Information post

me and my website RADOJUVA have nothing to do with the problems of the site lens-club [dot] ru, on May 15.05.2022, XNUMX, on the pages of which a lot of spam appeared with Radozhiva's avatar. At the same time, I want to note that in the past I had the most negative experience of using the 'glass club' and in general I categorically do not recommend this resource.


Comments on this post do not require registration. Anyone can leave a comment.

Material prepared Arkady Shapoval. Please, if this material was useful to you, help my project. And don't forget that everyone can write your review for one or another photographic equipment.

Add a comment:



Comments: 24, on the topic: Information post

  • Sergei

    Don't worry, Arkady!
    Lens-club was already half-dead, the last month some kind of stirring began there (new administration). But still the rating remained very weak.
    Who needed to break this resource - I don’t see much point in this due to the low popularity of this site today.
    Maybe the new administration will do something with his resuscitation?
    Let's see...

  • Hairy mirror

    There is a suspicion that: the new administration will rename it to “Ilya Steklomoev”)

    • alexey_laa

      You can also rename it to “Baba and Kit”:

  • Albert

    Sites are already being broken on your behalf. Happy - has long been a whale in the world of photographic equipment, and lens club, of course, becomes duller every year

  • Andrei

    .ru is somewhere in the swamps?

  • Nikolai (sn797)

    I support all positive comments! That's right, Radozhiva has long been a "whale in the world of photographic equipment." I go here almost every day (I comment only rarely), but I don’t even remember what year I went to Lens-club. I still sometimes look at Evtifeev, but Radozhiva is closer and closer.

  • Dmitriy

    Arkady, what's wrong with the "glass club"? It seems to be good as a reference.
    although I did not know that he changed the owner.

    • Dmitry Kostin

      There is good information on rare old lenses.
      I mainly used this site as a reference.

  • Shiryaya scorch

    Figase! Arkasha opened a second front (information)

  • Ruslan Bond

    Not very professional not to recommend anything that is kind of competitive. Personally, in all three (for me) main sites, this one, lens and clubphoto - I find some advantages
    This is not to mention the preview, which at one time was the main thing for me.

    • Arkady Shapoval

      And I have the most serious reasons for doing this, this is not out of the blue chatter

      • Ruslan Bond

        So be it, but everyone decides for himself)

  • Vladimir

    lens-club[dot]ru is a garbage can with false information about lenses. It should not be taken as a guide to lenses. It's the same as science fiction films are considered documentaries :-) There, lamers fill in the cards, almost all the information is distorted, the sources where the information is taken from are not indicated. And there is no one to ask.

    • Dmitry Kostin

      Wow. Strong statement.
      1) Can you confirm your words with at least 10 examples of incorrectly indicated data on lenses from the 90s posted on that site?
      2) Is there an English analogue of lens-club with 99% reliable information on lenses from the 80s + 90s + 00s?
      Thank you in advance!

      • Vladimir

        1) And why exactly on the example of lenses of the 90s then? :-) There are a lot of errors and inconsistencies for all periods, relatively speaking, from the 1930s to the 2020s.
        2) If you do not know English-language counterparts, this does not mean that they do not exist. This is first. And secondly, there are quite a few analogues, and there are those that specialize in specific systems. And lens-club hacks often just drag information from there without checking it, and then swell up like a toad because they have “the largest lens base in the world”.
        This is a trash can of unverified dubious content dragged from anywhere.
        And the reference book implies an indication of the literature on the basis of which such a reference book was created. Sources of information are not indicated for any lens. In some places there is a PDF or links to resources, from where the lens specifications were taken, as a rule.
        Nonsense is secondary, plagiarized through and through, from which all the specialists fled, and only lamers remained.

      • Vladimir

        So I completely agree with Arkady when he writes about his attitude and about the fact that the glass club does not recommend: “And I have the most serious reasons to do this, this is not chatter out of the blue”

        Only I came to the same conclusion that Arkady came a couple of years earlier (at least than he voiced it).

