He compares the Nikon and Canon WA zooms to the Tokina, Sigma and Tamron versions.
His conclusion: the Canon blows them all away, the Nikon is the best F-mount but the Tokina is pretty darn good at 1/2 the price.
The guy is pretty direct, not too scientific, and sometimes a bit brand biased, but at least its the only opinionated comparison of these lenses I have seen. I appreciate his directness if always reading his posts with some degree of skeptisism. And adding to his credibility, he breaks form here and goes for the Canon.
My problem with his "comparisons" is that he doesn't have the cameras and lenses to use or test... he just goes by available literature and hearsay.
True. Often this is the case with his "reviews". However in this case he claims to have shot with all 5, though he didn't post any example pics.
The review has a large number of sample pics now. Suprisingly, it seems to be quite a thorough review.
Ken is a Nikon guy all the way. I love his comment that Nikon doesn't "squander their resources making copy machines or printers." Aside from the snipe at Canon, he's not afraid to say that the Canon 10-22 is the better optic.
