[knyghtfall]

Think it would help if folks post sample pictures in their review of the lens. I've always found that useful and always try to do so when I put in the occasional review. Pictures bring out what the lens is capable of, what its best at doing, and let the viewers judge for themselves.

A picture is worth a thousand words, after all.

---

Last edited by knyghtfall; 11-19-2010 at 12:50 AM.

[paperbag846]

Instead of punishing your brain thinking up witty sarcasm how about following my lead and making the lens review section more real time.

Well since you asked so nicely... .

[8540tomg]

Nice provocative title Tim.

I think Tim makes a valid point regarding the rating system. The numerical ratings for most of the lenses from DA series through screw mount are quite high. This is due, in part, to the fact Pentax has made very good lenses for a long time. As a rule I pretty much ignore the number a look at the comments which are usually quite helpful. If a number of reviewers of various degrees of ability rate a lens highly it is likely to be good. Reviews with images are the most useful of all.

I’m not sure how one might fix the numerical ratings. Once a lens receives a grade of 8 or so it seems to influence later reviews even if the comments don’t seem to support the mark. Perhaps we just need to find a reviewer we either agree or disagree with on a regular basis and take it from there. This method works quite well for me with movie reviews.

Tom G

[paperbag846]

Nice provocative title Tim.

I think Tim makes a valid point regarding the rating system. The numerical ratings for most of the lenses from DA series through screw mount are quite high. This is due, in part, to the fact Pentax has made very good lenses for a long time. As a rule I pretty much ignore the number a look at the comments which are usually quite helpful. If a number of reviewers of various degrees of ability rate a lens highly it is likely to be good. Reviews with images are the most useful of all.

I’m not sure how one might fix the numerical ratings. Once a lens receives a grade of 8 or so it seems to influence later reviews even if the comments don’t seem to support the mark. Perhaps we just need to find a reviewer we either agree or disagree with on a regular basis and take it from there. This method works quite well for me with movie reviews.

Tom G

What if we could get people to think more about what they are rating?

This would be hard to implement retroactively, but if we could have people 3 along 3 or more axis', it would maybe give readers a better impression of how the lens actually performs. For example: image quality, ergonomics, and price/performance (like photozone).

That way a reviewer would be more likely to say: "this isn't the BEST lens, but it's only 50 bucks! So 7/10 for the IQ and 10/10 for the price/performance".

An easier method would be the requirement that each new review includes a picture.

[knyghtfall]

That way a reviewer would be more likely to say: "this isn't the BEST lens, but it's only 50 bucks! So 7/10 for the IQ and 10/10 for the price/performance".

An easier method would be the requirement that each new review includes a picture.

This would be like the photozone rating system, which is pretty useful (which I look at before I give in to LBA and buy a lens)(actually, its more like photozone feeds my LBA)

[gofour3]

Also a lens review rating could depend on the type of camera you are using it on. My reviews for K series primes are based on using the lens on a K series film body, as they were designed for. Another forum member reviewing the same lens on a Pentax DSLR may have a completely different opinion/experience.

Phil

[robbiec]

What if we could get people to think more about what they are rating?

This would be hard to implement retroactively, but if we could have people 3 along 3 or more axis', it would maybe give readers a better impression of how the lens actually performs. For example: image quality, ergonomics, and price/performance (like photozone).

That way a reviewer would be more likely to say: "this isn't the BEST lens, but it's only 50 bucks! So 7/10 for the IQ and 10/10 for the price/performance".

An easier method would be the requirement that each new review includes a picture.

Liking the ideas here , and also the camera type / model as Phil pointed out.

[Docrwm]

One issue that has been touched on here but not hit head on IMHO is the issue of price impacting rating.

There is tons of research that shows that the more something costs the higher the overall rating of that item is going to be by a group. For example, if you have the same radio, same specs, same pitch but tell 1 group it costs $9 and another group it costs $90 the second group will rate it as significantly better than the first group.

So, the ever increasing prices of used Pentax lenses (particularly the M42 SuperTaks) would seem to be a significant factor in the apparent rise in the overall ratings given to lenses (used onesin particular).

I'd love to see side-by-side pictures taken on the same body, same settings (or as close as possible), same conditions, etc. WITHOUT the lens identified and have the pictures rated. I think some would be amazed at the relative ratings of certain lenses changing. That's my guess, might be wrong, but not everything that is incredibly expensive actually is worth what is asked for it. Finding that out is tough because of the expectancy effect I noted above. The only real way is through blind evaluation.

[8540tomg]

Also a lens review rating could depend on the type of camera you are using it on. My reviews for K series primes are based on using the lens on a K series film body, as they were designed for. Another forum member reviewing the same lens on a Pentax DSLR may have a completely different opinion/experience.

