06-22-2010, 03:19 AM
[quote name='SimonC' date='22 June 2010 - 02:52 AM' timestamp='1277139168' post='641']
Lloyd Chambers reviewed both the Nikon 24G and the Canon 24LII (http://www.diglloyd.com/diglloyd/index.html) separately. His site is a paid subscription; however, he does a very competent job of comparing the 24G with the rest of the Nikon lens lineup. Comparisons with the Canon 24LII show a different story than the link you gave above, with the edge going to the Nikon, esp. border and vignetting performance.
[/quote]
There are always things to take and not to take from any review. Guys like Lloyd Chambers and Ken Rockwell are fairly heavy on opinion before objectiveness and technicality. For example, see how much fluff they write compared to the actual technical bits and results they show.
In the sorts of tests I do, I clearly show aspects that I'm comparing/measuring and emphasize on demonstrating the observations that were made so that the reader can make their own judgments. Descriptions I give are about how the tests were conducted more than personal opinion. After that, any opinions I give on what's shown is only good as anyone else's.
Plus I challenge Chambers, Rockwell or any experts to challenge me on the technicality of my tests or to repeat the tests I did and produce different results, if they can <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
Lloyd Chambers reviewed both the Nikon 24G and the Canon 24LII (http://www.diglloyd.com/diglloyd/index.html) separately. His site is a paid subscription; however, he does a very competent job of comparing the 24G with the rest of the Nikon lens lineup. Comparisons with the Canon 24LII show a different story than the link you gave above, with the edge going to the Nikon, esp. border and vignetting performance.
[/quote]
There are always things to take and not to take from any review. Guys like Lloyd Chambers and Ken Rockwell are fairly heavy on opinion before objectiveness and technicality. For example, see how much fluff they write compared to the actual technical bits and results they show.
In the sorts of tests I do, I clearly show aspects that I'm comparing/measuring and emphasize on demonstrating the observations that were made so that the reader can make their own judgments. Descriptions I give are about how the tests were conducted more than personal opinion. After that, any opinions I give on what's shown is only good as anyone else's.
Plus I challenge Chambers, Rockwell or any experts to challenge me on the technicality of my tests or to repeat the tests I did and produce different results, if they can <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />