[normhead]

OK then..... I always read the lens reviews here first. For one reason, it gives you some idea of the frequency of repair record of the lens. I once read about the Tamron 70-200, and at that time there were 3 returns in 33 posts. If you live someplace like me, with one week travel time each way, one return is 2 weeks without a lens I have already paid for. I'm not saying I'm not going to buy that lens, but I am saying, I'm going to have a return strategy in place before I buy it. Second, reading the forum reviews I can see what type of shooter likes the lens. Someone who shoots what I shoot the way I shoot it's advice is worth way more to me than an FF shooting narrow DoF guy. I just don't shoot that way and their opinion is meaningless to me. (Boy do I miss Joe.Penn).

The site reviews written by the staff writers, are really comprehensive, but often don't tell me anything I didn't know and if I had a question it probably doesn't answer it. Eg, I'm wondering if I might like the DA*200. I read the review. The review left me wanting to find a few more reviews. MY positive opinions of the lens comes from users. Reviewers are not kind to this lens. IN this case, I have no way of resolving the issue and am left wishing I had a place I could rent one from. Realistically you can't expect to have help with every lens made, but this lens is still in production. People say it's slow focusing, but no one can say how slow, slow compared to what? It purple fringes, but how bad is it, I've had purple fringing on my DA*60-250, is it better or worse. The bottom line here, is I'd like to see how the DA*200 stacks up against the Sigma and Tamron 70-200s, Pentax 80-200, DA*60-250, DA 55-300 and any other production lens that can mimic it's focal length.

I can say expressly why you might like a $179 Sigma 70-300, but no one can apparently tell me why I should buy a DA*200, or what kind of person would be happy with it. That just seems odd.

I like photo zone, but the biggest thing I've learned from them is, test site numbers may not be your friend. I probably wouldn't have bought the 18-135 or 21 ltd based on Photozone review, yet those are two of my 3 favourite lenses. That's not an endorsement of the site, in case you're wondering.

I like Imagine Resource which provides head to head comparison images with whatever you choose. The downside to that is that only in cases like the 645z or D800 where they have superior resolution would you choose a camera based on their images or possibly the low noise performance of a 6D or D610 might sway you if you were looking for relatively cheap low light capability. Also it shows how good all cameras 4/3 and larger, really are. The other downside to IR is they admitted it took them 7 tries to get the best possible resolution out of the D800. I don't believe they devote the same amount of time to every camera. The focus is often in question when differences are noticed between lenses.


I like DxO just because it has an opinion on everything and anything. If you read their stuff long enough you learn the DxO code. Good lens means "opens to a really wide aperture, if a lens outperforms their darling at it's sharpest Aperture, it doesn't matter to DxO. It's not as good. Same with sensor. You can't have a top rated sensor on DxO without great low light performance. But you can take a top flight image without excellent low light performance. Just avoid low light. DxO doesn't really interact with 95% of photography, but it does interact very with the other 5% that have to squeeze the best images possible out of poor shooting conditions. For those guys my guess is the site is a godsend.

So, while every site provides data, you still have to compute those data in a way that makes sense to you. When I look at DxO data, I know the most important thing to me is the dynamic range. I can safely toss the other two scores. When I look at both Photozone and Dx0 lens scores I remember, they probably only tested one copy. That's pretty much useless.

When I look at Imaging Resources tests, I'm struck by the difference in focus. Sometimes the wider DoF in APS-c has showed more of the test target in focus. You have to understand, when you compare different formats, that doesn't mean the lens isn't as sharp. But it does mean, that at times you can get an acceptable image at ƒ5.6 in APS_c that you're not going to get with an FF camera without getting into diffraction limited images. You really have to understand what you're looking at. This is not something newbies should probably be doing. You have to know what you're looking for to be able to tell whether the test you're looking at is in any way relevant to you.

And in the end, you have to be happy with the lens you buy. What the test sites say are the last thing you should be thinking about when evaluating a real lens. It doesn't matter what the test sites say, if your copy of that lens is what you want... go with it.

---

Last edited by normhead; 10-20-2014 at 01:34 PM.

[Outis]

I'm disappointed that the in-depth reviews conducted here haven't been brought up even once - we've been trying really hard, especially in the comprehensiveness of the in-depth review content lately.

-Heie

One of the things that has thrown me off in the past about the PF in-depth reviews has been the lack of consistency in the format-- some are stand-alone reviews of a given lens, some are direct comparisons between multiple lenses, and the reviews of the HD Limiteds is comparisons between the HD and SMC versions. Now that I know what's what, it's fine, but back when I pretty much didn't know anything about anything, it could be confusing.

