I am going to disagree. I did not look at all lenses in the article, only one lens:
Tamron 16-300mm F/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD
Here is what two professional reviews stated:
weak image quality at the maximum relative aperture and on the edge of the frame for all focal lengths
huge level of lateral chromatic aberration in the focal range from 200 to 300 mm,
high distortion at wide angles of view.
and
Reduced sharpness at longer focal lengths, especially at the edges
Slow maximum apertures
Autofocus less reliable towards long end of the zoom
Plentiful chromatic aberration, prodigious at 200-300mm
Strong distortion throughout, both barrel and pincushion
'Focus breathing' reduces focal length at close range
But there's a fairly long list of downsides too, with image quality at longer focal lengths being perhaps at the top. Sharpness is very high at the wide end when stopped down a little, right across the frame, and that's great for landscapes. At F8, high edge-to-edge sharpness is available up to 100mm or so, but then there's a notable downturn with the edges in particular taking a hit. From 200-300mm, edge sharpness is never very good, not helped by the plentiful levels of chromatic aberration present, but to be fair it stays crisp in the centre. It looks as if Tamron has prioritized central sharpness, on the basis that this is most likely where the main subject will be at longer settings - and as a very rough generalization, that's probably true.
And that's the problem. A lens with (apparently) horrendous chromatic aberration, strong distortion throughout the focal range, edge weakness and so forth being labeled as one of the "top 5 lenses" would make me distrustful of the entire article. But... just my opinion.