[Na Horuk]

I agree with the OP, but I also see that subjective reviews are.. well, less than perfect. What could be a remedy? The first thing that could be done is to not count some outliers. for example, if a lens has 10 reviews, two of them are 10, the others are 8-9, but only one is a 2. Then the 2 and one 10 would be ignored when calculating the "total score." This would help against trolling and unreasonable people (who had wrong expectations or don't really get the point of a review)
The other thing could be to give a longer explanation on how to write the review. Right now, the main thing are those individual scores (Like Sharpness, Aberrations, Bokeh,..), pros and cons, and the area to write some more thoughts. Maybe if there was a more specific guide on how to write an amateur review, while still not expecting the person to use professional gear to assess sharpness and other qualities.
Finally, the reviews themselves could be rated, which would give some reviews more weight than others. For example, if I find a review that is helpful, that matches my own experiences, I could give it a 5. If I notice its full of wrong information, I could give it a 1. But this approach is not very good, because who wants to review reviews? Especially since you probably look for reviews of lenses you don't (yet) have. The "was this helpful?" thingy is good enough, I guess.

[pacerr]

. . . not everyone reading the review might fully understand the whole M42/K/M/A/F/DA story,

And the detailed description of the lens in the 'title block' may be ignored then?

Somehow I doubt that anyone depending solely on subjective opinions of a given lens is going to derive much useful information from them.

Far too often we humor the uneducated browser with friendly (unhelpful?) opinions when they'd be far better served if they were first referred to a standardized, objective source of information for prerequisite education about photography and equipment. There are friendly ways to nudge folks in that direction.

Some people need to at least read the owner's manual for a basic K1000 a coupl'a times before asking which $1000+ DA* lens would suit their undefined photography goals with a DSLR.


And personally I have no use for the 1-10 numeric scale. I'd much prefer a simpler recommendation system:
1) Not recommended for the following optical/functional reasons stated below.
2) Recommended as good value for the stated new/used price with reservations discussed below.
3) Highly recommended as one of the best in its class.

[cali92rs]

When dozens and dozens of lenses have 9+ ratings on a scale of 1-10, it is pretty easy to ignore them. Even on a fan site, I find the enthusiasm a little excessive. Put it this way, the 18-55mm kit lens is closer the the same score as FA 77mm limited than it is to the score of 5.

[kh1234567890]

To me all that numerology is pretty meaningless, especially in reviews written five minutes after taking a lens out of its box. Entertaining though

I prefer to look at what sort of shots people manage to eek out of a particular lens and for that reason I try to include a representative selection with my reviews.

[Mistlefoot]

When dozens and dozens of lenses have 9+ ratings on a scale of 1-10, it is pretty easy to ignore them. Even on a fan site, I find the enthusiasm a little excessive. Put it this way, the 18-55mm kit lens is closer the the same score as FA 77mm limited than it is to the score of 5.

and consensus here seems that it should be recieving a similar rating. Hence the several pages of discussion.

The original poster is requesting that we post reviews based upon how well a lens works as expected. ie, an M shouldn't be dinged for not having auto focus and a kit lens shouldn't be dinged for being a kit lens.

The 18-55 a kit lens that is not very fast, not extremely wide and not very long performs quite well. When compared to other kit lenses of this range, it performs as expected.
The FA77 as a portrait lengh prime does as well. When compared to other 70-90mm primes it performs quite well too.

[osv]

I prefer to look at what sort of shots people manage to eek out of a particular lens and for that reason I try to include a representative selection with my reviews.

if people posted representative photos, that would be the ideal solution... as in, ooc jpegs, that list aperture and iso.

but what really happens is that people crop, resize, overprocess, compress, and upload a postage stamp-sized pic.

for every person that does that, there are 10 people who think that you can learn all that you need to know about a lens by going to flickr or whatever, to see those tweaked shots.

90% of those tweaked shots will be of centered objects, where the lens is the sharpest, which doesn't tell you squat about how clean it is on the sides, which is where most lenses fail... but at least you might be able to see bokeh

[cali92rs]

and consensus here seems that it should be recieving a similar rating. Hence the several pages of discussion.

The original poster is requesting that we post reviews based upon how well a lens works as expected. ie, an M shouldn't be dinged for not having auto focus and a kit lens shouldn't be dinged for being a kit lens.

The 18-55 a kit lens that is not very fast, not extremely wide and not very long performs quite well. When compared to other kit lenses of this range, it performs as expected.
The FA77 as a portrait lengh prime does as well. When compared to other 70-90mm primes it performs quite well too.

That helps no one determine if a lens is worth buying.
"I expect a crappy kit lens to perform crappily, so I will give it a 10."
Gee thanks, i feel much better investing in this lens.

[kh1234567890]

if people posted representative photos, that would be the ideal solution... as in, ooc jpegs, that list aperture and iso.

but what really happens is that people crop, resize, overprocess, compress, and upload a postage stamp-sized pic.

for every person that does that, there are 10 people who think that you can learn all that you need to know about a lens by going to flickr or whatever, to see those tweaked shots.

90% of those tweaked shots will be of centered objects, where the lens is the sharpest, which doesn't tell you squat about how clean it is on the sides, which is where most lenses fail... but at least you might be able to see bokeh

You can usually spot those straight away. Actually it is the boring, badly framed, straight out of the camera, shots of backyards, garden vegetation and pets/offspring posted on Flickr that are the most informative. Unfortunately such taken with the more exotic lenses are comparatively rare.

A possible solution would be for each lens review 'thread' to be linked to a real forum thread where the pros and cons of that lens could be discussed. The lens clubs partly do that, but not quite.

