[quote name='Grummbeerbauer' timestamp='1292480749' post='5039']
Perhaps the rating should be transformed into an "optical quality for the primary purpose of the lens" or "relative quality to the competition". So a superzoom could receive five stars in the category of "flexible, bright-sunshine-only outdoor lenses for people that hate swapping lenses and should have bought a P&S in the first place" <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />.
Seriously, for the purpose available-light UWA/WA (FF/APS-C) photography, the Canon is probably much better than the Zeiss.
So this is pretty much the "field quality" rating that recently appeared in some reviews. However, for many lenses, several "purposes" come into question, and the rating is often less dependent on the actual optical quality than on the general specs of the lens.
Of course we could have dedicated ratings for sharpness, optical defects (distortion, CA) etc. for those people that only look at the bottom of the last page of a PZ review, but this still leaves the question on how to judge zooms that rock at one end and and suck really hard at the other end of their range?
[/quote]
The real problem with the star ratings is not the scaling, but that many out there take them for more than they are meant to be: a final and absolute verdict, not one of many parts of the review. It's not uncommon that we are attacked because of low star ratings, especially of fast lenses (recent example: Nikkor AF-D 85/1.4 on FX), by people who haven't actually read the whole review. Or even any part of it.
I'm sure there's nothing we can do about this group of our readers. Any detailed explanation we add to the star ratings will probably be ignored just like the rest of the text. Which is a little sad, since we try to stick to rather compact review texts (2 pages, 3 when sample images are provided), so there is not really that much text to read through.
In any case, though: we're only human, of course, and that means there will always be some subjectivity in the star ratings. Not just the star ratings, in fact in the whole review.
-- Markus
P.S.: "Grummbeere" sounds local. Pälzer?
Perhaps the rating should be transformed into an "optical quality for the primary purpose of the lens" or "relative quality to the competition". So a superzoom could receive five stars in the category of "flexible, bright-sunshine-only outdoor lenses for people that hate swapping lenses and should have bought a P&S in the first place" <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />. Seriously, for the purpose available-light UWA/WA (FF/APS-C) photography, the Canon is probably much better than the Zeiss.
So this is pretty much the "field quality" rating that recently appeared in some reviews. However, for many lenses, several "purposes" come into question, and the rating is often less dependent on the actual optical quality than on the general specs of the lens.
Of course we could have dedicated ratings for sharpness, optical defects (distortion, CA) etc. for those people that only look at the bottom of the last page of a PZ review, but this still leaves the question on how to judge zooms that rock at one end and and suck really hard at the other end of their range?
[/quote]
The real problem with the star ratings is not the scaling, but that many out there take them for more than they are meant to be: a final and absolute verdict, not one of many parts of the review. It's not uncommon that we are attacked because of low star ratings, especially of fast lenses (recent example: Nikkor AF-D 85/1.4 on FX), by people who haven't actually read the whole review. Or even any part of it.
I'm sure there's nothing we can do about this group of our readers. Any detailed explanation we add to the star ratings will probably be ignored just like the rest of the text. Which is a little sad, since we try to stick to rather compact review texts (2 pages, 3 when sample images are provided), so there is not really that much text to read through.
In any case, though: we're only human, of course, and that means there will always be some subjectivity in the star ratings. Not just the star ratings, in fact in the whole review.
-- Markus
P.S.: "Grummbeere" sounds local. Pälzer?
Editor
opticallimits.com
opticallimits.com