[JanG]

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?

The second chance was to send the first lens in and let Pentax check it for the specs - it came back as it had been before.

[audiobomber]

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

Falk's question: "E.g., look at the borders of http://photozone.smugmug.com/photos/..._fCVfGSD-O.jpg . Would you print this?"

My answer is yes, I wouldn't hesitate. I look at the overall photo, especially colour and contrast. Purple fringe bugs me a lot, CA not so much. Peeping into the extremities, which may not even be in the focal plane, just doesn't enter into it for me. I'm evaluating an 18-135mm right now. I can keep it or send it back. My impressions so far, very good colour and contrast, pf well controlled, superb mechanics (AF, WR, no creep). In all these ways, it murders the 18-250, and they are what matter most to me. In fact I gave the 18-250 away last year for these reasons, and hesitated to try the 18-135.

So far I like the 18-135 and will probably keep it. Sharpness is acceptable, and range is well conceived. Yesterday I was out shooting in a mild blizzard, camera and lens got very wet. I didn't worry about it or try to protect the gear. I didn't have to risk a lens change, or compromise on focal length. I will do some tests this week to check it out further, but as of right now it looks like it's staying. I like having access to a superzoom, especially a weather-resistant one. Every photo doesn't have to be technically perfect, and if it does, guess what, I can change the damn lens. A mounted 18-135 with DA 15, DA 40, Raynox macro adapter and spare battery fit nicely in my small weather-resistant shoulder bag. That's my grab & go kit.

[JanG]

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

Well, what you describe is exactly the way Photozone works. If you discover magic in a lens and it is a gem to you - why should you care? Go to The online photographer, and maybe Mike Johnston will tell you another truth.
I own the DA*55 - certainly not overrated by Klaus. Yet, it has true magic for me (and I still have to discover an optical short coming, whatever Klaus found out about its measurebating quality).
Furthermore, Photozone is reviewing lenses, not the ability of software to correct lens faults in pp.
Yes, the lens is pricey. Very pricey. And it does not seem to deliver optically by Klaus' criteria. Full stop. No more, no less.
And I think Klaus is doing a very decent (and fair) job on what he does with his reviews - but that's just my own humble opinion and everyone is invited to disagree.

[GeneV]

The second chance was to send the first lens in and let Pentax check it for the specs - it came back as it had been before.

Thank you. What was Pentax asked to do? Were they specifically told that this lens had performed poorly or asked to check resolution?

---

Last edited by GeneV; 04-18-2011 at 05:50 AM.

[JanG]

Thank you. What was Pentax asked to do? Were they specifically asked to check resolution?

I cite Klaus from the analysis page of the review:
"We were obviously surprised by the rather poor performance so we send the lens to the local Pentax service in Hamburg/Germany. Result: the tested lens is within factory specifications!"

[ogl]

Full-size sample photos from Pentax 18-135mm F/3.5-5.6
I find all photos rather weak even at K10D. As for me - all photos for trash...

For example, it's absolutely bad photos
All sizes | 20110305-IMGP8086 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
All sizes | 20110302-IMGP7833_dng | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

The only one is so-so at f10 at 18 mm at K10D (with weakest AA filter)
All sizes | 20110115-IMGP7651_dng | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

[noons]

For example, it's absolutely bad photos
All sizes | 20110305-IMGP8086 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

This is totally out of focus

[dgaies]

This is totally out of focus

Kind of makes you wonder what ogl's motivation was for choosing such an example. Perhaps he cannot tell the difference between poor resolution and an out-of-focus shot?

[GeneV]

I cite Klaus from the analysis page of the review:
"We were obviously surprised by the rather poor performance so we send the lens to the local Pentax service in Hamburg/Germany. Result: the tested lens is within factory specifications!"

I thought you might have some other information from what was in the review. I read that for myself. It does not answer the questions I, and others, raise about what the communications with Pentax were. If I go to a repair shop or even a doctor, what is checked will depend greatly upon my complaint.

To me, a "second chance" would be another lens. This could say as much about the local Pentax repair facility than what is coming of the assembly line.

[GeneV]

Kind of makes you wonder what ogl's motivation was for choosing such an example. Perhaps he cannot tell the difference between poor resolution and an out-of-focus shot?

The right side, where the people are, is just slightly better, but this shot was obviously not posted for any other reason but to show the family getting ski lessons.

[ogl]

Kind of makes you wonder what ogl's motivation was for choosing such an example. Perhaps he cannot tell the difference between poor resolution and an out-of-focus shot?

Nobody upload RAW from 18-135.

[hyyz]

There's possibility that Pentax doesn't want to cooperate with PZ, thefore gave the in-specs response.

From Pentax's point of view, PZ is not using their lenses for photographic use but just for test. Pentax might have been bothered by PZ many times and doesn't see them to help anything on its sales.

[Fototim]

A guy I know and trusts owns ths lens. He likes it.

We know how lab tests are done, at rather close shooting distanses. The guy claims that the lens performs a lot better at more normal shooting distanses.

Make your own conclusions. I for one, are stilll musing at this lens. Only wish it was a bit less expensive.

[dgaies]

Nobody upload RAW from 18-135.

The fact that you don't have any better alternatives to look at doesn't make the examples you posted any more appropriate for assessing the quality of the lens. A poor example is still a poor example, even if you have nothing else.

[Andi Lo]

There's possibility that Pentax doesn't want to cooperate with PZ, thefore gave the in-specs response.

From Pentax's point of view, PZ is not using their lenses for photographic use but just for test. Pentax might have been bothered by PZ many times and doesn't see them to help anything on its sales.

PZ is crazy about DA limiteds and always give a good word about pretty much all of them... I for one was convinced by PZ to skip the FA limiteds for now and go for DA since I can actually afford it. I don't see how that's not helping Pentax.