I don't disagree with what you are saying at all, but I understand the conundrum as a reviewer. These days it seems like most reviews are published before retail copies are technically available. Waiting until the lens launches to the public means that you lose the early momentum/hits that are so important to building a brand and a website.
Thus the suggestion to test additional lens(es) purchased through normal retail channels, once they become available.
I do appreciate the quandary, but I'd argue that merely adds another potential source of bias (and please note the use of the word potential
). If delivering an early review to gain momentum/hits is that important (and I'm sure it is), what if the review is negative? It seems possible that a negative review would result in the reviewer not
getting an advance copy of the next
lens from that manufacturer, and thus losing out on the momentum/hits for the next round.
The full text of the review indicates a 40% AF miss rate in formal testing, and includes statements like, "...the longer I focus tested this lens, the less sure I was about its focus accuracy,"
and, "Sometimes, most images are properly focused and when my shots counted, this lens delivered. But sometimes, more images are out of focus than I am comfortable with.
" To me, that does not equate to, "...occasional AF inconsistency.
" Which of those statements made it into the concluding paragraph of the review, which is the part most likely to be picked up and quoted, as it was in this post by CRguy?