Popular Photography:Current Articles at Website?

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Larry R Harrison Jr, Jul 23, 2003.

  1. I have wanted to read the latest August 2003 issue of Popular
    Photography, which has now been out (according to their website) a
    good week or so. However, every place I've gone to so far in town
    doesn't have it. So what I was hoping for was a means to read the
    article online, even if I had to subscribe. (Mainly, I've wanted to
    read their test results of the Nikon G-series 28-80 f/3.3-5.6 lens.)

    I subscribed and so will likely receive my 1st paperback magazine in 6
    weeks or so. Good so far. But how about accessing the current issue
    online? There seems to be no way to do this, as opposed to how I
    **can** do this with Consumer Reports.

    Larry R Harrison Jr, Jul 23, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  2. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Mark M Guest

    Consumer Reports accepts zero advertisement in their magazine, and therefore
    does not tick off advertisers when they put their reviews on-line. For a
    magazine that is an advert-whore (like Pop-off Photo), they would not only
    be in trouble with their advertisers, but they would have to quadruple their
    web-page just to accomodate the overwhelming presence of ads in their

    [**Sorry for the negative slant to my post...but I'm afraid you'll find that
    there is very little respect for Pop Photo here...especially for their
    Mark M, Jul 24, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  3. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Thane Guest

    Thane, Jul 24, 2003
  4. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Dld2419 Guest

  5. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Mark M Guest

    Mark M, Jul 24, 2003
  6. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Jim Nason Guest

    But you have to subscribe to Consumer Reports online to read the
    online reports (which I do).

    Jim Nason, Jul 24, 2003
  7. Larry R Harrison Jr

    T P Guest

    You have to be joking, surely?

    It's made for Nikon by Tamron to sell at an extremely low price point.
    Both optically and in terms of build quality, it is surely among the
    worst lenses ever to carry the name "Nikkor". It's impossible to make
    a good lens for the price it sells at.

    The only worse "Nikkor" lens I can recall is the Cosina 35-70mm
    f/3.5-4.8 AIS which carries the "Nikkor" branding when sold with the
    "Nikon" (made by Cosina) FM-10 and FE-10 bodies. Those bodies are
    also junk.

    The sad part is that the *genuine* Nikkor 35-70mm f/3.3-4.5 AIS is a
    very fine lens, and the now-discontinued AF version is a fine used buy
    at very low prices.

    Also consider a 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5D AF Nikkor, which is an excellent
    lens offering outstanding value for money.
    T P, Jul 24, 2003
  8. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Wes J Guest

    If you were interested in medicine, which would you read, Consumer Reports
    or The American Journal of Medicne? Yes Popular Photography has
    advertisers. So does "free" television. But if you believe Consumer
    Reports has all the testing resourses for photography that Popular
    Photography has, then I'd like to sell you some ocean shore propety in
    Kansas. Popular is a specialty magazine and Consumers has everything from
    vacuum cleaners to laxatives.
    Wes J, Jul 24, 2003
  9. Larry R Harrison Jr

    T P Guest

    T P, Jul 24, 2003
  10. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Mark M Guest

    Read the thread, Bub.
    I made zero comments about CR's photography prowess.
    The only mention of CR came up because they post their articles on the
    internet, and the person wondered if Pop-off Photo posted their in similar
    Mark M, Jul 24, 2003

  11. The possibility exists that you're dead-on right, but then again I
    remember years ago hearing the same things about the Series E lenses.
    Turns out they were good after all. In fact the 75-150 f/3.5 is one of
    the most sought-after lenses in existence.

    Could very well be the same thing happening here.

    (At any rate, I was just curious about the tests, period.)

    Consider also several reasons the G-series lenses are cheaper. First,
    no aperture rings. And of course that's a handicap if you own older
    fine Nikons like the FE or even the N90s, in that those cameras can't
    use G-lenses at all. But if you own the newer ones which control the
    aperture in the body and not the lens, it's not a disadvantage. So you
    save money by trading away compatibility you don't need anyway.

    Second reason for the low price--their slow maximum aperture. No
    wonder the 28-80 G lens is so cheap; at 50mm the maximum aperture is
    something like f/4.5. Frankly I find that absurd, compared to the
    f/1.8 I used to have with my Series-E lens. But that doesn't affect
    quality, unless you shoot wide-open a lot. It just cramps your style
    if you do a lot of "existing light" shots. (For that reason I will
    admit that I am considering a 50mm f/1.8 D-AF lens.)

