[Bruce Clark]

My guess and it is a guess, is #4 . My only reasoning is that it is lighter in tone and the OOF highlights look nicer to me. I know neither of these 'reasons' are based on any knowledge but from these examples I would more likely buy lens #4 than the others. Second choice would be #3

[Tessie]

Thank you for posting this. I'm shopping for lenses for my new K-S1 and this comparison is very helpful since several of the images are quite appealing. It will be educational for me to find out which lenses produced what.

And btw, I like the horse. Very well done. My compliments to the artist.

[clockworkrat]

I have no experience of any of these lenses, and have opted for 3/3.

[normhead]

From where? BTW I guess 4, and 4.

I checked the exif, which I thought was intact, but aperture did strip the lens from the exif. Weird.

On my computer if I want an image, Usually just drag it from my desktop.

[patrick9]

Just a wild guess I chose #3

[arnold]

Number 4 based on the out of focus areas sharpness.

[normhead]

Well new people voting seems to have slowed down, considerably. only 2 new votes in the last 18 hours. SO maybe I should do the results..
#1 my new FA-J 18-35 2%, not the greatest recommendation, but it is a full frame lens.

#2 FA 35-80 17% of the vote... the thing I find interesting about this, is this is a film lens with the old style Pentax colour rendition... it's definitely still attractive.

#3 DA 18-135 21% if the vote... according to photozone , it's just as sharp as the prime, and the results show it

#4 DA 35 - 18% of the vote , so here's the prime, around my house were aren't so sure how so many missed it, looking at feather detail it's the sharpest, and it's also the best edge to edge, but, unlike the 35-80, it's definitely hasn't achieved traditional colour rendition , and seems a little flatter in terms of contrast.

#5 DA 18-55, 5% this one really surprised me.. I couldn't get a decent image out of it for my 50mm images, but it produced a great image for this contest... 6%, IMHO better than the 18-35, but then, it's not a full frame lens.

#6 Sigma 18-250, 23% and the most popular choice, I find that interesting for a couple reasons, one being it wasn't focussing properly, we sent it in for re-calibration, it came back with 2 new parts, and all it cost us was the postage. And now it looks awesome. Anyone looking for smooth bokeh is not going to like it. It's by far the messiest out of focus areas of the images posted, but for in focus subjects it's right up with the rest of them.

#7 Tamron 17-50 6%, wich is pretty amazing given that I had this lens set to +10 and it's completely front focused, so the image is a throwaway. I set the adjustment to 0, retook the image and it's one of the best images I took, but, it was a couple hours later and it was backlit instead of in shadow, and had way more contrast, so I couldn't replace it. But still good enough to get a couple votes in the uncropped version.

So the clear winner in terms of people preferences were the FA 35-80, which I paid $50 for, and the Sigma 18-250... certainly a surprise there.

The people who knew what to look for found the prime pretty much right away. I watched Tess go through the images, it took her maybe 30 seconds. But she missed the prime on the pixel peeper. I didn't change the number order for the second set of images, maybe people assumed I did and looked for something other than their first choice for their second choice, a test design flaw, I'll address in my next comparison.

Overall, all the lenses produced nice sharp looking initial images, so, IMHO the prime image was the sharpest, but perhaps not the most pleasing to look at. How else do you explain it being correct in only 18% of the answers? If the poll were random that would be 1 out of 7 is 14%, so that's only 4% over random. But those who did pick it were probably more certain in their guess than those who guessed other lenses.

SO, thanks to everyone for participating, personally, it made me think that for 90% of my images I don't need a prime. Obviously when shooting brick wall where you want edge sharp corner to corner, you might want to use a prime. But with the DA 18-135 and FA 35-80 getting almost 40% of the vote, you can see, the old Pentax philosophy, centre sharp, with sightly softer edges still has a lot of traction.

The Sigma 18-250 is a superzoom, but not as centre sharp as the 18-135, but the edges are closer to the centre through it's range, and clearly that result is favoured by a significant number of people.

But more to the point, if you don't think the difference in sharpness is worth the extra cost and less flexibility of primes, you probably shouldn't be considering them. A set of tests like this can give you pretty clear idea what you're paying for.

