09-25-2011, 11:43 AM
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1316509546' post='11662']
Yes, sure this is understood. Such an overview is certainly interesting.
However, honestly, out of these hundreds of reviews we are usually talking about a very limited number of candidates which qualify for a certain use case. You will rarely follow the approach of buying lenses just because they are rated as being great.
Even so it is often not so easy. Take for instance the "portrait" scope. Just by the ratings you may conclude that -say- the Canon 70-200/2.8 L IS II is the best option. The 85/1.2 L II is rated much worse but from a creative standpoint it is actually superior to the zoom lens here.
So, yes, it is interesting to know the queens here but the beauties may still not be identical to those.
So rather than showing a plain list it would make more sense to provide a interpreted view.
Klaus
[/quote]
Hi Klaus,
I agree re the interpreted view...
Take UWAs for example...
A shortlist (for Nikon) - queens and others included - would look something like:
It would be most useful to include the verdict summaries (and ‘Highly Recommended’ when it applies), with links to the full reviews, and add other fields, like filter size and APS-C equivalent FL.
With the functionality of searching on any field included, this will provide a really helpful way of accessing the relevant reviews, and referring back to them, when looking for a particular type of lens.
Ian
Yes, sure this is understood. Such an overview is certainly interesting.
However, honestly, out of these hundreds of reviews we are usually talking about a very limited number of candidates which qualify for a certain use case. You will rarely follow the approach of buying lenses just because they are rated as being great.
Even so it is often not so easy. Take for instance the "portrait" scope. Just by the ratings you may conclude that -say- the Canon 70-200/2.8 L IS II is the best option. The 85/1.2 L II is rated much worse but from a creative standpoint it is actually superior to the zoom lens here.
So, yes, it is interesting to know the queens here but the beauties may still not be identical to those.
So rather than showing a plain list it would make more sense to provide a interpreted view.
Klaus
[/quote]
Hi Klaus,
I agree re the interpreted view...
Take UWAs for example...
A shortlist (for Nikon) - queens and others included - would look something like:
- Sigma AF 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 DC HSM 555g 106mm x 75mm [url="http://www.opticallimits.com/canon-eos/515-sigma816f4556apsc"]2010(May)[/url] Rating: ****/****/***** Highly Recommended
- Nikon AF-S 10-24 f3.5-4.5 DX 460g 87 x 82.5 [url="http://www.opticallimits.com/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/443-nikkor_1024_3545"] 2009(July)[/url] Rating: ***½/***/**½
- Tamron AF 10-24mm F/3.5-4.5 SP Di II LD Asph IF 406g 87 x 83 2009(Oct) Rating: ***½/***/**½
- Tamron 11-18mm
- Tokina AF 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro DX 560g 89 x 84 2008(May)
- Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4 AT-X Pro DX 570g 90 x 84 2006(July)
- Sigma AF 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DG HSM 600g 103 x 87 2007(Apr)
- Nikon AF-S 12-24mm f/4G IF-ED DX 465g 2006(July)
It would be most useful to include the verdict summaries (and ‘Highly Recommended’ when it applies), with links to the full reviews, and add other fields, like filter size and APS-C equivalent FL.
With the functionality of searching on any field included, this will provide a really helpful way of accessing the relevant reviews, and referring back to them, when looking for a particular type of lens.
Ian