Upload & Sell: On
| p.5 #10 · Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II: A Peerless Performer |
And I think the 24 1.4 II got only 2.5 or 3 stars too, despite it actually delivering much better 24mm than the 24-105. Each lens gets graded on it's own scale of expectations I think.
Good point. I think you're probably right. My assessment of a new lens is always affected by my expectations, and that varies according to lens price and reputation.
I consider most lens tests and reviews with a grain of salt. I recently posted somewhere (probably the Alt forum) that the 'old' photodo site average MTF test results were consistent in one respect, and inconsistent in another: IMO, lenses rated as extremely good in photodo MTF tests are all excellent (I own or have owned 8 of the 'top 15', MTF.ave > 4.4); OTOH, many other excellent lenses that I've owned didn't show very well in the old photodo results.
IOW, an excellent review from a competent source is generally reliable, while a "not so good" review from one or two competent sources isn't necessarily the kiss of death. Consistency is a very important consideration. If everybody says it's great, then it's probably great. If everybody says it stinks, then it probably stinks. If reviews are mixed (esp. if some are excellent), then it's worth a try. Of course, it's a lot easier and safer to "buy and try" from the second hand market...
P.S. good luck in Super Bowl XLVII