[macfly]

I greatly enjoy the site, but would love the ability to see at a glance the optical rating of each lens, and if they achive your Thumbs-up rating.



Would it be possibe to ad a column to the front page of each section showing the rating something like this?



Thanks for your consideration.

[mst]

Well, of course we could do something like this, but at least for me the question is: should we?



The star rating is only a part of the two or three page reviews, and I don't want to see them reduced just to that rating.



-- Markus

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='mst' timestamp='1303143718' post='7738']

Well, of course we could do something like this, but at least for me the question is: should we?



The star rating is only a part of the two or three page reviews, and I don't want to see them reduced just to that rating.



-- Markus

[/quote]

Besides that the the star ratings are not totally consistent from review to review..

It sounds a bit weird to me... I do not think it is very usual for people to look for "3.5 star lenses". One is looking for for instance a standard zoom for APS-C, or a macro lens with a longer focal length, or a normal prime, or a 300mm tele. And that brings one to a certain lens, and then one wants to know how it performs in certain aspects.

[Sibbi]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1303144471' post='7739']

Besides that the the star ratings are not totally consistent from review to review..

It sounds a bit weird to me... I do not think it is very usual for people to look for "3.5 star lenses". One is looking for for instance a standard zoom for APS-C, or a macro lens with a longer focal length, or a normal prime, or a 300mm tele. And that brings one to a certain lens, and then one wants to know how it performs in certain aspects.

[/quote]



well, and for micro 4/3 we don't have a rating at all due to the auto-corrections...

[macfly]

I only suggest this because I've searched high and lo for a decent database of image quality, and I'd certainly read, and buy based on this info. The way the site is laid out I just click through to the end, and see what grading a lens gets, if it is high enough then I'll read the view, but if not I have no interest in even reding it.



As a working pro my only interest is in what is the very best glass I can put on my camera, regardless of maker, auto focus or anything else, I just want the best quality. Right now my own experience with my Canon gear is mirrored by your reviews here, my sharpest lens in by far and away my Canon 135 f2, but I'd like to see how I can match it's quality across the spectrum I use the most. The 24-70 zoom I have is pretty ok at the 35-50mm range, but terrible at 24, and acceptable at 70 (which is more of a 65mm anyway). The 16-35 mkll is ok, but distorts too much to get used that much.



What I'd love a 24, 35 & 50 that match or better the 135 f2, and since we agree on its rating, I'd trust your ratings on the other glass I might consider.



www.macfly.com

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='macfly' timestamp='1303161020' post='7747']

I only suggest this because I've searched high and lo for a decent database of image quality, and I'd certainly read, and buy based on this info. The way the site is laid out I just click through to the end, and see what grading a lens gets, if it is high enough then I'll read the view, but if not I have no interest in even reding it.



As a working pro my only interest is in what is the very best glass I can put on my camera, regardless of maker, auto focus or anything else, I just want the best quality. Right now my own experience with my Canon gear is mirrored by your reviews here, my sharpest lens in by far and away my Canon 135 f2, but I'd like to see how I can match it's quality across the spectrum I use the most. The 24-70 zoom I have is pretty ok at the 35-50mm range, but terrible at 24, and acceptable at 70 (which is more of a 65mm anyway). The 16-35 mkll is ok, but distorts too much to get used that much.



What I'd love a 24, 35 & 50 that match or better the 135 f2, and since we agree on its rating, I'd trust your ratings on the other glass I might consider.



www.macfly.com

[/quote]

If it is sharpness you are after:



The Canon EF 24mm f1.4 L USM II is very sharp, a great 24mm lens. Definitely upto the 135mm f2 L standard.

The Canon EF 35mm f1.4 L USM is also a great lens, it is sharp enough and has good colour and contrast. Most that own this lens love it.



And then 50mm.. The Canon EF 50mm f1.2 L USM is a great lens... if you need/want a lens that opens up a LOT. Its colour is good, but it is not the sharpest lens ever (especially in the borders, wide open). I would love this lens, but others may be disappointed... it very much depends on what you look for. The Canon EF 50mm f1.4 is the obvious choice otherwise... You can also get ok results with the sigma 50mm f1.4, unless you require sharpness in the borders of the image.



You can even consider an odd lens in this group: the Zeiss 50mm f2 macro planar. It is a manual focus lens, giving you 1:2 macro ability.

And you can also consider the EF 50mm f2.5 macro, Canon's 1:2 macro which does AF. Old but pretty good lens anyway.



Anyway, I have yet to see a reviewer/review site that does not rate the Canon EF 135mm f2 L USM highly <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. It is one of the best lenses available.



On the 16-35mm f2.8: It does not distort a lot (barrel distortion) for its type of lens, I hop you do not mean normal perspective distortion... no 24mm or 35mm lens will show less perspective distortion, as that has to do with the field of view, not the lens design.