Misleading lens reviews

[IntrepidB]

Have you ever noticed that lens reviews from online shops (BH for example) basically have an average rating of at least 90% (4.5 out of 5 starts at BH)?

Are all the lenses that good? Or do most people have such low standards that they are happy with anything?

Let's take the Canon 24-70mm f/4 IS for instance. I bought it based on the reviews "good and sharp", "better than the 2.8L II", "my best lens ever".

After six months using it almost on a daily basis, here are my sincere points:
- Zoom ring rubber started to come off, and I take very good care of my lenses.
- Serious focus shift at 70mm. Close-up portraits at 70mm are a pain if not shooting wide open (f/4)
- Not really sharp at f/4. Starts to get good at f/5.6, but you get the focus shift problem if zoomed in on a close target.
- Sharpness greatly reduced as you approach 50mm, unacceptable at 50mm f/4.
- Zoom ring too close to the camera body, finger gets caught in between the lens and the prism area with the Canon writing.

As soon as I got my 50mm 1.8 STM, the 24-70 rarely left the dry cabinet. Ended up selling it for 40% less than what I paid. The 50mm is way sharper even at f/2.5, lighter, smaller and was 7 times cheaper.

How can so many people give 5 stars to a lens like that? At that price range I would give 3 stars at most!

 

[JacaRanda]

Have you ever considered it was simply YOUR lens? Was the warranty no good after 6 months? Did you work with Canon on the issues?
Where else did you look for reviews?

With all those issues you were able to sell it still even at 40%. Impressive.

 

[480sparky41 41]

Keep in mind many online reviews are from ordinary people, and they're probably stepping up from a far inferior lens to start with. These people wouldn't really know a truly good lens if it smacked 'em right between the eyes.

 

[Derrel]

Keep in mind many online reviews are from ordinary people, and they're probably stepping up from a far inferior lens to start with. These people wouldn't really know a truly good lens if it smacked 'em right between the eyes.

^^THAT!!! YES!

Keep in mind also, that a HUGE percentage of vendor-maintained web reviews have been written by people who have only just bought the item they are hurriedly reviewing! The absolute WORST reviews are the ones written in the first hours or days of ownership--the reviews where the buyer is still flush with excitement and euphoria over his new toy. He'll glow with praise about basically, every single aspect of the item, or *almost* every single aspect of the item and its performance/quality/value/build.

A few months back, somebody posted here about a new-to-market, made-in-China, no-name-brand flash unit. I went to the eBay site where the thing was being sold, and it was filled with reviews from noobs, people who had almost no experience with anything else, and they were very impressed. However, within the few reviews there on the site, there were two from experienced users who noted multiple serious issues with the product. But the majority were from new-to-flash users who had NO experience with anything else, nor with anything better.

Keep in mind also; manufacturer and web-vendor sites are NOT required to publish every single review submitted to them!

The famous Leitz (now Leica) lens designer Dr. Walter Mandler said, "The only way to really know a lens is to shoot it for a year." I agree with that wholeheartedly; buy a new lens in the dead of winter and shoot it in Norway or Seattle, and it might be said to be, "Very resistant to flare." Buuuuuut...take it to the tropics in summer, and shoot toward the sun over open water and light sand--and it might very well be a lens with a HUGE problem with flare. [ Walter Mandler - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ]

Same with buying a lens and shooting it in summer, and proclaiming it to be, "A lens that produces exceptionally high contrast." But then, shoot it in Seattle in March, and find out that, NO, it was just the tropical sunlight and dazzling light that made the lens appear to be a high-contrast-producing optic.

Again..Mandler's "shoot it for a year," wisdom shines.

 

[Overread17 5]

This all highlights the importance of research.

In general the internet makes this SO easy and yet so hard at the same time. You've got a wealth of potential review sites and such and that's before asking for direct user feedback on forums.

Of course in every case you have to decide for yourself if the people commenting are worth listening too; do they "really know" or are they simply talking from a very skewed opinion.



