Originally posted by ZombieArmy I think we don't have such system because I don't think people should be afraid to offer dissenting opinions on a "cult lens". You know and I know there are times that lenses are over rated (not talking about this situation in particular), I think it mainly happens with legacy telephotos but it also happens with other stuff too.
Just in my experience alone the Pentax-M 200mm F/4 is a grossly over rated pile of manure, and that's after owning 2 copies. F4 is dreadful in contrast and is soft and doesn't become good until F8. I used to think it was user error on my part but my Tak Bayonet 135 is not only sharper at f2.8 than the 200mm at f/4, but it's a better 200mm too when cropped to the same frame.
My experience has been so bad with the lens I still haven't made a review because I still can't be sure whether or not both of my copies are just bad, but still, I shouldn't be afraid to post that review on a lens that is considered good by a lot of people because it's something someone looking for a 200mm should know.
When a set of reviews has some people giving a lens a 9 for sharpness, at the same time some other people are giving it a 5, it does take some careful reading and questioning.
-- Do these people have equivalent copies of the lens, but very very different standards?
-- Do both factions post sample images, and did the people posting 5s post sharp pix for some other lenses (meaning they just don't need new eye glasses)?
-- If both kinds of reviewers are being accurate, do others have to seriously worry about a great quality variation among copies of that lens when they shop for one?
If there is a big swing in quality between copies, it is a good thing if the reviews warn us about it.