Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-19-2011, 01:02 PM   #106
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 1,421
QuoteOriginally posted by Cambo Quote
The Sigma 18-125 zoom gets a 2.5 optically, but the FA* 24 gets a 2....

I rest my case.



Cameron
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,

04-19-2011, 04:09 PM   #107
New Member




Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 5
Finally an honest review of a Pentax lens!!

What you should all be arguing about is this sites obvious Fan-Boy reviews of everything Pentax.

Didn't this sites review claim "This lens can be seen as an "upgraded" kit lens"
and
"Contrary to popular belief, this lens isn't a consumer zoom like the 18-55mm WR, 50-200mm WR, or 55-300mm. Rather, it is a higher-quality "prosumer" lens aimed at serious amateurs and those willing to spend the extra buck for a higher-quality lens"

After seeing Ned Bunnels review of it, I knew it was Garbage and overpriced. But then I read this sites review and thought hmmm, maybe Ned "his photos" got it wrong.

I then read Every review this site does and saw the obvious trend and figured Neds photos were in fact correct and this current review only proves it.

It is just an extended zoom kit quality lens, with all the draw backs of each.
the lens should be no more then $250/$300 retail. After all, it really is just a variant of the WR 50 -200 or 18 - 55 WR

$500+ is an insult, Same with the Over priced 35 2.4 plastic mount, no hood, No focus over ride, no case lens for $219 retail. Compared to the $199, 1.8, metal mount, Hood and Case and focus over ride nikon 35mm
04-19-2011, 04:32 PM   #108
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: WV
Posts: 1,484
QuoteOriginally posted by HEAHA Quote
Finally an honest review of a Pentax lens!!
Not sure I would call photozone a review site. More like a measurebating site.
04-19-2011, 05:33 PM   #109
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,631
QuoteOriginally posted by HEAHA Quote
Didn't this sites review claim "This lens can be seen as an "upgraded" kit lens"
and
"Contrary to popular belief, this lens isn't a consumer zoom like the 18-55mm WR, 50-200mm WR, or 55-300mm. Rather, it is a higher-quality "prosumer" lens aimed at serious amateurs and those willing to spend the extra buck for a higher-quality lens"

It is just an extended zoom kit quality lens, with all the draw backs of each.
the lens should be no more then $250/$300 retail. After all, it really is just a variant of the WR 50 -200 or 18 - 55 WR
The 18-55 and 50-200 WR together cost $360. That's $140 less than the 18-135. I actually had the 50-200 ordered then cancelled. I decided the extra cost was justified just for the advantage of not having to change lenses in dust, rain or snow.

The superzoom is a lot more compact than two kit lenses. Construction is not comparable; mostly metal, very solid, the kit lenses feel like rattleboxes in comparison. DC focus is silent and sure, rounded blades, smooth MF. The 18-135 is clearly an upgrade over the kit lenses, but you probably can't tell unless you've used both.

04-19-2011, 06:07 PM   #110
Veteran Member
Eruditass's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,206
QuoteOriginally posted by Vern Dewit Quote
I have owned and used this lens recently and have to say I was personally quite disappointed in it. For 'normal' use it's a great walk around lens, but as soon as I looked a bit closer at my images I was not impressed. Maybe I had a bad copy but my corners were horrible, even at f8 / f11 (especially the left side) and I found it hard to eliminate the PF.

Samples taken while on ski trips over the past month (these are obviously resized for the web - I'm trying to show that the lens takes great photos for most applications, just not for pixel peepers or people trying to print really large):



Great shots. It's a shame that those shots won't hold up to big prints.
04-20-2011, 07:50 PM   #111
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,112
I've played with RAW from 18-135 - and I can confirm Photozone test results -
not bad at wide-angle, very good for zoom lens, but
this lens is rather weak in range 70-135 mm and suffers from high field curvature. Lens is very weak even at f8 in telerange.
04-20-2011, 08:01 PM   #112
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,631
QuoteOriginally posted by ogl Quote
this lens is rather weak in range 70-135 mm and suffers from high field curvature. Lens is very weak even at f8 in telerange.
Compared to what?
04-20-2011, 08:22 PM   #113
Veteran Member
dgaies's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Maryland / Washington DC
Posts: 3,917
QuoteOriginally posted by ogl Quote
I've played with RAW from 18-135 - and I can confirm Photozone test results -
not bad at wide-angle, very good for zoom lens, but
this lens is rather weak in range 70-135 mm and suffers from high field curvature. Lens is very weak even at f8 in telerange.
Well then it's a good thing I bought the 18-135 to replace my 16-50 and not my 50-135

QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
Compared to what?
Exactly. I'm starting to think this is a case of people's expectations being too high, perhaps somewhat justified given the high price of the lens. I have a feeling my 18-135 outperforms my 16-50 from 70-135mm

04-20-2011, 11:00 PM   #114
Forum Member




Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 58
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
Compared to what?
To 50-200 in the same range, for example.
04-21-2011, 03:19 AM   #115
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,954
QuoteOriginally posted by frogfoot Quote
To 50-200 in the same range, for example.
But not the Tamron/Pentax 18-250, which has been the "gold standard" for super zooms up to this point. Audiobomber posted some photos taken with both lenses and truthfully, it was hard to see the differences, but the 18-135 certainly had at least as good border resolution as the 18-250.

People don't buy superzooms for ultimate image quality (that's why they buy primes). They buy them for convenience.
04-21-2011, 03:39 AM   #116
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,112
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
Compared to what?
simply bad. nothing to compare. but....I think even 18-250 is better or 50-200
04-21-2011, 04:11 AM   #117
Senior Member




Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Ft. Myers Florida
Posts: 169
QuoteOriginally posted by dgaies Quote
Well then it's a good thing I bought the 18-135 to replace my 16-50 and not my 50-135



Exactly. I'm starting to think this is a case of people's expectations being too high, perhaps somewhat justified given the high price of the lens. I have a feeling my 18-135 outperforms my 16-50 from 70-135mm
Maybe the PZ review will cause the price to drop?
04-21-2011, 04:24 AM   #118
Forum Member




Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 58
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
Audiobomber posted some photos taken with both lenses
Could you please give me the link to this comparison? I couldn't find.
04-21-2011, 04:38 AM   #119
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,631
QuoteOriginally posted by ogl Quote
simply bad. nothing to compare. but....I think even 18-250 is better or 50-200
My 18-135 has better sharpness than my 18-250 in the center and across the frame, at 18mm and 135mm. I only tested wide open because the gap disappears as the apertures close.

https://picasaweb.google.com/bonhommed/18135Vs18250#

The tests were done on a tripod with 2s timer, auto exposure, two shot with AF, two with MF, best photo posted. The MF photos are a mess. I included them to show that autofocus is accurate. I took care to align for the brick wall shots. The photos of the entire building are taken from a side position to minimize the effect of field curvature. Focus was the window in the center of the wall. No tripod used on the shot of the garden.
PS My K20D just returned from Pentax after recalibration.

I'll believe a 50-200 is sharper when I see it confirmed. Sharpness is not comparable on the PZ tests due to different bodies, and I strongly suspect the lens used was substandard (not Klaus' fault).
04-21-2011, 04:39 AM   #120
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,954
Right here: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/140953-superzo...ml#post1472037.
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 06:45 AM. | 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