[wayfarers]

I will be buying a lens soon, and out of curiosity I read a few reviews from what I consider to be reputable sources: sources publishing detailed tests based on optical and mechanical measurements, using consistent methodology, providing sample high resolution photos, and (to my best knowledge) not manufacturer paid.

 

Specific details  (who, what, when) are irrelevant, and would make this note unnecessarily long and complex. I read about a dozen of detailed tests of the lens I am interested in, and now I am able quote a whole spectrum of opinions. Let us briefly compare Photozone and another site (named here: "reviewer B"). As a consumer I can only reach one conclusion: the test are useless. If you are happy with a lens, keep it, if not, sell it. But... what is the real purpose of publishing lens reviews? I do not know. Below a few extracted quotes for the same lens (yes, they refer to measurable, physical properties):

 

[photozone]: "regarding its optical characteristics it is nothing special neither in a positive nor negative sense", vs:
[reviewer B]: "stellar(...) it produces excellent, sharp photos at all focal lengths, even wide open, and has minimal distortion, vignetting and chromatic aberration".
(both opinions are based on series of measurements and real life tests)
 
and one more quote:
 
[photozone]: "The inner-most tube wobbles slightly and, to be honest, the lens feels a bit fragile when fully extended" vs:
[reviewer B]: "the whole lens feels very solid without any wiggle from the interior barrels".
(both opinions are based on a reviewer... trying to wiggle extended lens barrels, I guess? Nothing was measured here).