Also note that the price comes into it. There are a lot of 5 star fantastic 70-300mm zoomes that most "serious" photographers would class as ok but really nowhere near in the same 5 stars as a 300mm f2.8 IS L MII or a 100-400mm MII. However for those in the cheaper price bracket it can be a 5 star option.

 

[ak_]

The more lenses you have owned, the more able to should be to cold read a potential purchase. 24-70/4 should be very good at around 35/5.6 and excellent at 45/8 (with an overall design bias towards the wider end). Expect moderate barrel at 24-28, and some pin at 70. Don't expect stellar performance from such a lens at f/4. You by a 24/2 for that, just like your 50 prime is better at that FL.

 

[nerwin]

When buying a new lens, I never go by reviews on the product sites. Instead I google reviews from forums such as this one and many others like DP Review to decide if its something I want to invest in. Its what I did when I bought the 105 2.8G. Some of the reviews at like B&H and Amazon are ones who only owned the lens for a few days and ones that don't have a clue how to review a lens and well just your typical joe schmo photographer that has a big wallet. It is what it is.

 

[table1349]

A lens review is only as good as the reviewer. If they have no knowledge, no experience with other lenses or any other piece of equipment in the same category their review will generally reflect that. It's hard to compare apples when you only have one apple.

 

[Rob5589]

Also note that the price comes into it. There are a lot of 5 star fantastic 70-300mm zooms that most "serious" photographers would class as ok but really nowhere near in the same 5 stars as a 300mm f2.8 IS L MII or a 100-400mm MII. However for those in the cheaper price bracket it can be a 5 star option.

Absolutely. Most of us are "average joes" when it comes down to it so those reviews can be swaying and/or informative. For "us," 300-500 for "just" a lens can be a sizable outlay of money compared to a "pro" that has lenses that cost 5+ times more.

 

[IntrepidB]

Have you ever considered it was simply YOUR lens? Was the warranty no good after 6 months? Did you work with Canon on the issues?
Where else did you look for reviews?

With all those issues you were able to sell it still even at 40%. Impressive.

Actually the only issue in my copy was the zoom ring rubber coming off, and it was just a little bit. All the other things (soft at 50mm, soft at f/4, focus shift, badly positioned zoom ring) are present in every copy of this lens. What bugs me is that a lot of people gave this lens 5 stars despite all these issues.

Btw I didn't really sell to a person, but used it as part of payment when buying things in a shop that takes 2nd hand stuff.

Also note that the price comes into it. There are a lot of 5 star fantastic 70-300mm zoomes that most "serious" photographers would class as ok.

Yes I've had a 75-300mm III, was absolutely rubbish above 200mm, but as you said, it's very cheap. I paid like 100 dollars for a second hand one. Used a handful of times over 2 years and then sold it. It's dark, slow to focus, ugly, soft but it's something you would expect when getting so much range for such a low price. What I just can't accept is having issues with a 900+ USD L lens.

 

[dcbear78]

Got to remember with user reviews that people are idiots.....








That is all.

 

[table1349]

Same thing could be said about people on forums, if you like generalities. Consumers have a tendency to be both a bit lazy and look at the monotary cost as deciding factors. before anything else. They often fail to do due dilligance when making purchases. Especially if they are making on line purchases.

For the home owneres here, did you buy your home with out seeing it, inspecting it and just by going by someone or several peoples word? When you bought your last vehicle did you read a few reviews and then call the dealerhip and just order a car?

My wife and I toured our present home more than once. We paid a good inspector to do a through inspection. We checked prices for similar homes in the area, etc. etc. etc. We knew what we were getting. Same thing with vehicles. We actually go out, kick the tires, check under the hood, test drive the vehicle, as well as just reading some reviews by owners of similar makes and models.

Cost includes more than jsut the dollars and cents. If you have a good brick and mortar store you can actually look at, touch, handle and try the item. Might be a couple of dollars more at the brick and mortar than on line, but the service you can receive is worth the extra couple of bucks. The knowledge they possess can also be invaluable.

