Hi all,
Many people obsess about ratings and scores.
Given that most of us have been raised and educated through various forms of rating systems, it's not surprising.
The thing with OL is that people will almost always disagree with the ratings given by the site for various reasons.
Although reviewers try to be as objective as possible, it's never truly the case.
I suggest we remove the star rating system entirely. One can just look at the graphs to gauge the IQ of a lens. As far as other aspects are concerned, one can simply read the text.
I think something like a subjective "lens appreciation factor" would be more interesting.
For instance, the Fuji 35mm f1.4 lens is my all time favorite. It doesn't rate all that well in IQ charts. However, it's very small and I love its rendering (still not sure exactly why) and I enjoy shooting with it more than any other lens/system I had before.
What do you guys think?
I think the rating becomes more and more difficult as we see several developments. Huge, heavy, fast, high-performance lenses might be just the right thing for a job with high expectations of resolution and lack of optical flaws.
Compact, easy to transport might be another need.
How to rate AF - it's not important resolutionwise (which is a big part of the rating) but after all, if the sharpness has to be adjusted manually to a given focal pane, a couple of subjects become impossible to shoot.
One might be happy with a "robust enough" design, for some other person maximum rigidity, waterproof construction (not the useless marketing blurb "weather proof") is necessary.
It's difficult to rate - if there's enough choice, the ratings might help to find some candidates quickly. If there's only one lens (at a given time there was just one 105/1.4, soon we could choose out of three) - how to rate it?
What influence to the rating if one lens doesn't reach the top of resolution. but widthstands flares more than the others? And what to do with ratings which were okay at their time, but these days are surpassed by other lenses? At some point the rater will run out of stars...
Hey Joju, I totally agree and this is exactly my point.
The rating will depends mostly on the user's use cases and expectations and IQ might only be one part of the equation...
Hence the question whether the star rating still makes any sense? I don't think so.
10-22-2018, 04:06 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-22-2018, 04:06 PM by Rover.)
Let's not forget that in some cases Klaus and Markus added a secondary "field quality" rating which was usually quite a bit (up to 2½٭) higher than the "technical" rating. It was usually reserved for fast primes that had some glaring deficiency when taken at face value. Sometimes there were even two such ratings added - one for landscape work and one for macro. Example:
http://opticallimits.com/nikon_ff/756-sigmaex2418fx?start=2
I have no problems with ratings as they are. They highlight reviewer’s impression of the lens which is fine as he is the one who spent the time with it.
As for objectivness, well. Tests will always be subjective to some extent as different people have different needs. No reason to get upset due to that. I can make my own choices if I happen to disagree with conclusion or rating.
Back in the days, Markus argued heavily against the rating system.
But as a matter of fact, this is just mainstream - there's even a tag in the page code that is interpreted by Google for their search results.
I reckon it would be better to rate the individual characteristics rather providing one number but even that wouldn't stop the discussions about it.
The Sigma 14-24mm is a good example - what rating would be fair for the resolution (at 50mp)? It could be done per focal length ... but that would be over the top.
Anyway, just from a site marketing perspective, the ratings will remain. Because we are one of the few (the only?) site where the final rating score has the potential to be dismal and there is value in that.
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com
Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
Ahh!..but the modern world needs simplicity........it needs to cut to the chase......the all pervasive all important "bottom line"....!!
Personally, I think the system here is fine, here is effectively a technical site, (without the need to study optical science), it is read for the most part by those who are capable of interpreting the results and applying them to their own photography........that's why they are here.......to see what lens suits ........
..........but the world has been "Apple" ized..(reduced to a bland and meaningless lowest denominator)....however, to survive in this business world means you have have to "keep it simple stupid"........KISS!!.........
......so I guess stars it is..........
Simple minded in as much as I don't like scams!
My perception of Apple is one of customer service...........innocent Apple lovers receiving dishonest outrageous quotes for repairing their computers......some of which have little wrong with them
probably the invention of the last century was the humidity indicator.......a small self adhesive square that shows if "humidity" has ever been detected......it then turns red............
........red as in "red rag to the Apple bull"........every humidity detector turns red....there is humidity in the air........
Apple use those to convince you that your computer needs new boards etc. and that it isn't worth repairing........Cheaper to buy a new one they say!
Here you go!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2_SZ4tfLns
Is there "any way" can you justify that JoJu?........ all that was wrong was a bent pin!
Apple make some good computers.......overpriced but good.......but their service policy is just a scam.......in fact it's more of a sales drive for their new gear than a service!
P.S. Their refusal of the right to repair?
Ah.....I feel all the better for that.......my personnel scam exposure...... LOL!
