03-20-2015, 11:34 AM
"Performance" got full five stars - I could live with that 
And the 3 ½ stars "value for money" - come on, guys, just do it cheaper! to me it looks like the best FF super wide angle out there. In comparison they rate the Otus 85/1.4 with 3 ½ stars overall, just to put things into proportion… And the prime lens gets 4 ½ stars for performance and 4 for value. While the Canon harvest all available stars, is a "cheaper" lens, with AF, without focus problems like the Zeiss causes to CaNikon cameras (alone that bit makes me rolling eyes - what are they testing?) Anybody could help me with a perspective to look at their logic?
Funny people those test folks :lol:
And the 3 ½ stars "value for money" - come on, guys, just do it cheaper! to me it looks like the best FF super wide angle out there. In comparison they rate the Otus 85/1.4 with 3 ½ stars overall, just to put things into proportion… And the prime lens gets 4 ½ stars for performance and 4 for value. While the Canon harvest all available stars, is a "cheaper" lens, with AF, without focus problems like the Zeiss causes to CaNikon cameras (alone that bit makes me rolling eyes - what are they testing?) Anybody could help me with a perspective to look at their logic?
Funny people those test folks :lol: