Originally posted by IgorZ I was surprised though that the longer lenses came out on top. Why is that? The high price induces the reviewer to give it a high rating so as to convince himself the money was well spent?
That could be it, but it also could be the higher price reflecting more complicated designs and tighter manufacturing tolerances.
For me personally, I just really like longer lenses, both the operation and the look of the images. My current favourite is the DFA 100 macro, because it does macro. On the test charts it's excellent across it's range although barely in to the excellent range, unlike lenses like the 31 and 77 that tend to be very strong in the centre but more difference between the centre and edges. There's probably not a lot of agreement as to what exactly constitutes "best." So what your get in answers is "best for what I do." Which is of no relevance at all for someone who doesn't do that.
Actually you don't get "best for what I do", you get, "best of the lenses I've owned for what I do." Many of us just don't have the money to have tried a lot of the more expensive options, and the cost means I probably never will. "Best for the money you have" is a serious consideration. Most of us never get to even buy a lens we think might be the "best".
So, it doesn't really matter to me what the best is. All I need is what I need to get the pictures I take, and experience would suggest, it doesn't have to be on somebody's best list to accomplish that. IN fact, I'd suggest there would be very little value to such a list except for bragging rights. IN one of my polls, the DA 35-80 was judged the best 35mm lens reduced to website, but only 2 votes pixel peeping. So is the best lens the one that renders the best at web sized where most of my stuff is seen?. or full sized for pixel peeping which no one ever sees in the real world?
All in all "best" is just to nebulous a term.
Some days I'm looking for something to carry for some reach just in case. My F 70-210 fits in my pocket. I probably have the 28-105 ion the camera, I don't want to ruin the walk by carrying to much. At that moment, walking out the door, the F 70-210 is the best option and would be even though I own the 60-250 and DA*200 or if I owned any of the other heavy options.
On one such day I took this image of a Mink fishing in a partially frozen creek. It's my favourite mink image. I have images of the same creature taken with the DA*60-250, DA*200, and Tamron 300 2.8. On this day the F 70-210 was up to the job and I'm not convinced the image would be better taken with a better lens. The 70-210 resolved all the important detail that was available for capture. I do know the other guys shooting their huge Canon and Nikon rigs didn't get anything any better, and I definitely had mobility on my side. This was shot hand held, they were using monster tripods.
So is my F 70-210 better than Canon and Nikon 500 or 600 F4 lenses? It was that day, but it's kind of hard to argue it's some kind of "best" 95% of the time.
As stated above, what's "best" is situational.