Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-24-2011, 09:44 AM   #166
Site Supporter
sabarrett's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Michigan
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 252
I'm kinda surprised about all the 18-135 hating going on. Our own lens review database rates it as a 9. I got it based on all the online reviews and comments I could find, here an other places. I for one, really like it. Its better than I expected, since it is a large range, and isn't a pro level lens. I am using it for general purpose shots while traveling, of my kids and in the house. If I want something better quality, I'll get one of my primes out.

It replaced a Sigma 17-10 and 24-135, so going from a 2 lens solution to a one lens is nice. Its smaller, lighter, quieter, and I have some real nice shots to go along with it. I'm traveling a bunch for work right now, so I'll post some later, but its nice to grab a combination with a bunch of versatility and go for a walk in the woods.

04-24-2011, 05:55 PM   #167
Site Supporter
Cambo's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Vancouver, BC
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 839
Responses....

QuoteOriginally posted by excanonfd Quote
You are comparing a consumer zoom lens performance against a professional quality prime lens. That should be like comparing apples with oranges. Aside from that, look at the resolution test; you would expect a pro quality prime lens would outperform a consumer zoom lens at every level but clearly, that's not happening here. The FA* has great centre sharpness but fairly mediocre borders, the Sigma at 35mm has better border sharpness than the FA*. Judging the FA* based on resolution test numbers, I'd say Photozone was spot on when it awarded 2 stars for the FA* 24/2.0. As for price/performance, it seems a good thing the FA*20/2.0 is discontinued.

I have also heard just about every refrain about Photozone's less than favourable review of Pentax lens' performance: Either the test procedure is flawed or the test sample was bad. If you believe a not so favourable review is flawed, then you have to also discard all of the positive results, because the test procedure is the same for both. If the test sample is a lemon, I'd say the vaunted Pentax quality control is a nothing but a myth.

Back to the 18-135; for a briefest instant I thought about getting one when it was announced last year, until the sticker shock kicked in. $600.00 to gain an extra 10mm over my $150.00 Sigma 18-125, I'd have to be rolling in dough-re-mi to do that.

Thanks,
As for your complaints of the 24, you've obviously never shot with one. As for the 18-135, what you'd GAIN over the Sigma, in addition to the 10mm, is weather-sealing, silent and blistering fast focussing, loosing quite a bit of size, weight, and much much better physical construction. All of that costs money. And I'll BET the Pentax outperforms it optically, inspite of what this site says.

As for me comparing consumer zoom lens performance against a professional quality prime lens...I'm not, HE did. He gave the consewer multi-freaking-macro-tele Sigma POS a better mark OPTICALLY than the FA* 24...he's nuts, plain and simple. I don't care HOW you measure it - take a picture at the same focal length, the FA* photo will spank it's stinky pants by a freaking MILE in EVERY respect, at ANY aperture, as it will just about EVERY LENS ever made at that focal length. What about colour rendition, contrast, 3D, bokeh, there's LOTS of other aspects of that lens that he hasn't even mentioned (and, when it was built, it was the fastest 24 in the auto-focussing SLR world).

And BTW, on a digital SLR, you're not USING the corners of the 24...it's a full frame lens...optically it is MAGNIFICENT in EVERY respect except CA, which as we know is easily corrected now. And especially since you're photographing in the sweet spot. The horrific 'soft-corners' that everyone's raging about don't even come into play here, making this lens even better, and as for distortion, it is stellar, MAGNITUDES above the Sigma superzoom which he rates 'optically' higher. This review is total hogwash...beyond that, total stupidity.


QuoteOriginally posted by MPrince Quote
Not sure I would call photozone a review site. More like a measurebating site.
+1,000,000. And they're not even good or consistent at that...re=read comments about the 77 limited again...

QuoteOriginally posted by the swede Quote
Very sad that many people rely and trust so hard on the PZ test when its still possible that the lens Klaus tested was a dud.

I stated somewhere else that Pentax is in fact known for sending back faulty lenses some times. Its called "within factory specs" and i have personaly seen this happen with a DA 40 Ltd and a DA* 50-135.

They do lab tests at given points but if the lens produce faults outside of that..... well there is the "within factory specs" excuse. They still can provide test resuts that prove the lens to be correct, in the area they test the lens.

Still.... i can not prove the PZ wrong, and i cant convince anyone. Just saying what i have experienced myself.
Well, they tested it and it was within their specs. I just don't think he knows what he's doing.

QuoteOriginally posted by Clinton Quote
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.

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.
Well said. I agree 100%.

QuoteOriginally posted by asdf Quote
I just looked around at online prices and DA 18-135 is sold for the same price as Canon EF-S 18-135MM, at least in one store. Canon EF-S 18-135MM doesn't seem great either.
And is WAYYY bigger and WAYYYY heavier and zooms out WAYYY longer and is not sealed. They missed the point of this lens totally, just like they did with the 77 limited, or having a SIGMA superzoom outscore the FA* 24 F=2 optically...



I find it hard to believe that people on a Pentax Forum website could defend this idiocy.

I'm digging out some shots I've done with the optically abhorrent FA* 24...will post them soon. INCLUDING architectural shots and you can all measurebate in the corners if you want. It's one of the finest lenses ever made in it's focal length by ANY company.

Mass insanity...

Cheers,
Cameron
04-25-2011, 12:52 AM   #168
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,255
QuoteOriginally posted by Cambo Quote
And BTW, on a digital SLR, you're not USING the corners of the 24...it's a full frame lens...optically it is MAGNIFICENT in EVERY respect except CA, which as we know is easily corrected now. And especially since you're photographing in the sweet spot. The horrific 'soft-corners' that everyone's raging about don't even come into play here, making this lens even better, and as for distortion, it is stellar, MAGNITUDES above the Sigma superzoom which he rates 'optically' higher. This review is total hogwash...beyond that, total stupidity.
Your post is comparatively bigger hogwash. photozone tests Pentax lenses on the cropped sensor. Whatever numbers they get are from a cropped sensor. There are far worse sites than photozone. photozone uses a tripod and tries to focus on the subject. I've seen much worse...

EDIT: If you want to see true hogwash, look at the review of DA 35 f/2.4 ON THIS SITE. It gets 7/10 for sharpness. 18-135 gets 7/10 for sharpness...when the sample shots are a blurry mess.

Last edited by asdf; 04-25-2011 at 12:59 AM.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
k-mount, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I don't understand photozone.de justtakingpics Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 15 04-16-2011 12:20 PM
K5 and photozone bluekorn Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 5 02-02-2011 02:15 AM
DA*55 at photozone.de. ogl Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 6 11-24-2009 09:51 AM
DA 15mm at photozone Andi Lo Pentax News and Rumors 33 10-23-2009 02:22 AM
DA 15mm Photozone Review!! K206 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 2 10-19-2009 08:17 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:03 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top