magazine lens ratings

Yes it's better : )

artyH wrote in post #9443856
rs
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?

a lot of review sites rate lens higher than Canon, they sometimes even award "kit" lens with an undeserved number of stars. if your particular lens doesn't receive the correct number of stars you can still use it with full assurance it will fit your camera and continue to process light waves (particles?) just as before you encountered these strange ratings.

Popular Photography is not a good source for test info. They are advertiser based. They will rate a lens higher if that company advertises often in their magazine.

gasrocks wrote in post #9446423
Popular Photography is not a good source for test info. They are advertiser based. They will rate a lens higher if that company advertises often in their magazine.

Lots of magazines work this way. I remember a car magazine that had a big cover article 'Mark X best car of the year'. They failed to mention that every magazine of theirs had Mark X as their main advertiser... This kind of magazines are not very reliable, don't worry about it.

MY favorite was an article entitled: The 10 Best Tripods. Now, between you and me the 10 best are probably all from the same brand. But, no, the article had 10 different tripods, each a different brand. Odd how each of those 10 companies had big ads in that issue and not in other months.

gasrocks wrote in post #9446585
MY favorite was an article entitled: The 10 Best Tripods. Now, between you and me the 10 best are probably all from the same brand. But, no, the article had 10 different tripods, each a different brand. Odd how each of those 10 companies had big ads in that issue and not in other months.

When my dad still had his own company, we'd get calls every week from so called "professional magazines" offering us articles in exchange for advertising money. That's just how lots of these magazines work.

infomercial journalism. No wonder the print media is going away.

JeffreyG wrote in post #9444358
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.

Porsche now has 2 vehicles that fit 5 people.
The Cayenne and the Panamera.

And Porsches DO get 5 stars. I own 'em and I love 'em.

nureality wrote in post #9446719
Porsche now has 2 vehicles that fit 5 people.
The Cayenne and the Panamera.

And Porsches DO get 5 stars. I own 'em and I love 'em.

I think that qualifies you for the "blame it on my midlife crisis" bumper sticker!

Personally I would trade that subscription in for Lens Work which focuses on photography not gear.

http://www.lenswork.co​m/

If any of the "judging" is based on user input, you must be aware of the following.

The newbies will write emphatically about how great their latest purchase is - even if it isn't a good lens, because they simply don't know what better lenses are out there.

But the professionals and old-hands will nitpick even the finest lenses over the slightest idiosyncrasy or flaw. You will seldom see a professional take the time to write to someone like PopPhoto about how reliable a 24-105L may be in his kit. How well built it is, or how well it suits them. But you will hear from scores of newbies how the 50mm f/1.8 II is so sharp and they love it because they arent used to such sharpness since their only other lens is the kit lens they got.

gasrocks wrote in post #9446423
Popular Photography is not a good source for test info. They are advertiser based. They will rate a lens higher if that company advertises often in their magazine.

you mean there are no canon ads in Pop Photo?

This is why this forum - and probably others - is a better source of real-world information about equipment than any magazine.

ken_vs_ryu wrote in post #9446906
you mean there are no canon ads in Pop Photo?

there are plenty of Canon ads in Popular Photography as well as the other magazines and camera/lens review websites. Ironically, the camera ratings of one magazine that doesn't accept ads is not well received here!

artyH wrote in post #9443856
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?

hold on, arty. imma let you finish... but sigma is best lens manufacturer of all times! of all times!!!

it's obviously an advertisement by sigma. maybe they couldn't afford to buy a whole spread and asked the editor to do a fake ratings/review instead?