've paid my own hard-earned money for is a Thambar from about 1938. Leica ain't seeing any of that money...

This is why we accept no advertising at www.rogerandfrances.com. If a product is good, we''ll say so. If it isn't, you can't bribe us (or at least, no-one has yet managed to offer us enough). We haven't even gone for amazon.com with our own books (despite having intended to do so) because we'd rather be independent and we don't like the idea of Amazon putting small book-shops out of business.

Of course we're nice to people who are nice to us (press discounts and even free goods), as long as they make good products. But equally, if the product's no good, we don't want it anyway, even for free. And you can't eat free cameras, even the best in the world. You have to earn money -- proper, folding drinking vouchers -- somewhere.

This doesn't mean we attack products we don't like. We can't afford to. We don't want to alienate people, because the business is surprisingly close-knit, and someone who's working for an arsehole company this year might be working for someone good next year -- or the arsehole company might bring out a brilliant new product.

But all in all, I suspect that I'd have made more from www.rogerandfrances.com if I'd used the same time to sit in any reasonably prosperous town centre with a tin cup and a dog on a piece of string. People don't want to pay for information on the web -- which is why they so often get what they pay for.

Edit: this is NOT to denigrate Mike's site or integrity for a moment: I've not read the article in question, and I don't know his situation. On the other hand, it's a serious 'take' from someone else, with a reasonable reputation, who is also trying to make a few pennies out of the the internet.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Juno]

Ahhh. . . give Mike a break. So he doesn't want to go broke running his website. Geez. Go run a business, why don'tcha?

It is expensive providing all of this "free" space. The "control" on the process is reputational. As in: his credibility is really all he has as a writer whose focus is the world of commercial photography products. If he gets a reputation as a "shill" then no one will pay any attention to his likes and dislikes. Personally, I see this in a different light: Mike has found a product that he genuinely likes and wants to spread the good news. When you see him flogging a mid-range plastic wunder-zoom, then you should start to worry. My sense is that he is a very straight shooter, and I'd think twice -- and I would have to have something better than a hunch in my back pocket -- before suggesting otherwise.

Ben Marks

I used to think that as well, Ben.

 

[JTK]

I've used that lens regularly for about two months on K20D (sweet brick-like camera, rugged, dust and water resistant, 14.6mp, low noise without noise reduction at 1600).

The lens is far more mechanically rugged than any Leica (or any other lens I've seen, save Nikonos), it's dust/moisture sealed, and it's exquisitely high resolution.

It's too short for most bug-flower macro snappers (see Pentax 100/2.8 or even 50/2.8) but it's a fine normal lens on APS and it's directly comparable to (but faster than) Nikkor and Canon 50 micros, both of which I loved and used as normal lenses.

It hunts in low light, unlike standard Pentax primes, due probably to the necessarily long helicoil. That might be a shortcoming sometimes, but its easily manually focused..the speed (more than enough on Pentax K20D) and smooth mechanicals make manual focus a joy, even if you choose to to work that way in good light (snaps nicely in/out of focus).

 

[Roger Hicks]

I've used that lens regularly for about two months on K20D (sweet brick-like camera, rugged, dust and water resistant, 14.6mp, low noise without noise reduction at 1600).

The lens is far more mechanically rugged than any Leica (or any other lens I've seen, save Nikonos), it's dust/moisture sealed, and it's exquisitely high resolution.

Without wishing to be unduly combative, how do you judge ruggedness in 2 months? Have you dropped it or banged it much? Obviously, you can't judge how it'll behave in 2, 5, 10, 20, 50+ years (I've just bought a Leica lens made in 1938).

More than once I have had lenses that felt rugged -- though never, I have to confess, any autofocus lens, even from Zeiss -- but rugged is as rugged does, and more than one of these rugged-feeling lenses has gone quite sloppy (or even started to fall apart) in a few years.

As I say, I do not wish to appear unduly combative. I'm just a bit suspicious...

Cheers,

R.

 

[ChrisN]

I've been reading Mike's stuff now for several years, and must say I've found his writing practical, useful, amusing and informative. And yes, his liking for good Pentax lenses is well known and transparent, and based on the fact they produce images he likes. And long before his recent article on the DA35 lens he would regularly drop in comments suggesting readers use the links on his page, to site sponsors, as a way of supporting his efforts. Just like this site.

And for Roger - fair conmment perhaps. As you suggest, time will tell. I've not held the DA35, but have two others in the Pentax Limited range, about eight other Pentax lenses, a similar number of Olympus OM lenses, 4 Leica lenses, several various others, and have owned and sold a few more (excluding modern Canon and NIkon - no experience there). Assuming the DA35 is up to the standard set by the other Limited lenses, it will feel very solid in the hand, slightly heavy with the quality of good materials used, and the mechanical movements will feel precise and very smooth.The finishing will show a very high standard. The whole thing will inspire the confidence that JTK feels and shared. Pointless perhaps comparing with Leica, but I expect my Pentax Limited lenses will give me just as good service. I know I'm just as pleased with the qualities of the images they produce as I am with my those produced by my Leica lenses.

