Misleading lens reviews

[table1349]

In all fairness to the OP I can see where he is coming from. He is an IT person and as such he lives in a world of doom and gloom looking out for the next cliff with a bottomless fall of failure.

A world that looks for the bad, because it is soooooooo easy to find.



Photographers however are as a general rule a happy, cheerful, up beat collection of individuals who maintain a positive, accomidating attitude towards their friends, clients, compotition and dare I say it the world in general.
We look at life from a different perspective.

 

[KenC]

As with everything else, you have to try to understand the basis of the review. If someone hates or loves a lens for a reason that is completely irrelevant to you, then move on and hope others have addressed your concerns.

 

[Derrel]

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

So much for that vaunted Canon lens quality, eh? In all fairness though, the 16-35/4 IS and the 70-200/2.8 IS Mark II are known as superb new-era zoom lenses, perhaps the very best of their class. What's happened with Canon is that they were finally pushed into updating older designs that were not going to be suitable for their next-generation cameras, as they moved to higher megapixel counts in both APS-C bodies, and in FF bodies. Canon's 70-200/2.8 IS-Mk II is no doubt the very best 70-200/2.8 on the market, at any price. AND, and this is a big deal--it's also been matched exceptionally well to their teleconverters!

After getting their proverbial asses kicked for years by Nikon's 14-24mm f/2.8, Canon answered with its own world-class zoom and went to a 12-24mm design. Same with the Nikon 200-400 f/4 VR...it took Canon almost a decade, but they came out with an all-new 200-400 with a built-in TC, and it is significantly better than the now old Nikkor model. As we've moved from 12 and 16 megapixels to 24, then 36, and now 50 million pixels, some of the older lens designs are going to really show their limitations on those high-rezz sensor cameras. The camera companies only re-design things when they absolutely NEED to move off the dime. The newest zooms have become markedly better than what was available before. And the prices have gone wayyyy up too.

There's now getting to be more emphasis on simply better-performing zooms, and also a new focus on making the telephoto converters better, and making the 70-200/2.8 lenses and the exotic primes (200,300,400) work very well with the newest teleconverters. Nikon has gone to aspherical element TC's, as well as the very-newest E-series TCs for the new, electronic diaphragm lenses.

 

[beagle100]

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!

sure, primes are sharper than zooms (and cheaper)
but your gear bag will be larger !

 

[TheUniverse]

sure, primes are sharper than zooms (and cheaper)
but your gear bag will be larger !

Really? I would love to be able to compare our bags. Most photographers I know are not trying to be ready for everything and anything. They work on one, sometimes two, aspect of photography. If two, rarely at the same time.

I'll offer my own case as an example. I did basically two things: street and musicians.

Street: I usually worked with two bodies, one with a 35mm and the other with a 135mm.

Musicians: Here we have two scenarios. Studio or location.
Studio = no bag.
Location = my van full of gear (including strobes) and friends to help with every aspect of the shoot, make-up, hair, holding reflectors, handing me different camera backs, etc. I guess you could call that a humongus bag but the lenses where a tiny part of it all.


Now, to get back to the original idea of the thread. I don't trust any review.

Reviews on commercial websites by "customers": How do you know the review writer is not an employee of the merchant? Unless you are totally naive, you know this happens more often than not.

Reviews on commercial websites by the store staff of experts: see below.

Magazine reviews: Who pays the magazine's bills? The advertisers who need review. If that is not clear enough, I worked in a photo shop (those things in your neighborhood before the internet screwed everything up) while I was in school. In this shop, you could put a lens on your camera and test it. Most customers preferred to listen to us salespeople. Unfortunately for them, we were paid regularly by the suppliers to push their stuff. I still have a Nikon chair I got for being top sales one week...

Reviews here on TPF: Nikon lens review by a Nikon hating member... great! Canon lens review by a Canon hating member. Just as great.

Do you still want to read reviews?