Quote:See what you caused. 
Seriously ... we are not here to do advertising for manufacturers. If we don't put our fingers into the wound nothing will happen.
It just cannot be in your interest if we rated them better just for the good feeling. Remember that manufacturers give a damn s about you. You are merely a statistical number for them no matter what they tell you. We should treat them in the very same way.
Our aim is to have a bell/gauss curve for our ratings with a hot spot at 3*.
(2*) 4* are a (negative) privilege and 1* & 5* are near impossible.
Why? Aiming for that is rather nonsensical IMO. You need both a sufficient number of different lenses of the same focal length, and a sufficnent number of lenses of each model (approx. 20 or more) to use statistics properly.
Otherwise you are essentially comparing apples to oranges, and also do not have a sample large enough to do any reasonably statistically valid comparisons with, let alone come to any valid conclusions.
F.E., I have always wondered about the ratings for long lenses here, but this I now understand. Tbvh, you need to divide lenses at least in different FL-groups in order to do this type of thing and make those scores at least seemingly relevant.
Just my opinion, and my 2c, of course.
Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
08-12-2016, 01:40 AM
(This post was last modified: 08-12-2016, 01:55 AM by Klaus.)
We 'aim' as opposed to we 'are'. Don't interpret anything truly mathematical into this statement.
The ratings are done on a case by case basis, of course.
However, when looking at the overall results, it is fairly obvious that that the rating distribution is simply similar to a bell/gauss curve.
As a matter of fact most of today's lenses are actually quite good. There are just few that are truly outstanding ... or truly bad. So this just reflects reality.
Conversely in many other magazines, you may spot that their distribution isn't quite like that but rather heavily weighted to the 4*-5* range - this pleases both manufacturers as well as owners. That's the happy stakeholder approach which is great from a site marketing perspective (thus we are actually quite stupid here).
longbowswift
Unregistered
Quote:We 'aim' as opposed to we 'are'. Don't interpret anything truly mathematical into this statement.
The ratings are done on a case by case basis, of course.
However, when looking at the overall results, it is fairly obvious that that the rating distribution is simply similar to a bell/gauss curve.
As a matter of fact most of today's lenses are actually quite good. There are just few that are truly outstanding ... or truly bad. So this just reflects reality.
Conversely in many other magazines, you may spot that their distribution isn't quite like that but rather heavily weighted to the 4*-5* range - this pleases both manufacturers as well as owners. That's the happy stakeholder approach which is great from a site marketing perspective (thus we are actually quite stupid here).
Thank you I can understand. Support your opinion~~
Waiting for more mirrorless len tests. G12-60 is a very convenient l
en, I`ll try this len in the future when its price fall in a acceptable price range