 

[David Goldfarb]

I'm okay with the commercial aspects of Mike Johnston's blog. He's a smart guy and a good writer, and deserves to be paid for his work. I'm fairly sure that most of the money he makes from the site, which probably is not that much, comes from the block ads he sells on the left side of the screen.

Amazon payments are a fairly innocuous. I've tried it on my academic website, making Amazon links to books that contain things I've written or books that I've written about, and without being very aggressive about it, I've made about 54 cents in the last six months (they only send a check if you've made more than $10, I think). Amazon encourages promotion of certain products, like the Kindle, but they don't require it. They certainly don't promote any camera equipment or photo books in any special way, so if Mike Johnston likes Pentax, he can promote Pentax, and if he likes something else, he can promote that. It's not as if Pentax is buying an ad on his page, and he's giving them special consideration.

He's been writing product reviews for many years, long before he had a blog, so it's also not the case that he has suddenly started writing product reviews in order to encourage Amazon sales. Given that he writes such reviews anyway and puts them on his blog for free, why not buy the product through his Amazon links to support the blog, if the review was helpful?

 

[Austerby]

In the end you have to make your judgement on your view of the integrity of the reviewer. I'm happy if someone I respect recommends a product then suggests a place to buy it from and also happy to buy it through their website if it's the same price as a reliable source - in fact I'd rather link to Amazon through a trusted third party than go direct if I get the same price and service but my source gets the well-deserved credit for it. So sorry, Roger, I've bought a couple of your books recently but had to go direct. Very pleased I am with them too, though still working my way through them.

 

[Paul_C]

I loved and recommended TOP for a long time as a balanced and thoughtful blog about photography but dropped it some time back when Mike started going for the let's-post-something-combative-to-get-people-coming-back approach (dunno if he's still doing this.) Basically became a troll on his own blog - in posts, comments, and direct email correspondence he was just trying to pick fights.

Never felt so disappointed before when deleting an RSS feed. All the drama may up his hit count but it killed the whole nature of the place for me.

As a Pentax lover I hope all his gushing about this lens is based in reality, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was intended to provoke reaction.

(Note: I haven't read the post in particular, or the blog at all for a very long time. It could be much different now than it was then and I hope for the blog-reading photogs out there it is. I also really really hope for us Pentax fans that this lens is everything people say he says it is.)

 

[txind76]

The Whole Skinny On That

The Whole Skinny On That

Juno,
There's no proof of concept either way. So far (5 pm Aug. 25th), one person has ordered a Pentax 35mm DA Macro through my links, and I got a commission (profit sharing) totaling $16.20. (Yay.)

Two points come to mind: I'm sure I can be bought, but the threshold hasn't been explored yet. I know for sure I can't be bought for $16.20, though.

Second, people don't buy what I recommend. They just don't. People buy what they want to buy. What I want is for them to buy THROUGH MY LINKS, because then I get a little cash for it! This is important to me and I do appreciate it. But it doesn't matter to me *what* they buy. And it has very little to do with what I *say* about a product, either. I've gotten those little commissions for power tools, baby carriages, and a George Foreman grill, among dozens of other things, but I've never mentioned any of those things on TOP, much less recommended them. I *think* that sometimes when I mention a book, people will use the link to go to Amazon, and then they'll buy something else while they're there. This is good. I get paid. But they seldom buy the book I recommend. Sometimes they do, but maybe not as often as you might think. There have been plenty of times when I recommend a book and no one buys it. Not a single person. (Boo.)

I talk about books a lot because I love books. I have lots. I'm a bit of a book nut.

Here's another twist for you: sometimes when I say something *bad* about a product, people will go buy one. (Don't ask me!)

The thing about earning money from the site is, I just have to earn enough from the site to justify the time that I put into it. I love writing the site, but I have a son to support, and bills to pay (like everybody), and I have to try to be an adult about it. I just can't responsibly justify the time it takes to write the site if I don't get a certain minimal return for it. I'd feel too guilty. I can justify maybe two unpaid hours a day, because that's how much time I might normally waste web-surfing. But any more than that and I need to have some money coming in. If the income from the site drops to $6 an hour and I can make $7 flipping burgers, then I really will have to go get a job at McDonalds, that's what it boils down to (although things aren't really at the burger-flipping level, of course).

For most of the Spring, the website did well. July and August have been terrible. The website has earned extremely little. Little enough that I've just been forced to think about closing it down. I'm not to that point yet, and I'm hoping that things will pick up again in the Fall, but I had to think about it. A lot depends on November and December. If I don't have a good November, I'll be off taking real estate classes or selling Hondas or something. That's just the way it is. (I'm not sobbing; I know everybody's in the same boat. Well, at least everybody who knows how many houses they have.)

If you don't want any of your money to go to me, the method is simple--just never use any of my links. But as to whether I would review something just to get people to buy it, maybe I would. If I could sell 1000 Pentax Macro lenses just by reviewing it, I sure might review it for that reason. Or I might not. But so far there's no way for me to find out, and (boo and hoo) I doubt there ever will be.

