10-05-2011, 09:50 AM
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1317805625' post='12102']
Time and time again your ratings do not really match, even in quite objective criteria.
[/quote]
We simply rely on the rating police to find mismatches <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
Seriously, though: the Canon is not sealed by itself, it requires a filter to be fully sealed. That doesn't justify a 5-star rating IMO.
None of the other two matches the Nikkor in center resolution. It's debatable whether this alone justifies a 3.5-star rating, but my benchmark were the other two Nikkors. I clearly see the 17-35 ahead of the 16-35 VR (a 3-star lens).
-- Markus
Time and time again your ratings do not really match, even in quite objective criteria.
[/quote]
We simply rely on the rating police to find mismatches <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> Seriously, though: the Canon is not sealed by itself, it requires a filter to be fully sealed. That doesn't justify a 5-star rating IMO.
None of the other two matches the Nikkor in center resolution. It's debatable whether this alone justifies a 3.5-star rating, but my benchmark were the other two Nikkors. I clearly see the 17-35 ahead of the 16-35 VR (a 3-star lens).
-- Markus
Editor
opticallimits.com
opticallimits.com