[Rover]

Most reviews I read are good (Photozone first and foremost; DPReview - when they decide to test a lens once in a blue moon; EPhotozine; Lenstip; and yes, SLRGear/IR - I don't find their tests any worse inherently than the next site's). Ken Rockwell would be the one whose stuff I'd be taking with a grain of salt - actually, I do - because he's odd, opinionated and sometimes obnoxious... Like in his crusade against what he calls "mud / junk brands" - Sigma and Tamron, whereby he would spit forth ridiculous claims based on nothing but his own hate. Oddly enough, once in a while he snaps out of this mode and reviews something like the Tamron 150-600 without any of that nonsense seeping in, and gives it glowing praise; at other times he grudgingly acknowledges the goodness of - say - the Sigma 35/1.4 while doing his best to water the praise down with some contrived nitpicking.

 

Sometimes I also find the reviews useful to turn me off something that really shouldn't be desirable - say, there was a time when I was very interested in the Canon 28/1.8 lens but the multitude of reviews I've seen back then proved that my (superficial) infatuation was unfounded. Later I managed to get ahold of it and found it to be nothing special; maybe not an abomination but definitely not a memorable lens either.