What I enjoy about photozone.de is how they seem to really rip a lens to shreds, and then mark it as highly recommended.
These guys clearly look for something massively awesome. The FA 31 ltd, which IMO is the gold standard in it's class, as you read the review, if you haven't read their other reviews, doesn't seem exactly glowing, and ultimately receives (only) 4.5 starts for optical quality.
And only 3 stars for price/performance.
I believe the only way to obtain a 5 star rating is to land a $45 pancake f1.0 lens, made of pure titanium, that shoots with perfect extreme corner to center sharpness wide open, with results that out resolve our modern sensors. Oh and it needs to be able to be waterproof up to 60'.
When you're *only* awarding 4.5 stars for the optical quality of the FA 31 ltd, a review of a tiny weather sealed superzoom isn't going to compare; nor frankly should we expect it to.
Originally posted by asdf On the other hand, the truly poor results of 18-135 are rightfully causing controversy.
I just don't see the controversy. It's optical quality isn't amazing. Yawn. You want pro gear? Buy pro gear.
If you want amazing, you pay the price for the pair of F2.8 DA* lenses. If not, you buy this, and you get mush in the corners at 135mm. For your average pick up a dslr and spend some more on an upgraded kit lens, this will do fine.
For us quality junkies, (photozone.de included), this lens isn't going to compare, nor did I expect it to.