I'm done with lens reviews

Rod McD wrote:

Hi,

I'm joining the thread late, but what the heck.... Surely being 'done with' them all is a tad sweeping? And surely one isn't buying new lenses so often that reviews are a staple part of the reading diet? I think the better tests and reviews have their place, as long as one is judicious in the reliance one places on them.

One learns that

• there is sample variation between reviewers.... Their standards and interests vary.
• there is sample variation between lenses.... The reviewer's sample may be the rule or the exception. But you can't know. (And the best sample to test is your own).
• some reviewers are better than others (or at least appeal in methodology and delivery)
• some reviewers' verdicts tend to align with your own conclusions, and so you tend to regard them as more reliable next time.

Come on Rod, we all know you love reviews! Every time a new lens comes out that you are interested in or a lens (Voigtlander comes to mind) lacks reviews, we see you comment about waiting for reviews. But really how many bad lenses are out there that you couldn't predict would be bad?

I do agree with your comment about flare, but that is solved via a hood.  CA can be fixed.  Now, the only thing I might look at a review is to see if it has acceptable focus wide open but that is mostly with the cheap brands.  I don't care about sharpness as a fetish, but I do not need a glamour lens in which nothing is sharp.