Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home

Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-06-2011, 08:41 AM   #46
Veteran Member

Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Taiwan
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,075
QuoteOriginally posted by Adam Quote
Since the ratings consist of just a single number, you have to read the reviews to get an accurate sense of the optical quality of a lens. It would be better if we had multiple scores, i.e. one for each parameter as we have in the in-depth reviews.
I think one simple way to improve the single number rating is to do a weighted avg that minimizes the impact that a really low (or high) rating does to lens with 10-15 ratings. I've checked out reviews for some of the great/legendary legacy lenses and they've rated lowly because someone received a damaged copy, didn't like MF or something else bogus.

But in the end reading the reviews especially by the more active and respected members is the best.

08-06-2011, 10:25 AM   #47

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Eureka, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,979
QuoteOriginally posted by Nesster Quote
Are the K lenses that much better than the other 28's? I would tend to doubt that.
Well, "much better" might be putting it too strongly. The K 28/3.5 is a better lens than the M 28/2.8, and the K 28/2 in one of the old legends in the Pentax lineup.

QuoteOriginally posted by geezer52 Quote
First I agree when a lens has 10 or more ratings, the aggregate rating is a good indicator of the lens's worth in both quality and value.
It's helpful for a lens to have many reviews, but not necessarily decisive. No matter how many reviews the kit lensor other consumer grade zoom lenses get, I'm inclined to treat those reviews with a large dose of skepticism, since those lenses tend to be used by photographers with very little, if any, experience with higher end lenses, and therefore, a limited point of reference. I suspect that 5 reviews for a $1,000 lens will tend to be more useful and informative than 50 reviews for the current kit lens.

The most useful reviews involve legacy glass, for the simple reason that there isn't a lot of information on those lenses easily available. There are other sources of reviews for lens currently available which can serve as a supplement. But if you want information on older Pentax lens, these reviews, even with their anomalous numerical ratings, are often the best source. And it's likely they have a real effect on market prices. Earlier this year two copies of the K 35/3.5 sold for over $180 on ebay. Now give the fact that, for about the same price, one could get a brand new DA 35/2.4, that's a rather high price for a slow, 35 year old lens. Now where could anyone have gotten the idea that K 35/3.5 was worth as much as a brand new, faster AF lens?
08-06-2011, 07:18 PM   #48
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,400
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
No, the top 3 things are NOT a function of price as far as the rating goes. That's what #4 is for. Build quality and mechanical design were also separated. A brick sh--house is better built than a marine plywood one which in turn is better built than a standard plywood one. Therefore, the brick one should come out better rated in build quality. The flapper inside would come under mechanical and is a separate evaluation. The price to performance is a separate evaluation. If a dump is a very pleasant experience in the brick building but not so much in the cheapest plywood one, perhaps the money was just thrown down the crapper on the lesser one. Perhaps the one in the middle is a better compromise in situations with dimensioning returns. Every one privy to such things know that a brick s---house is built better than a cheap grade plywood one.
What I meant by a function of price is that generally the more you spend on a lens the better the top 3 in the list are (or should be) therefore in an absolute scale, a more expensive lens will always or should always perform better than the lower cost lens in these three areas, but the question is, is the difference worth the price, that is where performance for price comes in.. In my opinion, as long as the performance for price curve is not too steep the better lens should still win, but if the curve is too steep, then it is just not worth the extra

  • 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!
da, f3.5-5.6, ii, k-mount, lens, lens reviews, optics, pentax lens, ratings, reviews, slr lens, time, wr
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Suggestion lens review ratings - shadow text? duncsuss Site Suggestions and Help 7 07-13-2011 11:05 AM
Not accurate purple colors? kenhreed Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 11 02-13-2011 02:52 PM
Is the electronic level accurate for you? m8o Pentax K-5 25 11-30-2010 10:19 AM
weighted average price for lenses in reviews section whojammyflip Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 21 11-14-2010 12:05 PM
Consumer Reports - Lens Ratings?!? storm Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 8 06-10-2007 12:05 PM

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:48 AM. | See also:, 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?
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]