Wow, shiny!
Given different uses, different cameras and different subjects, I think you are doing the right thing by testing for yourself. Most of these lenses are so inexpensive that you can test several and sell of the bad ones with little cost.
So very true ... and well said.
One thing Michael does well is collect his results and conclusions and posts them. I find that interesting reading and helpful for someone faced with a similar choice.
Very helpful indeed. I have spent a lot of time/money buying lenses because of Michael
We have a similar light-preference in our image-making, though often different subjects.
I have often
not bought lenses he likes, not because I don't trust his judgement, but because my needs in many cases differ from his, though I get and appreciate his material and descriptions.
Oivind’s post is interesting in the way it shows different contrast between 3.5 and 2.8 lenses. The lower contrast of the 2.8 is likely better for coin photography as they have very high contrast due to reflections, but is less suitable for low contrast landscapes (though if you look closely the structure in the clouds comes across better with the 2.
Another good point.
“Better” is nearly always conditional.
At the end of the day, that is all of it.
Another thing to add is ... some people's 'bad reviews' are based on
misuse.
I will see some people post images taken in bad light, hand-held, and they will blame 'the lens' rather than their own misuse ... when that same lens, used with a tripod, and taken in optimal light ... will produce exceptional images.
That is another reason simply to buy/test yourself: no one shoot "like you do" ... except yourself
At the end of the day, the only way to rate any lens is to buy a copy of it ... and test that specific lens as "you" like to shoot with it ... and see if it impresses you (or not).
