[dgaies]

Add postage ? and 25% for import tax into the UK.

Understood. I don't think it was anyone's intention to say that you could buy it from Canada (or the US) for less money. My point a couple posts back was that I can understand that if I had to pay £560 for the 18-135 I might not be as satisfied with the lens as I am having paid much less.

[Cambo]

Took the same shots as above and applied 30 seconds worth of post-processing in Lightroom (CA correction, a bit of sharpening):

100mm, f/5.6 (again, ignore the tree branch, it's out of the plane of focus):


100mm, f/8:


135mm, f/8:


Time to head to the dump with my lens?

and I'll dispose of it in an environmentally sensitive manner - straight into my camera bag!

Photozone....

Cameron

[Cambo]

These sorts of lenses are always a compromise, the Canon equivalent is just as woeful. What I can't get over is the price of the Pentax 18-135mm - £560 here in the UK, is that a joke? I'm sure the build quality is lovely and it's weather sealed, but this is a lens; not an object for internet forum bragging rights.

No, it's not a joke...it was a mistake...

As much as like the 18-135, if I had to shell out £560 for it, I would certainly think twice before getting one (and in all likelihood not buy it); I got a great deal and paid closer to the equivalent of £175 for my 18-135, which is really the reason I gave it a try in the first place

It's $500 CAD at Prodigital = 361 Euros = 320 UKP.

That's more like it.

And now the final verdict has been removed.

Does Klaus regret his verdict, just because some people think he is wrong?

Not very proffesional

Of course, The lens Klaus had sent could still be a dud. So i dont blame him for anything, nor should anybody else!

IMHO, Pentax has sent back duds to people before, including me. I had a DA*50-135 sent to Hamburg to get back an even worse (another lens) example, without any explanation of why the first didnt get serviced. Swedish service shop confirmed this and saved my day though, and i had a perfect replacement back.

I somewhere read that this is behavior varies from office to office. Kinda sad for us in Europe when Hamburg makes the final calls regarding our warranties.

Klaus' comments on his forum are even dumber than in the article...

Actually, Klaus is giving Pentax a third chance, as he (meanwhile) has posted on the verdict page. That's a lot of good will for a minor brand, but it is definitely no reason for criticizing Klaus bowing to furor.

Have a look at the forum. He goes by measurements ONLY, it seems, which is why he completely misunderstands magnificent lenses like the 77 limited, for example, and why he misses the point on THIS lens. It is TEENY for it's zoom ration - very small, does NOT zoom out as far as the zoom ratio would suggest, focuses very fast and virtually silently, and is exquisitely built. Pentax was trying to make the ultimate travel zoom, and I believe they have - far better than most of those cheap, crappy, rattley, plasticy ultra-zooms on the market that extend a foot and a half when you use them and have the build quality of a cheap toy. It's teeny, fairly light, and beautifully built, to a pro level, weatherproof, which is why;

A) there are distortions, ALL of which can be corrected in Photoshop/Aperture/Lightroom with one little automatic algorhythm (and actually there are provisions in the K5 itself which will let you correct distortions and the like), and

B) it's a bit pricey.

The rest is whiney measurbation. He's a Nikon freak...end of story.

Cameron

[GeneV]

Actually, Klaus is giving Pentax a third chance, as he (meanwhile) has posted on the verdict page. That's a lot of good will for a minor brand, but it is definitely no reason for criticizing Klaus bowing to furor.

I'm a little confused. What was the second chance? I've never quite understood what Pentax was asked and what their response meant concerning the lens tested. He did continue with the same copy of the lens, didn't he?

[deejjjaaaa]

far better than most of those cheap, crappy, rattley, plasticy ultra-zooms on the market that extend a foot and a half when you use them and have the build quality of a cheap toy. I

Nikon 18-135 does a great job resolution wise...

[deejjjaaaa]

And regarding the magical 77 Limited, they state, and I quote, "Optically it doesn't offer much beyond the mainstream in this class"...COMPLETELY clued! 'Duhh...LOSERS! (© 2011 by Charlie SOS Sheen inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction, by any means, is....)

and what exactly 77/1.8 offer optically that Klaus measures ( distortion, resolution, vignetting, CAs ) that is way better than more than twice cheap Nikon 85/1.8 ( Nikkor AF 85mm f/1.8 D - Review / Test Report ) for example ? he is not in the business to measure "magic".

[ogl]

Dear offended 18-135 users, where are your RAWs to see how good this lens?
You rend the air, but no any proofs.

[hyyz]

and what exactly 77/1.8 offer optically that Klaus measures ( distortion, resolution, vignetting, CAs ) that is way better than more than twice cheap Nikon 85/1.8 ( Nikkor AF 85mm f/1.8 D - Review / Test Report ) for example ? he is not in the business to measure "magic".

In this logic, what exactly does Nikkor 85mm 1.4 offer that Klaus measures that is way better than more than triple cheap Nikon 85/1.8, especially Border Resolution? Nikon must be so dumb by offering it!

I'm not offending you, but it makes me laugh you compare FA77 with Nikkor 85mm 1.8.

[deadwolfbones]

In this logic, what exactly does Nikkor 85mm 1.4 offer that Klaus measures that is way better than more than triple cheap Nikon 85/1.8, especially Border Resolution? Nikon must be so dumb by offering it!

I'm not offending you, but it makes me laugh you compare FA77 with Nikkor 85mm 1.8.

I've owned them both, and they ARE in fact comparable in IQ if not in build.

[the swede]

Dear offended 18-135 users, where are your RAWs to see how good this lens?
You rend the air, but no any proofs.

Who's offended Ogl?

That statement you just made, signals nothing but immaturity.

[thibs]

Hehehe

[Rorschach]

So what? The guy's a pixel peeper extraordinaire. I much rather pay attention to real world test reports from the field.

[Big G]

Nikon 18-135 does a great job resolution wise...

Indeed, it certainly seems to measure a lot better than Canon and Pentax's efforts. I would have to plump for a Sigma offering as I couldn't justify the Canon or Pentax versions given the reviews.

[ogl]

So what? The guy's a pixel peeper extraordinaire. I much rather pay attention to real world test reports from the field.

I'm with Falk
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/1469423-post23.html

[Big G]

'Rubbish' springs to mind.

Look on the bright side, this testing and extensive discussion should mean noone makes the mistake of shelling out the cash for it . That's no bad thing.