magazine lens ratings

I just received my copy of a very popular magazine in the mail. The issue is devoted to lenses, and gives star ratings to a number of lenses, and also lists them as Pro or Amateur.
I couldn't believe what I saw:
Canon EF17-55IS 4 stars
Canon EF-S 18-200 3 1/2 stars
Canon EF 28-135IS 3 STARs
Canon EF-S 18-55IS 3 stars
Canon EF-S 18-135IS 3 stars
And
Canon 24-105F4L IS USM 2 1/2 stars
Wait, there is more:
Sigma 18-50F2.8 4 1/2 stars
Tamron 17-50 f2.8 4 stars

It looks like the 28-135 is a better lens than the 24-105L, and guess what,
the 18-55IS is better too.
The Sigma 18-55 is better than the Canon 17-55?
Is this a joke?

Depends on how they are rated. If cost is an issue those lenses could easily rate better than the others. Ratings are all about the yard stick they are measured against. Simply giving a star rating tells very little about the lens and its capabilities.

The magazine states that the ratings derive from optical quality: sharpness, distortion and light falloff
and barrel design: focus and zoom rings, markings and AF motor.
There is nothing here about cost.

I want to know the identity of this crappy magazine.

That is unbelievably harsh towards the 24-105. Its my most regretted lens purchase, but not because of barrel design, focus, zoom rights, af motor, sharpness, distortion OR light falloff!

Oh also the T1i gets the same number of stars (4) as a 1D Mark III

Looks like Sigma is their PRIME SPONSOR !

How many Sigma Ads & articles are in that magazine versus other manufacturers ?

Whats the name of the magazine ?

Regards,

Popular Photography Dec 2009 Issue

Now I know why I didn't renew that mag. after the free subscription ran out!

cost to benefit ratio.

hm... I think that magazine needs a new product review...

/puts in application

I saw that as well and could not believe it either. My copy of the 24-105 is awesome. Take these with a grain ofsalt.

I looked at a number of online reviews of the 24-105L and distortion is rated as relatively low, compared with consumer lenses.
I really don't get it....the review of the Canon 18-135 was pretty lukewarm, yet it is rated higher than you would expect.
I don't believe that the 18-200 is a "better" lens than the L.

Simplistic ratings of anything are useless. The 24-105l might be getting knocked down because it has a lot of distortion at 24mm. Who knows, the 'star' system is too simple.

A lot of people think a Porsche is a great car and would give it 5 stars. I have no interest in one because I have 4 children and we cannot all get into one. I give all cars that seat 5 or less people zero stars.

In lenses I care about center sharpness, AF speed and color rendition. I do not care much about corner sharpness and distortion based on what I personally shoot. Different people have different needs.

Also, since I have a 5D and a 1D3 I have to give all EF-S lenses zero stars, just like 5 passenger cars. They simply have no functionality for me.

JeffreyG wrote in post #9444358
Also, since I have a 5D and a 1D3 I have to give all EF-S lenses zero stars, just like 5 passenger cars. They simply have no functionality for me.

Oh come on, a little knife and rubber cutting and they will work in no time =)