So, thanks again, and of course, we open the floor for comment. I'd be interested in hearing everyone else's take, es[pecially those who participated.

---

Last edited by normhead; 09-02-2015 at 09:10 AM.

[UncleVanya]

Now I'll explain how I picked it out. 3 & 4 both looked like the winner to me. And 5 & 6 weren't far off. But I cheated. I looked at the 35 review done by the forum and looked at the bokeh section. I then looked carefully at the f/5.6 shots in that review. Then I went back and it was easy based on the way the bokeh looked to sort down to my number 1 choice. I then looked at the 100% crops to see which looked most like the non-cropped and concluded 4 looked like 4 and went with it.

3,4,5 and 6 all were pretty strong and viable candidates.

[Na Horuk]

I just saw this thread, started reading it, but stopped as soon as I saw the answers and went back to guess. I was torn between 4 and 5.
I think one reason why people chose one of the other images is the bokeh highlights. The prime has straight aperture blades and a fast aperture, so if you stop down, it won't draw nice circular highlights. Some people think that beautiful highlights are what would show high quality, but actually in this case it shows the lens is "slow" (So, probably not as high quality). In terms of sharpness, they all seem fairly good.
And I can see why the 18-55mm would be a close choice (I think I actually voted for this one in the poll), because its sweet spot is around 35mm.
But these images were a little processed, right? Once you add contrast and sharpening, it can be difficult to tell lenses apart. Cool test, though. If the Sigma 35mm art had been part of the test, would anyone be able to tell it apart? Definitely shows us that often we don't need "the absolute best lens" to still get completely good images

[normhead]

I just saw this thread, started reading it, but stopped as soon as I saw the answers and went back to guess. I was torn between 4 and 5.
I think one reason why people chose one of the other images is the bokeh highlights. The prime has straight aperture blades and a fast aperture, so if you stop down, it won't draw nice circular highlights. Some people think that beautiful highlights are what would show high quality, but actually in this case it shows the lens is "slow" (So, probably not as high quality). In terms of sharpness, they all seem fairly good.
And I can see why the 18-55mm would be a close choice (I think I actually voted for this one in the poll), because its sweet spot is around 35mm.
But these images were a little processed, right? Once you add contrast and sharpening, it can be difficult to tell lenses apart. Cool test, though. If the Sigma 35mm art had been part of the test, would anyone be able to tell it apart? Definitely shows us that often we don't need "the absolute best lens" to still get completely good images

Same processing, but, I made a preset and used exactly the same processing on all of them, except the 18-35 which was shot -1 EV and then bumped 1 stop in post.

[Rondec]

I chose number 4. I will say that in general, I shoot primes for their small size and faster apertures and not because they are sharper at f5.6 (although border sharpness may be better, you'd be unlikely to see a difference in the center). At f5.6 most lenses should be pretty decent. I've had a couple of old Sigmas that weren't any good at any aperture -- muddy contrast and poor colors even stopped down, but they were the exceptions.

[patrick9]

I narrowed it down to between 3 and 4 flipped a coin. I thought the flower behind the saddle was a little cleaner in 3. I have been contemplating the 18-135 for a walk around WR lens. Looks like I need to add it tom my Christmas list for myself.

[ScooterMaxi Jim]

I also had #4 (but didn't actually vote). It was pretty clear to me that #4 was closed down considerably based on the well-defined out of focus light points, so I figured it was a prime. Then I saw it appeared somewhat sharper toward the lower corners. While I am sure Norm is right that the contrast isn't as high as might be expected, I think it would be somewhat more apparent if the test was done with the DA 50 against film zooms. That one has a lot of micro-contrast comparatively.

[SMeK]

My guess was right, I think

I am very surprised about Tamron 17-50 - very nice colors - pentane like, much better than da 35 IMHO for sure.

I had tammy and was very pleased using it until front element got damaged from INSIDE (!?).

Now I use my DA35 a lot and waiting for 16-85 which I ordered few day ago...

[clackers]

I am very surprised about Tampon

Bit shocked myself! ☺