10-05-2011, 10:35 AM
[quote name='mst' timestamp='1317808203' post='12109']
We simply rely on the rating police to find mismatches <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
Seriously, though: the Canon is not sealed by itself, it requires a filter to be fully sealed. That doesn't justify a 5-star rating IMO.
None of the other two matches the Nikkor in center resolution. It's debatable whether this alone justifies a 3.5-star rating, but my benchmark were the other two Nikkors. I clearly see the 17-35 ahead of the 16-35 VR (a 3-star lens).
-- Markus
[/quote]
So still something does not match. When we compare this nice Nikon to its nice Sony and Canon counterparts. So, either those last 2 were not rated highly enough, or the 14-24mm f2.8 and 16-35mm f4 were rated a bit too high. Either way, often the ratings do not compare, and it always gets laughed away?
We simply rely on the rating police to find mismatches <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> Seriously, though: the Canon is not sealed by itself, it requires a filter to be fully sealed. That doesn't justify a 5-star rating IMO.
None of the other two matches the Nikkor in center resolution. It's debatable whether this alone justifies a 3.5-star rating, but my benchmark were the other two Nikkors. I clearly see the 17-35 ahead of the 16-35 VR (a 3-star lens).
-- Markus
[/quote]
So still something does not match. When we compare this nice Nikon to its nice Sony and Canon counterparts. So, either those last 2 were not rated highly enough, or the 14-24mm f2.8 and 16-35mm f4 were rated a bit too high. Either way, often the ratings do not compare, and it always gets laughed away?