Telezoom review
 

A couple of people have commented on this review in the first issue of the magazine in the 'Welcome to the forum' thread, but I thought it would be better to discuss it out in the open, as it were, if anybody can be bothered.

One said

[I]I see the mag cotains a lens test chapter. Its a case of one mans meat is another mans poison. The mag gives an excellent write up on the nikon 55-300.(they would do that wouldn`t they) I remember a few months back this lens was reviewed in another mag. It got an average mark. [/I]

Another replied

[I]You are right there I have bought a Tamron 70-300 with VC and I hope its a good lens, only time will tell it states in the review it is soft at 300mm, it is down to the user to get the best out of his or her equipment, certainly funny 3rd party manufacturers will not come top. [/I]

Personally, I can't imagine that the testers are biased, but I do find it strange that the Nikon 55-300 didn't 'win' the test given that it had so much better resolution scores than the Nikon 70-300VR. Worse distortion, maybe, but that can be corrected in post. The Tamron 70-300 VC scored a lot worse than I expected, but never having tried one I don't know.

Do people buy from magazine reviews, or do they use the reviews to justify the choice they've made anyway?
I wanted a 'walk-about' lens so I bought the 18-200mm G II because it's light, small, good zoom range and reasonably fast. For the price I didn't expect sparkling performance, and in truth that's not what you get. But considering the remarkable versatility it offers the results are pretty good. When I bought it I hadn't seen a review, but if I had it would have had to be a really bad one to make me change my mind.
I look at reviews in only one way, they tell me what's available on the market without me having to visit my local camera shop at monthly intervals, performance results vary from reviewer to reviewer to such an extent that it's not much use. The key thing is will it do what [U]YOU[/U] want it to do?

I think your right never buy off a review but I bought mine because someone had a bad Nikon 70-300 and went for the Tamron 70- 300 with vc, and thought it was the bees knees, I find it hard knowing what lens to go for, one person says this and another that, I did have the 55-200mm Nikon VR but I wanted something with a longer reach, I will be able to try my new lens after Christmas day.

Both online and in a variety of publications cameras and lenses are inspected and evaluated both individually and in comparison. Testing seems to vary between the simple usage and report and the detailed scientific laboratory testing. Anyone reading such tests, whatever they maybe, should expect to rely on such in making a purchase, and to be totally fair, they can.

However reviewers of cameras or lenses usually only get one camera or lens to evaluate therefore their approbation or condemnation is dependent on this one sample. Frankly most camera and lens manufacturers aim for consistency, (barring the odd rogue camera or lens or flashgun), and we should hope so too. The magazine article that I read suggested differently. Not that there can be a great variance, but there can be a variance nevertheless. Take the issue of colour reproduction – camera a sees blue as blue, camera b sees blue as purple, and these are both the same model of camera! One lens can focus at a measured speed of 10 milliseconds, the other in 12 milliseconds. Again this is the same model of lens. As for barrel or pincushion distortion, the same premise can be applied.

In the real world much of the scientific stuff doesn’t really matter plus we do really get what we pay for anyway. A more expensive camera and lens is going to be better than something cheaper. Usually! What I’m suggesting is that is very important to keep an open mind and check carefully with more than one or two reviews before spending hard earned dosh.

Sometimes as well, because of camera and lens snobbery, real bargains can be ignored just because they are cheap or not mainstream.

Lens tests
 

Some good points have been made here and they highlight issues to do with lens testing generally. We do find that subjective tests (what the reviewer says about real-world images) and lab test results don't always tie in, which is why we feature both.

Lab tests are very precise, but they're carried out in extremely specific conditions which might reflect one aspect of real-world use, but not all of them. We have to allow for the tester's subjective judgement, then, and also for the physical characteristics of lenses and their handling properties when coming up with a final rating.

Sorry if it ends up confusing, and this is something we're working on.

Rod Lawton, Technique Editor, NPhoto

I had bought a Tamron 70-300 from my local camera store on the recommendation of the salesman and he said it got GREAT reviews. After using it on a test shoot at my local zoo, I was very dissatisfied with the the quality of the results. After alot of discussion I was finally able to return the lens and I bought the Nikon 70-300 elsewhere. I now consider that lens my "workhorse". I am extremely pleased with the quality of the lens and the ease of operation, not to mention the sharpness. I recommend this lens to anyone looking for a good strong telephoto zoom

[QUOTE=Alan Potter;74120]I had bought a Tamron 70-300 from my local camera store on the recommendation of the salesman and he said it got GREAT reviews. After using it on a test shoot at my local zoo, I was very dissatisfied with the the quality of the results. After alot of discussion I was finally able to return the lens and I bought the Nikon 70-300 elsewhere. I now consider that lens my "workhorse". I am extremely pleased with the quality of the lens and the ease of operation, not to mention the sharpness. I recommend this lens to anyone looking for a good strong telephoto zoom[/QUOTE]

Could you be more specific with the models of those lenses please Alan?

Chris