I am very disappointed in the Super Telephotos Test in issue #8.
1. Why did you choose to test the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 AF-S ED VRII with 2x teleconverter rather than the Nikon 200-400 f/4G ED VRII, which is a telephoto lens used by many acclaimed wildlife photographers? That does not make any sense to me!
2. Why so many tests of non-Nikon lenses? I thought this was a Nikon magazine! You include 2 horrible Samyang mirror lenses but exclude many excellent Nikon lenses like the 300mm f/2.8, 500mm f/4, and other zoom lenses. One of the reasons that I subscribed to this magazine was to learn more and see tests of NIKON products, not Sigma, Tamron, etc.
3. Not that I do not like seeing a few lenses from other manufactures, especially when they outperform a similar Nikon lens. Your test on macro lenses convinced me that I would be smart to go with the Sigma 105mm rather than the Nikon 105mm.
Maybe they are looking at budget users who cannot afford to spend large amounts on a new lens, even if they are bad by comparison some will still buy the cheapest lens.
Sometimes missing out a cheap lens even though it is bad may have a reader thinking it has been left out because for the price it is better than the dearer options been reviewed.
If all the reviews were on only Nikon products that would be unfair on third party manufacturers like Sigma whose lens you seem to have preferred