Nikon 70-200 f4

[arthurking83]

I have heard from a number of people, who's opinion I respect highly, that this site is not really the best site for testing. Their results are suspect amd I tend to agree.

This isn't the place to debate such matters, as it's going OT to the OP's question, but my feeling is that a lot of people have their allegiances to various sites for whatever reason.
While I'm curious as to what their facts are, it'd be better to post such info in a separate thread.

But from my 'research' in following much more than just this and a couple of other sites .. all reviews seem to coincide.

That is, if you use PZ as another resource to compare say the Tammy 70-200/2.8(non VC) on a Canon against the Nikon 70-200/2.8 VRII on a D3x, the numbers posted seem to be about as close to similar to what you visually get to see on TDP(my link).

Imaging resource uses a different approach to outputting their results, so it's harder to compare, but again .. estimating comparisons between lenses is still doable and relevant from that site .. and again, the results seem to be about similar.

The word of caution tho for anyone else looking simply at test results to compare lenses, this shouldn't be the only measure of how well a lens performs too .. it's simply one part of a suite of reviews that should be used to make an informed decision.

FWIW: all review sites have their opponents, and The Digital Picture is not immune to these people .. the 'highly regarded' DxO which many people seem to think is gods word for reviews has many critics, some of which have very highly respected reputations too. I make my own choices on what information is relevant and pertinent, and tend to only read other's points of view(usually ignored tho).

for example the massively over quoted Dxo sensor performance data, whilst it can be useful, is actually pretty meaningless for most of us

.. whoopsy! I did say this wasn't the place for this discussion

we can take this into another thread if you wish.