I have to wonder if people's views on a class like ranger (or other options/sub-classes people can't come to a consensus about) is because of differences in style of play (something DEF CON suggested above). I don't play with people who try to maximize efficiency of every move, action, option, or choice. Nor am I of the GMing philosophy that every encounter (heck, not even every full adventure) should necessarily give every character the opportunity to do what they are best at. Those situations obviously come up, but for me being middling at something and working towards strategic opportunities to try what you're best at or make the best of what you're only average at is where the fun and challenge of the game lies.
Like, I can't help but ask the question, how often should a favored enemy come up in the course of a campaign to be "fair?" Every few levels? Once per adventure? Once per adventuring day? Once per encounter? Should they automatically become a major antagonist of the campaign? I don't think there is a right answer to these questions and I honestly I don't want the game to tell me either. (For the record, my answer would be somewhere between the first and second options).