[sutherland]

Ken (the Angry Photographer) is a great resource, especially in the Nikon and Fuji universe. I like how his reviews consistently center around these two points:
- value
- philosophy of use

As a Nikon shooter, I value his contributions over other YT personalities.

[mccririck]

"The Angry Photographer" may know stuff about gear, but http://www.chuckjines.com/the-angry-photographer-busted-claiming-other-peoples-work/

To claim the angry photographer is not a photographer is just plain ridiculous.

[wanderer2]

The F135/2.8 is in a league of its own. None of the other Pentax 135mm lenses I have come close (Takumar, K, M or FA). The optically identical FA is not as good - something is different though - coatings, glass types, both?

IMHO the colours on the F135/2.8 are nicer than the Nikon

---------- Post added 22-08-18 at 06:34 PM ----------

https://www.pentaxforums.com/gallery/images/61234/1_Merewether_Baths_dome_reduced.jpg

These reports that the F is so much superior than than the other Pentax 135s is very discouraging since I just bought a FA 135. I had read in the forum lens reviews that the optical formula was the same for the F and FA and found the FA much more available in the used markets. My use for this lens is landscapes on a tripod stopped down to the F5.6 - 11 range. I wonder if the F will be that superior to the FA at these aperture settings, as opposed to wide open. I don't have access to a F to do a direct comparison. Has anyone done a direct comparison of the two lenses at those settings? Thanks for any help/advice.

[hasenbein]

To claim the angry photographer is not a photographer is just plain ridiculous.

Of course he is a photographer.

Everyone who takes pictures with a camera regularly (especially when he manages to somehow make money with it) is a photographer.

But most of the images (they are not many) which Ken showed to the public are just not good. That's why people criticize and deride Ken - he posts SO many videos where he plays the know-it-all and where he nerds around in minute details about equipment, and then you see the photos and think: "Really?"

Add to that his sometimes scientifically very dubious or conspiracytheorist claims, and the verdict about Ken should be clear.

---

Last edited by Racer X 69; 04-27-2019 at 08:10 AM. Reason: Language.

[mccririck]

Of course he is a photographer.

Everyone who takes pictures with a camera regularly (especially when he manages to somehow make money with it) is a photographer.

But most of the images (they are not many) which Ken showed to the public are just not good. That's why people criticize and deride Ken - he posts SO many videos where he plays the know-it-all and where he nerds around in minute details about equipment, and then you see the photos and think: "Really?"

Add to that his sometimes scientifically very dubious or conspiracytheorist claims, and the verdict about Ken should be clear.

Why should Ken post his photos on the internet. He chooses to post specific photos to illustrate points, rather than his best shots.

And the thing most people like about Ken is his knowledge of lenses and cameras. He knows more about vintage lenses than anyone else I know - I've bought some of his recommendations and they have been fantastic.

You do not have to be the world's best, most artistic photographer to know the stuff Ken knows and shares on YouTube. He has masses of experience using equipment, and he knows what he's talking about.

I would say I find his magnetism and other off topic videos not so good, although they can be enjoyable.

[stevebrot]

And the thing most people like about Ken is his knowledge of lenses and cameras. He knows more about vintage lenses than anyone else I know - I've bought some of his recommendations and they have been fantastic.

He also knows about famously "hot" radioactive lenses (ahem) and it was from one of his posts on the subject (including artless examples) that led me to take a second look at the Auto Rikenon 55/1.4 that has languished on the shelf for several years. Ken claimed "bubble bokeh" and sure enough, it has something. I am pretty sure I may have inadvertently released a demon from the depths of perdition when all I thought was that I was shooting flowers. I blame Ken for that.


A Darker Version Still




Such might be a good thing, however, in that a second photo taken the next day was explored last night on Flickr. I am a little worried, that my soul may be at risk...


Steve

(...all Ken's fault...)