Phil

I must agree with Phil on this point. Unlike Phil, however, all my reviews of K and M series lenses are based on how well I thought they performed on my K10 digital camera. For that reason I usually include a caveat in in my reviews of manual focus lenses such as the following:

"Metering will be stop-down only with no AF and there will be no aperture reading in the viewfinder. Great shots are possible but you will have to practice and refine your manual focusing technique."

These are just the facts of life when using manual focus lenses on a digital camera and those reading the reviews sometimes need the reminder.

Tom G

[Parallax]

What would I get if I said I preferred the f/1.9 version over the f/1.8 version and that is even more expensive and going totally nuts price wise... worth a 6 maybe?

Are you familiar with the phrase "castration with a rusty razor blade"?

[abacus07]

In the last week it's been said that both the pricing and the ratings (different threads) are near worthless. Perhaps people have too high of an expectation of these two aspects of the reviews. There are going to be numerous issues with these two aspects with the current setup and I don't see enough of a reason to change the whole thing. Right now you have multiple users with different experience levels, different lens histories (used/owned), different quality of used products, different expectations/reqs of the lenses reviewed, different usages (film vs dig), different purchase times and probably a dozen more variables that introduce noise into the review system. But overall the database is an extremely valuable resource.

What I think would be nice (and I don't see the option) is to see other reviews from the same person. I found it particularly interesting to read multiple reviews from the same person regarding lenses in the same price range and focal length.

[Arpe]

As already said price and compared to others in class is a consideration when rating anything. Otherwise if you want a more objective rating you have to point out a 10/10 and tell why it is so and how others should be rated against it.

I guess for each lens we could have a rating for value, and one for absolute sharpness, and one for colour, and one for weight, and one for size and one for looks... and whatever else we value in a lens.

[gofour3]

Think it would help if folks post sample pictures in their review of the lens. I've always found that useful and always try to do so when I put in the occasional review. Pictures bring out what the lens is capability of, what its best at doing, and let the viewers judge for themselves.

A picture is worth a thousand words, after all.

As a frequent lens reviewer that’s good to know. I had assumed readers would be more interested in a picture of the lens itself, than a picture taken with the lens.

This feedback is good incentive for me to add some pictures to my reviews!

Thanks for your input,

Phil.

[gofour3]

One issue that has been touched on here but not hit head on IMHO is the issue of price impacting rating.

There is tons of research that shows that the more something costs the higher the overall rating of that item is going to be by a group. For example, if you have the same radio, same specs, same pitch but tell 1 group it costs $9 and another group it costs $90 the second group will rate it as significantly better than the first group.

So, the ever increasing prices of used Pentax lenses (particularly the M42 SuperTaks) would seem to be a significant factor in the apparent rise in the overall ratings given to lenses (used onesin particular).

I'd love to see side-by-side pictures taken on the same body, same settings (or as close as possible), same conditions, etc. WITHOUT the lens identified and have the pictures rated. I think some would be amazed at the relative ratings of certain lenses changing. That's my guess, might be wrong, but not everything that is incredibly expensive actually is worth what is asked for it. Finding that out is tough because of the expectancy effect I noted above. The only real way is through blind evaluation.

Yeah I could see the price of a lens impacting a rating. I guess if you paid $6000.00 for a lens and rated it a 6 that would make you look kind of dumb for buying it!

What I tried to do was facture in the price if it was very low. Example for the K55/1.8 I gave it a 10, partially for value. My most expensive lens is a K1000/8 and I gave it an 8. My rating really had nothing to do with the cost, as you should expect to pay a fair amount for a super telephoto lens. I gave it an 8 for other reasons, such as speed and size.

Phil.

[Docrwm]

Yeah I could see the price of a lens impacting a rating. I guess if you paid $6000.00 for a lens and rated it a 6 that would make you look kind of dumb for buying it!

What I tried to do was facture in the price if it was very low. Example for the K55/1.8 I gave it a 10, partially for value. My most expensive lens is a K1000/8 and I gave it an 8. My rating really had nothing to do with the cost, as you should expect to pay a fair amount for a super telephoto lens. I gave it an 8 for other reasons, such as speed and size.

Phil.

Phil,

The funny thing is that when you ask the participants in such studies afterward if price played a significant role in their rating of the product they, mostly, say No. It is a significant factor in satisfaction ratings under most circumstances.

It might improve things on the Review section if there were 3 ratings: Build Quality, Optical Quality, and Value for Money. That way people with small budgets could focus on the last of the 3, those with more robust budgets could focus on 1+2 or just 2. I have seen a number of reviews that say "Not as well made as X, but good optics" or some variation. I've also see reviews that say "Great lens for the money!" I think those reviewers are focused on the issues I suggested above.

Just my thoughts as a newbie who has been using the Lens Review section literally daily for the past 6-8 weeks trying to get a broader understanding of the lens options available to me.