Why PopPhoto is only good for bathroom reading

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

I have been reading this rag on and off for more than 30 years.
Many of their product tests over the years have stunk of advertiser butt
sniffing. I understand the principle that you should not bite the hand that
feeds you.
However to this jaded consumer sensibility their review of the new Nikon
55-200 lens causes epigastric discomfort and a tight feeling in the chest.
I know, I know. The magazine exists to sell ad space and nothing more.
Unfortunately too many people will read PopPhoto and think they are getting
reliable advice.
I did not expect miracles when I bought this lens. I wanted a light
telephoto to carry for travel purposes.
I expected the lens would have the ability to focus and reasonable
distortion. These are not excessive expectations for a lens that retails at
$280.
When I exchanged it for the second and tried a third sample it began to dawn
on me what a piece of junk this lens really is.
I use Nikon almost exclusively and generally admire their products and I am
definitely not a Nikon basher.
I realize this lens is not being marketed as Nikon's best.
A sad truth is that at this price point more people are likely to buy this
lens than Nikon's better lenses and think the 55-200 is representative of
what Nikon is capable of producing or what they should expect from a "good"
lens.
The worst PopPhoto could say about this utter piece of junk is that it is
slow to focus.
They also claim that distortion is very low.
Utter bullsh*t.
Try this lens out at your dealer: try to focus on a light source and see
something more than a smear; that is if you do not fall asleep waiting for
the autofocus to key in on even this high contrast subject. Could it be
excessive flare that prevents the autofocus from stabilizing? Mechanically
unstable gearing in the lens?
Focus, auto or manual, on a grid and look at it through the zoom range and
decide for yourself if Einstein was right or wrong about the curvature in
time and space.
Nikon has actually managed to put out a lens that is worse than the average
28-200 zoom.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"birdman" <apquilts@pacbell.net> wrote:

>I have been reading this rag on and off for more than 30 years.
>Many of their product tests over the years have stunk of advertiser butt
>sniffing. I understand the principle that you should not bite the hand that
>feeds you.
>However to this jaded consumer sensibility their review of the new Nikon
>55-200 lens causes epigastric discomfort and a tight feeling in the chest.
>I know, I know. The magazine exists to sell ad space and nothing more.
>Unfortunately too many people will read PopPhoto and think they are getting
>reliable advice.
>I did not expect miracles when I bought this lens. I wanted a light
>telephoto to carry for travel purposes.
>I expected the lens would have the ability to focus and reasonable
>distortion. These are not excessive expectations for a lens that retails at
>$280.
>When I exchanged it for the second and tried a third sample it began to dawn
>on me what a piece of junk this lens really is.
>I use Nikon almost exclusively and generally admire their products and I am
>definitely not a Nikon basher.
>I realize this lens is not being marketed as Nikon's best.
>A sad truth is that at this price point more people are likely to buy this
>lens than Nikon's better lenses and think the 55-200 is representative of
>what Nikon is capable of producing or what they should expect from a "good"
>lens.
>The worst PopPhoto could say about this utter piece of junk is that it is
>slow to focus.
>They also claim that distortion is very low.
>Utter bullsh*t.
>Try this lens out at your dealer: try to focus on a light source and see
>something more than a smear; that is if you do not fall asleep waiting for
>the autofocus to key in on even this high contrast subject. Could it be
>excessive flare that prevents the autofocus from stabilizing? Mechanically
>unstable gearing in the lens?
>Focus, auto or manual, on a grid and look at it through the zoom range and
>decide for yourself if Einstein was right or wrong about the curvature in
>time and space.
>Nikon has actually managed to put out a lens that is worse than the average
>28-200 zoom.


The lens is not made by Nikon. It is bought in from Sigma, presumably
to fill a need at a certain price point.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On 8/7/05 10:53 AM, in article 070820051053080047%rag@nospam.techline.com,
"Randall Ainsworth" wrote:

> And once you strip out all the advertising, you should be able to make
> it through the whole mag in a couple of dumps.

If the mag is so bad, why pay money for it and read it at all???

PC

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On 8/7/05 12:13 PM, in article
1123442021.953979.13800@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "Charlie Self" wrote:

>
> Proconsul wrote:
>> On 8/7/05 10:53 AM, in article 070820051053080047%rag@nospam.techline.com,
>> "Randall Ainsworth" wrote:
>>
>>> And once you strip out all the advertising, you should be able to make
>>> it through the whole mag in a couple of dumps.
>>
>> If the mag is so bad, why pay money for it and read it at all???
>>
>> PC
>
> To develop a feeling of superiority, either to the magazine or the rest
> of us chumps?

Just what we need, more "elites" who feel superior.....

PC

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Proconsul <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>On 8/7/05 10:53 AM, in article 070820051053080047%rag@nospam.techline.com,
>"Randall Ainsworth" wrote:
>
>> And once you strip out all the advertising, you should be able to make
>> it through the whole mag in a couple of dumps.
>
>If the mag is so bad, why pay money for it and read it at all???


People buy Pop Photo for the adverts, not the useless editorial. And
you can get an annual subscription for only $10, so it is almost free.