All best,

Mike J.

 

[txind76]

P.s.

P.s.

Also, don't forget the Pentax 35 DA Macro review was not entirely written by me and did not appear on my site.

Mike J.

 

[kshapero]

Mike,
I enjoy your site and love to read (I know show me the money). Anyway I love your site because you speak highly about the Zeiss Ikon, which I own therefore you validate me. LOL. I usually buy used but I for one will try to use your links if I buy something new even if only flashlight batteries.
Keep up the great work.

 

[MacDaddy]

This is always a bugger.
Edit: this is NOT to denigrate Mike's site or integrity for a moment: I've not read the article in question, and I don't know his situation. On the other hand, it's a serious 'take' from someone else, with a reasonable reputation, who is also trying to make a few pennies out of the the internet.

Cheers,

Roger

Mike has stated numerous times that he gets a pittance for the Amazon link; literally pennies for any purchases made through his site. And he is NOT shilling Pentax. He, as we all are , has been seeking a replacement for his lamented Minolta system for a couple years now and Carl Weese (a mutual friend of Mike AND myself!) suggested he try Pentax, which is how he got from point A to point B with this lens review. Just as I respect and admire the wisdom and experience of Roger, I do the same for Mike.
Give him the benefit of the doubt because he's just trying to survive while giving us all FREE access to his decades of expertise. Just as I admire Roger and Frances for the graciousness they exhibit with all their contributions to this site that they offer the rest of us, I admire Mike the same way.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

Let me throw in my two cents here and say that this lens is awesome. I'm using it on a K20D as well, and absolutely love it. Performance as a walk-around is excellent for the price, and the fact that it also has a genuine, very useful macro mode is an amazing bonus. Handling is superb, the lens seems sturdy as hell, and it's a pleasure to manual focus. I haven't read this review yet, but I'm going to now...

 

[cmedin]

We haven't even gone for amazon.com with our own books (despite having intended to do so) because we'd rather be independent and we don't like the idea of Amazon putting small book-shops out of business.

I actually just bought a book of yours at Borders, you capitalist pig you. 😉 Was looking at lighting books and this one looked intriguing, then I realized the names looked awfully familiar... good read so far!

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

OK, just read Mike and Carl's review. I am not remotely as experienced as they are with different optics, but even an amateur like me can't argue with really good picture after really good picture...I'm sure pixel peepers will find other Pentax primes sharper than this one (a lot of people seem to prefer the FA31), but this lens/camera combination gives RAW files with SO much to work with, you can push the sliders all over the place in Lightroom and still have all manner of detail. It is definitely my favorite SLR lens!

 

[cmedin]

I'd love a 35, but picked up a 40/2.8 pancake recently so don't really need it (especially since I just scored a bellows setup for macro work). It does look like a superb lens though and I've heard nothing but praise for it from people who actually go shooting with it instead of pixel peeping res targets. 🙂 The 40 is fantastic, by the way... Pentax really is offering up some great prime glass for their DSLR owners.

 

[txind76]

I don't think I emphasized enough in the review that it is not really sharpness that concerns me. It's not what I look for or care about in a lens. There's nothing wrong with the sharpness of the 35mm, for sure, but there are so many other things to look at in terms of how a lens behaves. There's a balance and an integrity to some of the images from this lens, and a coherence in its description, and a lovely tonality, a clarity. Is it "the sharpest?" That I can't answer. Especially since Photoshop and digital unsharp masking came along, we don't even have to rely on lenses for subjective sharpness any more--it's just another property that we apply after the fact. I wouldn't even know what it's like to look only for sharpness, sharpness only, and overlook or ignore anything else.

Not in this thread, but in other places on the web, I think I'm reading comments by people who only see sharpness, only care about sharpness and nothing else. To a hammer everything is a nail, and perhaps some people can only look at one aspect of a lens in that way.

Mike J.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I actually just bought a book of yours at Borders, you capitalist pig you. 😉

Oink! Oink! Thanks!

I see the arguments for Amazon but what worries me about all book chains is centralized buying, which can reduce reader choice. With two independent bookshops, such as we used to have in Canterbury, you get two independent buyers' gambles. With a big chain, you get what Head Office sends you. Everywhere. Yes, there is a certain amount of local discretion, but it ain't the same.

On re-reading my post from yesterday, I'd like to reinforce the point that I had no intention to denigrate Mike in any way, or to impugn his integrity. My post was pretty much prompted by the fact that if he's making burger-flipping money (per hour) out of his site, he's doing better than I am. People don't want to pay for anything on the internet, and unless www.rogerandfrances.com starts making better money in the next couple of years, I'm leaning towards knocking it on the head.

One other point is that people don't want to pay for books, either. Twenty years ago, 10% of cover price was regarded as a fair royalty. Now, publishers try to get away with 10% of net receipts. As books are normally discounted 40-60% to the bookseller, this means that income per book has halved...

Cheers,

Roger