 

[IntrepidB]

Indeed. My mistake was looking at so many positive reviews (for all lenses) that it seemed that anything would be an awesome purchase.

Apparently photographers are much less critical regarding pieces of gear than computer guys (like me), if I try to make up my mind on buying a motherboard based on reviews at newegg, I will never buy anything because according to the reviews they all have serious issues.

A very good motherboard will usually have no more than 60% of the reviews being 5 out of 5 and an average of 4 out of 5, while a crappy lens will have an average of 4.5 out of 5.

Of all the lenses I've ever had, here are my honest quick reviews:

Past lenses:
18-55mm IS kit lens - Weights nothing, costs almost nothing focuses well and IQ suffices for a first DSLR experience - 4.5 out of 5
50mm 1.8 II - Small, weights nothing, noisy to focus, very inaccurate autofocus but costs very little - 3 out of 5
Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 OS - Compact, easy to hold, good construction, good IQ, focuses ok but loud (so far, 4 out of 5), but focus won't work on newer cameras (like 7d2) and Sigma doesn't answer emails regarding support - 2.5 out of 5
85mm 1.8 - Compact, silent, nice bokeh, fast but inaccurate autofocus, should be cheaper - 3.5 out of 5
100mm 2.8 macro - Sharp, precise focus, silent, good construction - 4.5 out of 5
75-300mm III - Dark, very soft above 200mm in any aperture, slow autofocus, feels and looks cheap. At least it's really cheap too - 3 out of 5
10-22mm (ef-s) - Good construction, silent focusing, not large, sharp center but soft edges - 4 out of 5
24-70mm 4 IS - Seems solid but zoom rubber came off a little, silent and accurate autofocus, not sharp at f/4, not sharp at 40-60mm, focus shift, zoom ring too close to camera body. And is still labeled and priced as L - 2 out of 5

The only one I actually miss is the 100mm macro, which I intend to replace by buying the L version someday.

Current ones:
50mm 1.8 STM - Small, weights nothing, silent and accurate autofocus and costs very little - 5 out of 5
16-35mm 4 IS - A bit heavy, solid construction, excellent sharpness all over the frame even at f/4, silent and accurate autofocus - 5 out of 5
70-200mm 2.8 IS II - Solid, weights a lot, large, excellent sharpness all over the frame even at f/2.8, silent and accurate autofocus - 5 out of 5

 

[Overread17 5]

Conversely if you look at reviews for hard-drives they are all failures

Different markets will react differently plus chances are if you're a computer geek you'll be looking at the higher tiers of gear where you tend to get more discerning customers; or it could just be that the websites are differently populated and that with photography you're seeing a lot more casual users, whilst most casual computer users are only ever going to review fully built computer units; not individual hardware components.

 

[robbins.photo]

One other thing to keep in mind, whatever lens they are reviewing might be the most super awesome most spectacular thing they've ever owned.

But that doesn't necessarily mean that when compared to other lenses in it's range it is really that great of a lens.

Take myself for example - I own a 70-200 mm F2.8 Sigma OS. It's been a fantastic lens for me, and I've been very happy with it. However I'm sure if I'd had owned a Nikkor 70-200 mm F2.8 VRII, odds are good the Sigma would seem a little lackluster in comparison.

For me the Sigma does a good job and it fit my budget, in fact I got a pretty killer deal on it used when I bought it. So even now after owning it for quite a while, I'd still give it high marks if I were reviewing it as a lens recommendation for others.

Someone who had actually owned and shot a Nikkor VRII version though would probably not be as impressed with it because they compare it to that experience. So when it comes to lens reviews, I read through them carefully and try to judge how pertinent the information is based on what the reviewer is saying.

If a reviewer says things like "I've been a photographer for XX years" that means nothing to me. If he says "I've owned a Nikkor 70-200 mm F2.8 and compared to that lens, this lens... " then it tends to get a little more weight if the reviewer seems to be in earnest.

I find reviews done in forums and from sources like Hogan to be a better go to source, as has been previously mentioned too many iffy reviews on the sites that sell the equipment to trust that information.