        Moreover, Arkady is a real glass expert. And in your club there, I repeat, everyone ran, who fumbles, and the lens cards are filled with lamerie, unable to distinguish Canon from Nikon (conditionally).

        • Dmitry Kostin

          I am not a member of any club, and I am not registered for the lens club.
          Just occasionally used their info.
          I did not see the answer to my 2 simple questions, which is sad.

          • Vladimir

            “I just occasionally used their info.” Then how do you know that most of the information they have is reliable? Have you compared with other sources? After all, you don’t know them and ask yourself: “Is there an English-language analogue of lens-club with 99% reliable information on lenses from the 80s + 90s + 00s.”

            Well, yes, well, yes, everything is logical.

            These are the omnivorous users, apparently, that make up the bulk of the visitors to the “glass blowing club”.

          • Vladimir

            And I do not understand something. Here Arkady, being an expert on lenses, wrote: “At the same time, I want to note that in the past I had the most negative experience of using the 'glass club' and in general I categorically do not recommend this resource.”

            But you, who “occasionally used their information” and are by no means an expert on lenses, think that Arkady is wrong, but you are right, and the glass blowing club can be used as a reference.

            That is, on the one hand, your reputation (zero in the field of lens reviews and knowledge about them), and on the other hand, the reputation of Arkady (no need to say how high).

            What are you trying to convince the expert? Who has knowledge 1000 times more than you and sees all the inconsistencies, mistakes, inaccuracies?

            Mind chamber...

            • Arkady Shapoval

              You don't have to go far into the forest here is the latest post with an avatar of Radozhiva. Moder out of work (is he there at all?). And what's going on on the forum, what a sodom, what a perversion (not in terms of spam, but in terms of communication on absolutely painful topics), it's just scary, terrible, disgusting and disgusting. And it's there all the time. Cards of more or less rare lenses are also incorrect in details and, for example, I just can’t navigate by them. But that's already it. I make mistakes myself, the main thing is to correct them in time

              • Dmitry Kostin

                Yes, I've caught a glimpse of strange things going on there lately.
                There is a feeling that they have been hacked and the site is in the hands of strange people.
                Arkady, I’m interested in old reviews there, among which I come across valuable information on the operation of lenses. If I am looking for something for myself, then I open several sites in a row.
                Unfortunately, on the territory of the former USSR, there are sites where you can read reviews on operation, which describe the most common problems (in terms of design / assembly, or as an example, read about clouding in gluing lenses in Canon 28-70 / 2.8) of a particular lens - Little. Errors in the weight or diameter of the filter or the number of aperture blades are not particularly critical for me. More important are the photos from the lens and the lenses themselves (how they should look). There are a lot of variations of the same Sigma.
                Here, for example, I was looking for at one time (about 6 years ago): Sigma 70-210 / 3.5-4.5 and a little information on it on the Internet and found it on the lens club, though without reviews.

              • Dmitry Kostin

                Okay, let's hope that the new owner will have the strength to put everything in order and fix the errors where they are and bring it to lenstip level and better.
                But it takes a lot of work, time, effort (and money for development).

            • Dmitry Kostin

              Vladimir(?), the questions were for you and only for you.
              I still don't see the answer.
              I compare different sources of information when looking for something for myself.
              As an inquisitive person, I asked you (and not Arkady, to whom you have now turned the arrows) with two simple questions.
              Well, ok, let's say you are right about everything, but why should I trust your statements?
              I have zero reputation and so do you. Well, OK. Arkady-guru, I do not argue.
              But I repeat, the questions are for you and not for the purpose of pricking you, but for the purpose of, well, as it were, explaining the conversation.

  • Basil

    Unfounded accusations are a global trend! I see the neutrality of judgments! Your colleague, Radion Eshmakov some time ago, very tactfully and just as unfoundedly rejected my polls and clarifications regarding his opinions about some lens (this was several years ago and now I don’t remember where it was), I look and you rolled down same way. Congratulations!

Add a comment

Copyright © Blog author - Photographer in Kiev Arkady Shapoval. 2009-2023

English version of this article

Version en español de este artículo