    Okay, maybe they're somewhat plastic-like (and I admit that's a bit of
    a shock when compared to the classic Nikkors which weighed a ton), but
    then I treat my equipment like China. Pros who inheriently can't
    because they're on the go and shooting oodles of film a week in a
    hurry to meet deadlines etc need sterner stuff. Hence the durable but
    expensive 80-200 f/2.8 ED Nikkor--which costs a fortune and would be
    of no use to me (an average hobbyist) but would matter to a pro who
    needs a constant f/2.8 aperture (admitedly, I wouldn't mind that
    myself) and needs tough stuff he doesn't have to treat like expensive
    China. Plus of course if this professional had a couple of vintage F2s
    or F3s to go along with his F5 or F100 he can use this lens with those
    older cameras as well.

    All I have is the N65 and (soon) the N80, so that doesn't matter. Even
    if it did have an FM2n or F3 etc I have a classic Vivitar Series 1
    70-210 f/3.5 (the 67mm Kiron one) in my bag and I can get a 50mm
    Series E lens (which has been shown to perform well optically) for
    much of nothing. (Or if I do get that 50mm D lens it'll work too.)
    Problem solved.

    Larry R Harrison Jr, Jul 24, 2003
  12. At the risk of looking like an idiot, how in the WORLD did you pull up
    that article? I searched everywhere and couldn't find it. When I
    pulled up the archived July 2002 issue, it mentioned it but didn't
    have a link to it.

    Besides possibly being an "advertising whore," their website (Pop
    Photo) is, I find, also VERY difficult to browse with regards to its

    Larry R Harrison Jr, Jul 25, 2003
  13. Larry R Harrison Jr

    T P Guest

    You're right about the Series E Nikkor 75-150 f/3.5; it is among the
    finest lenses Nikon ever made. The "other lens" is simply not fit to
    be mentioned in the same Usenet message.

    And yes, I have tested several samples of each.

    I recently posted a long list of Nikkor "keepers". No matter how old
    and decrepit I get, there is no way that the "other lens" will ever
    gain entry to my list.

    If you don't believe me, buy one, test it, and see for yourself.
    T P, Jul 25, 2003
  14. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Wes J Guest

    The lens obviously isn't meant to be compared with the heavier Nikkors of
    the past. It's meant to be a reasonably performing, inexpensive, light lens
    suitable for general photography. And according to the charts in Pop, it
    performs that task admirably.
    Wes J, Jul 25, 2003
  15. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Nobody Guest

    Pop Photo articles in a nutshell:
    I get it. Popular Photography protects its advertisers. What periodical(s)
    do people read for less biased information?
    Nobody, Jul 25, 2003
  16. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Mark M Guest

    Those periodicals whose advertisements are not in the identical field as
    their subject, and those periodicals don't accept advertising.

    Pop Photo is at the extreme edge of this type of problem (which certainly
    influences other mags like Road & Track, Car & Driver, etc.) because a HUGE
    proportion of the pages are literally used as distribution for catalogues.
    I don't say you can't discover some factual stuff from the mag, it's just
    that they are so overwhelmingly conflicted that their "reviews" run anywhere
    from soft to ridiculous.
    Mark M, Jul 25, 2003
  17. Larry R Harrison Jr

    NickC Guest

    A reference to Consumer Reports is enough to set ones temperature
    gauge on high. Consumer Reports is a rag.

    NickC, Jul 25, 2003
  18. I generally disagree.....CR is not a professional publication....If you are
    a professional trumpet player, photographer, or race car driver, you do not
    get your information about your equipment from CR. But CR is very useful as
    a consumer guide for non-professional junk, and we all have to occasionally
    buy consumer junk. If you want a toaster, coffee maker, or washer-dryer, the
    magazine is very useful, and can save you miles of walking/telephoning, or
    research necessary to save yourself a few bucks.......It is one of very few
    magazines that does not accept any advertising, and presents, therefore, an
    unbiased evaluation, (within its published parameters) of non-professional
    consumer grade merchandize.
    William Graham, Jul 26, 2003
  19. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Nobody Guest

    And in photography, those would be...?
    Nobody, Jul 26, 2003
  20. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Mark M Guest

    Precisely. Now you're figuring it out.
    Look elsewhere if you want reviews not skewed by advertisers.
    ....Like right here, for example.

    We all have personal bias, but when you add financially-connected bias, the
    problem mushrooms.
    Mark M, Jul 26, 2003
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.