It seems that my reply to your message got lost. So I am trying once more <sigh>.
- The prices given by the magazine are the prices on the German market.
I stand corrected. I suppose it is uncustomary for German magazine to publish prices outside Germany. Well, my bad.
- The ratings come by the testing procedure. In that test the 29-90 performed slightly better than the 28-105, but both were mediocre. Expecting a more expensive lens to be better is being biased, isn't it?
I would agree with you. However there is this princple - "you get what you pay for". I tend to accept it. Of course the advantage of 28-105 over 28-90 could come from better build quality or less difference between samples (a.k.a. tighter QC), and not optical performance.
Of course apples should be compared to apples. But without ability to compare, rating means very little. Rating is by definition numeric simplied representation of complex procedure that is performed to compare between things, isn't it?
If I were to tell you that Renault Megane II is the safest car based on some kind of test procedure you would immediately conclude that other cars were involed in the test and they were less safe than the one that won. Same here. Of course, one has to read fine print and not draw baseles conclusions. But then these tests are even less meaningful, because you cannot compare test results across various (even similar) lenses.
All in all, I've learned my own lesson here. I suppose that my plan to buy 28-105 and 70-210/320 zoom lenses to complement my 35, 50, 85 soft, and 135 primes was unsuccessful. I think that I'd rather save for 24 (28) or 200 mm primes...
Peace!
Boris
