Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-21-2011, 05:08 AM   #121
Veteran Member
dgaies's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Maryland / Washington DC
Posts: 3,917
QuoteOriginally posted by Spotmatic Quote
Maybe the PZ review will cause the price to drop?
It's quite possible

I got my 18-135 pretty cheap (around $300 when all was said and done), so as I've said in previous posts, perhaps my expectations are lower as a result.

04-21-2011, 05:32 AM   #122
Forum Member




Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Moscow
Posts: 67
Thanks... Hm.. It looks like his 18-135 is sharper at 135 mm than 18-250...
As for me I found my 18-135 quite unusable at 100 mm and above...
04-21-2011, 06:16 AM   #123
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,684
QuoteOriginally posted by frogfoot Quote
Thanks... Hm.. It looks like his 18-135 is sharper at 135 mm than 18-250...
As for me I found my 18-135 quite unusable at 100 mm and above...
One has to wonder if this is a Pentax quality control issue.
04-21-2011, 06:57 AM   #124
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Bangalore
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,450
I was never enthusiast about this lens. They should have tested at same resolution to compare MTF against other lenses.

04-21-2011, 07:13 AM   #125
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: La Crescenta, CA
Posts: 7,452
QuoteOriginally posted by yusuf Quote
I was never enthusiast about this lens. They should have tested at same resolution to compare MTF against other lenses.
You don't think every company does this for every lens they make?
04-21-2011, 07:40 AM   #126
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,775
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
One has to wonder if this is a Pentax quality control issue.
QC is quite possibly an issue, but different people have different definitions of "unusable" as well. I've heard people call the kit lens unusable, and I find it quite handy in many situations.
04-21-2011, 08:36 AM   #127
New Member




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Netherlands
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
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#
I haven't tried 18mm against a brick wall but in landscape test-shots the borders with my 18-135 at 18mm f3.5 were much softer than I see on your samples. The field curvature thing could explain that it's not to the same degree in every scene.

QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
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).
Above 75mm my DA50-200 performs better in every way than my 18-135 except for autofocus. But it all depends on what copy you get I suppose.
I've posted a 100% crop here on the other forum:
big 100% crop: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
04-21-2011, 09:14 AM   #128
Veteran Member
Eruditass's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,206
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
One has to wonder if this is a Pentax quality control issue.
I think with consumer lenses, quality varies pretty widely, often greater than average performance between different lens models, with the minimum bar set rather low. Stellar performers are often not really supposed to be stellar, luck just granted them a good one.

04-21-2011, 09:15 AM   #129
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Bangalore
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,450
QuoteOriginally posted by deadwolfbones Quote
You don't think every company does this for every lens they make?
Sorry I didn't get that, I was just suggesting that photozone should have tested it as same resolution (10MP instead of 16MP) so that comparison with other lenses was easier.
04-21-2011, 09:34 AM   #130
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,311
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.
04-21-2011, 10:23 AM   #131
Forum Member




Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Moscow
Posts: 67
QuoteOriginally posted by GeneV Quote
but different people have different definitions of "unusable"
This is what I call unusable. Comparison between 18-135 and 50-200: 100% crop of right lower corner.
BTW at wide to middle range my 18-135 is noticeably sharper and more contrast than 16-45 (I'm talking about center. Corners are still weaker). So I don't know if my lens can be called faulty.

P.S. After more careful examination I can say that 18-135 is not worse than 50-200 in the range of 50-100 mm.
Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K-7  Photo 

Last edited by frogfoot; 04-21-2011 at 10:40 AM. Reason: append
04-21-2011, 10:28 AM   #132
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: La Crescenta, CA
Posts: 7,452
QuoteOriginally posted by yusuf Quote
Sorry I didn't get that, I was just suggesting that photozone should have tested it as same resolution (10MP instead of 16MP) so that comparison with other lenses was easier.
Ah, sorry. I thought you were talking about a different "they."

04-21-2011, 10:41 AM   #133
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Parallax's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Dakota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,618
frogfoot, the 18-135 shot looks to me like motion blur, not focus or "softness".
04-21-2011, 10:49 AM   #134
Forum Member




Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Moscow
Posts: 67
QuoteOriginally posted by Parallax Quote
frogfoot, the 18-135 shot looks to me like motion blur, not focus or "softness".
It can't be motion blur. The picture was taken at 1/200 s and using a tripod. The center of the image has no such doubled edges.
04-21-2011, 10:50 AM   #135
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Parallax's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Dakota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,618
Was SR off?
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 01:12 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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