[Transit]

I dinged the lens in my review because I bought it second had and it did NOT include a pony. ...

Yeah, I replaced mine with a 77 because of the pony thing

btw dinged where I come from means it has a dent
we would say pinged

I reckon a simple tuneup of the reviews would involve dumping the extreme couple of numbers.
Then the clown who gives it a 3 because it fell on his foot wouldn't stuff the average

[Dlanor Sekao]

I dinged the lens in my review because I bought it second had and it did NOT include a pony. I thought for sure Pentax gave everyone a pony with this lens...(sarcasm!)

I Got A Pony with mine ! But I still Dinged it because the damned thing ate Hay !!!

[Rondec]

This thread would leave the impression that people are under rating lenses because of silly things, but my perception is that most people over rate their lenses. It is silly if all lenses fall into the 8 to 10 range. I know that modern lenses are all at least decent, but that still doesn't mean that there isn't a range.

I am afraid that people take price paid into account in their review. If you paid 25 dollars for a lens, then you tend to judge it less harshly than if you paid 1000 dollars for a lens.

[CFWhitman]

This kind of depends on whether you think the Pros and Cons are points upon which you are rating the lens or if they are just a list of advantages and disadvantages when using the lens. If you are rating the lens based on the Pros and Cons, then you shouldn't fault a lens for being exactly what it states it is whether that be f/2, manual focus, or a prime lens. On the other hand, if you think the Pros and Cons are just advantages and disadvantages, then compared to other lenses these things might be relevant. It looks as though the Pros and Cons aren't being used as a basis for the number ratings, so I'm guessing that most of the reviewers are viewing them as the advantages and disadvantages of that particular lens.

Perhaps if you wanted to clarify these points you could have separate sections for points related to the score and points related to comparing it with other lenses. However, I think this could end up just adding confusion.

[lytrytyr]

When you're reading the reviews, you need to be aware that the numbers don't allow for nuances.

Sharpness? Some lenses are sharper at close range, others out near infinity.

Bokeh? The DA 35 Macro is pretty rough most of the time, but absolutely superb in the macro range.

When I'm figuring the overall rating for a lens, I start at 10 and work down.
A "10" means I can completely rely on the lens to do what it's expected to do.
Then I bring the score down one step for each negative aspect that comes to mind.

[GeneV]

This thread would leave the impression that people are under rating lenses because of silly things, but my perception is that most people over rate their lenses. It is silly if all lenses fall into the 8 to 10 range. I know that modern lenses are all at least decent, but that still doesn't mean that there isn't a range..

Agreed. How can people be underrating lenses which all seem to fall in the 8-10 range? When did someone give a lens a three?

Also, I would add that I have been a member of this forum since a few months after I bought my K10d in 2008. I recognize less than half of the reviewers. We all know how to judge a review on Amazon, and we need to just accept that a good chunk of the reviews here are about the same. I don't get too worked up about that.

[Lowell Goudge]

The stated examples of poor CON criteria would be more appropriately placed in an "Other Comments" section.

You know, all of this discussion seems to lack one specific concept. Maybe I have missed something I the three pages of posts, but I don't think so

Pros and Cons need to be considered from the perspective (pun intended) of the intended use.

While not really stated anywhere, I'll bet that most reviewers today write reviews based upon use with a Pentax K-series DSLR,

As a result, considering the impact on many functions, like P-TTL flash, which cannot work at all without A-Series or later lenses, lack of aperture data is a real con. On my PZ-1 it didn't matter because the PZ-1 had aperture coupling so the camera could do open aperture metering, and since the camera used TTL not P-TTL flash was not impacted and the loss of shutter priority was not really a big loss. But in today's world, where open aperture metering and P-TTL flash absolutely requires the A-series lens contacts, lack of the contacts is a serious con.

I am sorry that not every one has the same opinion, but you cannot change the fact that given 2 lenses, optically identical, one I K mount and one in KA mount, the lack of the contacts on the K-mount lens is a serious con.

In fact, being a k series bayonet might even be w con compared to an M42 lens, because at least with an M42 lens you can work in AV mode.

Let's expand this point a little more, to 4 optically identical lenses, KA, K, M42 with an A/M switch and an Auto M42 lens.

If you ranked them for functionality, the KA lens isobviously the top,
the KMount and M42 with auto manual switch would be debated for ease of use,
-auto aperture for open aperture focusing on the K but only manual mode for camera operation, with stopped down metering vs
-manual aperture so the need to manually stop down after cfocusing but Av mode for automatic exposure and metering.
The auto aperture M42 would be dead last, because it requires a lens modification to get manual aperture control or a very specific M42-PK adaptor.

Unless there is a global section in the lens reviews listing the pros and cons of each generation of mount,nwhich there isn't and which would likely get missed by most readers any way, listing what may seem to some as obvious to some, does no harm at all

Similarly, one might list an F or FA lens as having a con, because they are autofocus, if the intended use is video, where many prefer MF lenses.

Reviewers write reviews based upon what they use the lens for and equipment they use the lens with.

Live with it.

We have the same argument when it comes to overall rankings. From the perspective of optical performance, most lenses are , for all purposes between 7 and 10, but for lenses above 9 the price rises exponentially. Many people (self included) write reviews , as a result, based upon value for money. Clearly, 2 lenses optically equal, one costing 10-100x the price of the other should not be rated the same, one is very good value for the price, the other is not.

So let's not focus so narrowly on what some of us which the reviews to show, let people express what they think. As someone point out on page 1, otherwise we are hearding cats