I mean, at the time I bought my K-3, I'd only been learning about photography seriously for a few months. I didn't even have a good feel for the basics-- primes vs. zooms, what a lens with a bigger maximum aperture would get me, what different focal lengths would be useful for, and so on. It was a lot easier for me to look at lens review sites where I knew each lens would get a standalone review. That is, when I checked lens review sites-- I mostly just pestered a friend with questions. I made my first 2-3 lens purchases feeling kind of bewildered.

I don't think you should dumb things down for beginners, but anything that would make things more streamlined and consistent would be a plus.

That said, now I always check the PF reviews, and when they're good, they're excellent. Re: your 18-135mm review-- Holy cow. Have you ever considered getting a Ph.D.? Because that thing is a dissertation

[ElJamoquio]

I'm disappointed that the in-depth reviews conducted here haven't been brought up even once - we've been trying really hard, especially in the comprehensiveness of the in-depth review content lately.

-Heie

Hopefully-constructive-criticism: Last review I looked at compared two lenses with severe focus discrepancies, etc, and came to the wrong conclusion in my view.

Reviews, very understandably, don't seem to be standardized. Sometimes, person 1 reviews lens 1 with picture 1 and person 2 reviews lens 2 with picture 2. Hard to sort out the differences. At photozone, I usually can review bokeh of each lens in a standard setup and then again in some real-world pics.

Things that could be fairly easily quantized, like AF speed for the 70-200's, is not quantized. Conclusions that are made are a bit at odds with some of the conclusions I've made and it's tough to sort out correct and incorrect.

There seems to be a pro-Pentax bias that I understand and actually appreciate in general but that I don't want when I'm handing out $.

[kh1234567890]

I look at Flickr pools dedicated to different lenses if I want to check the bokeh quality.

+1

That is the only way to get a feel of what a particular lens is capable of and what its shortcomings are. Boring pictures of people's kids, flowers and backyards at full size - not heavily post-processed and downsized arty shots by 'pros'.

Review sites do not test enough samples to be of any use.

[6BQ5]

I'm disappointed that the in-depth reviews conducted here haven't been brought up even once - we've been trying really hard, especially in the comprehensiveness of the in-depth review content lately.

-Heie

Heie,

I think the in-depth reviews on PF are very good. Don't get me wrong by not mentioning them initially. When it comes to an overview of features, build quality, and usability I think the reviews on PF take the cake! I was thinking more of quantitative and a more objective test results which indicate a trend of lens behavior vs. qualitative and subjective which is much more open to interpretation.

For example, section 5 of the FA 43mm Ltd test has lot of thumbnails to click on and it's followed by an opinion on how to interpret the results. A site like Lenstip.com gives a chart created by processing an image very close to what those thumbnails contain. I don't really care what the numbers are except to see where they peak and how fast they fall off. The visualization is very quick for me to interpret. This gives me a broad and general idea of how the lens could perform in the real world. As a first time user of this lens I start off with f/5.6 and then experiment for myself over time. I would accept a roll off in sharpness in exchange for subject isolation or increased DoF. My experience has been that the trends in the charts are pretty much spot-on. The key here is that I would still need to learn the lens for myself over time.

I also appreciate real world samples but the samples posted online are usually picked to show off the lens at its best. Very few people will post the "oops!" sample shot that show the lens in a bad way. That just opens the door to bashers saying that they could have taken the same shot at the same settings and gotten a better result. Phooey on them, I say.

Lenstip.com gives a quick and easy to read chart. PF gives copious thumbnails to examine carefully. Combine the two and I think you would have a very good review and very good test!

[btnapa]

I'm disappointed that the in-depth reviews conducted here haven't been brought up even once - we've been trying really hard, especially in the comprehensiveness of the in-depth review content lately.

-Heie

Heie, I agree.

At the same time our own forum has been the harshest of all the review sites when it comes to Pentax glass in general.

I just brought up the low rating the FA43 got on the PF in another forum discussion . My experiences with the FA43 have been mostly positive and better than the suggest 8.0 rating.

PF reviews are the first place I go when I am considering a new Pentax lens. To my knowledge, PF has the most comprehensive lens review line up of any brand.

[mgvh]

I always check the Pentax Forums lens database as well as some of the others that have been mentioned.

You might also check the old Photodo site. Use the Lens Finder link in Photodo to find what you want. They do have reviews for more legacy lenses than new ones. I can also say that if your main interest is in 'sharpness,' than the Photodo rating is quite accurate. Any lens with a Photodo MTF over 3.0 is going to be more than acceptable. (E.g., the well regarded F 35-70 f3.5-4.5 is a 3.1 on their scale.) Lenses with scores of 4 or higher are going to be professional lenses with comparable prices.
Again, the Photodo rating is only a measure of sharpness, and there certainly is more by which to measure a lens, but that is one important factor.