[Simen1]

Is there a way to sort the lens database? I would love to browse through lists of lenses with..

- highest average user rating/points
- ^^ same as abowe but only Pentax branded
- Best lenses for Pentax K mount
- 9+ points sorted with acending price
- 9+ points sorted with acending weight
- 9+ points sorted by focal length
- most reviewed
- heaviest
- lightest

[BigMackCam]

The short answer is no - I don't think you can.

The longer answer begins with "I don't think you'd want to"... at least so far as the points ratings are concerned. They're so highly subjective, based on individual copies of a lens, users expectations and ability, understanding the quirks of a lens and how to get the best from it (and what situations it works best for), buyer's remorse, confirmation bias and a whole bunch of other things besides.

At best, you can get a general feel for how good or bad a lens might be by reading the reviews. But the points system doesn't really work, IMHO.

[IgorZ]

I did this little exercise - copied ratings of all primes and sorted them in descending order. It turned out that the highest ranked primes are telephoto lenses 200mm and up. There was a long discussion of this on the forums, whether it's completely ridiculous to do this, or merely silly. I agree it would be nice to get something more out of these rankings.

[Digitalis]

as the points ratings are concerned. They're so highly subjective, based on individual copies of a lens, users expectations and ability, understanding the quirks of a lens and how to get the best from it

Very true, there was a review of the Sigma 100-300mm APO EX DG posted a few years ago that gave it the lowest rating in every area of IQ, with the reviewer declaring the lens the worst lens he had ever owned. While every other review, including my own, was distinctly positive.

It turned out that the highest ranked primes are telephoto lenses 200mm and up.

Have you ever correlated that with sample size? if you did, you would most likely would find that the telephoto lenses perform on par with everything else.

[Thagomizer]

I always roll my eyes at reviews that :

-contain some variation on the phrase "I just got this lens today..."

-note lack of AF on manual focus lenses as a "con."

-hold a lens responsible for inescapable laws of physics (e.g. short minimum focusing distance/lack of working distance on wider angle macro lenses at 1:1).

-note the poor condition of the sample they have (fungus, haze, incorrectly reassembled) and hold this sample's resulting poor performance against the lens.

Sorting by actual weight is about the only criteria that will have no bias built into it, so long as the weight is reported correctly.[COLOR="Silver"]

---------- Post added 01-02-18 at 10:04 PM ----------

[Digitalis]

I always roll my eyes at reviews that :

contain the phrase "blows me away"

[pepperberry farm]

contain the phrase "blows me away"

(quickly re-reads all his own reviews...)



YEAH!

[bdery]

At best, you can get a general feel for how good or bad a lens might be by reading the reviews. But the points system doesn't really work, IMHO.

I agree with your first sentence, which means I disagree with the second. The points system is informative, but like everything else, it has limits. For instance, if a lens is rated excellent by everyone, it's interesting to go and read why one person rated it as poor.

The same applies to "pro" reviews. The ratings are ONE element in a review, but the accompanying text has more value. When I perform a 14 pages lens review, I certainly hope people don't simply look at the ratings and "pros and cons" but look at the whole thing.

[BigMackCam]

I agree with your first sentence, which means I disagree with the second. The points system is informative, but like everything else, it has limits. For instance, if a lens is rated excellent by everyone, it's interesting to go and read why one person rated it as poor.

That's fair, but I stand by my original statement

Why? Let's say a lens is given a 10/10 rating by one of our members in their user review. That could be for so many reasons, including:

- it's a genuinely stellar performer (indeed, it would have to be the very best performer, or how could the reviewer accurately rate the next lens they buy... especially if it's better! )
- it's much, much better than expected for the $500 paid... but compared to a $2,000 Zeiss, it may well be unexceptional, so does it still deserve the 10 rating? If so, how do we use the ratings to choose between the $500 and $5000 lens?
- it's the best lens the reviewer has ever owned... but in fact there many other, better lenses that they haven't used yet, so their reference points for ratings aren't complete
- everyone else seems to say it's a great lens, so the reviewer convinces himself that it must be as good as everyone else says and joins the club of happy owners
- the reviewer has paid a lot of money for the lens, so he convinces himself it's the best in order to feel good about the purchase
- the lens may be great for certain types of shot - portraiture, for instance - and achieved the rating because that's how the reviewer uses it... but when used for landscape - capturing distant detail - it's not so good
- etc. etc.

And there are many reasons why someone may give a really poor rating for a lens, including:

- the reviewer got a dud copy
- the reviewer doesn't understand the strengths and weaknesses of the lens, and how to get the best from it
- the reviewer generally shoots "better" lenses, and whilst the reviewed lens may be perfectly decent, he's rating it compared to his stock of high end glass
- the reviewer has seen photos taken by better photographers using cheaper lenses, and is unable to get such results from his more expensive lens (the fault of the reviewer)
- the reviewer hasn't adjusted AF fine focus accurately
- the reviewer hasn't taken into account focus shifting and field curvature, which may be perfectly normal for the lens question
- etc. etc.

If I see a lens with lots of 9 or 10/10 ratings, I take it with a large pinch of salt (it might, however, prompt me to look at a number of more formal reviews, such as yours and those from Photozone, LensTip, DXOMark etc.).

Detailed review commentary, however, helps me understand the reviewer's level of experience, what they expected, what they like / don't like and why. So, I tend to find that much more indicative of true performance than the numerical ratings

[bdery]

Detailed review commentary, however, helps me understand the reviewer's level of experience, what they expected, what they like / don't like and why. So, I tend to find that much more indicative of true performance than the numerical ratings

In this we fully agree, and that's what I wrote above.

Averaging a large number of opinions gives a better estimation of the lens' rating. Also, nowadays the forum supports numbered evaluations of several items, including price, and those items are significantly more useful than the blanket rating.

[Rondec]

I don't find the numbers on reviews to be particularly helpful for a number of reasons. For one thing, a lot depends on what the reviewer is comparing lenses to. Are they comparing it to the FA 200 macro or, to the kit lens? Most likely something in between. Second, I don't think people grade lenses nearly hard enough. I don't think there are any modern lenses that get scores of less than 5 and most of them seem to be in the 7.5 to 10 range (is there really such thing as a 10 lens?). If a lens has bad purple fringing or flare badly, you should knock off at least a point. If that means the FA 77 gets a 9, so be it, but it also means that the kit lens should probably get a 5. But of course, people factor price into the equation when giving grades, meaning a 600 dollar lens has to perform a lot better than an 80 dollar lens to get the same score. Finally, you can't really compare lenses of completely different focal lengths, except maybe just in so far as they do a specific function like macro photography. What does it really mean if the 50 macro is sharper than the 15 limited? Not totally sure. If I am looking for a wide angle, it doesn't matter how sharp the 50 macro is, it isn't going to fit the bill.

[Simen1]

In my opinion the lists would serve two purposes:

- Entertainment
- A starting point for filtering out lenses that doesnt suit me (I.E. 2000+ $ lenses) and then start reading reviews on a selection that might be interessting.

I know the user ratings are of little value, but not zero. A zoom that gets an average of 4 from 100 users are quite certainly worse then a prime that get 8 from 100.

[BigMackCam]

I know the user ratings are of little value, but not zero. A zoom that gets an average of 4 from 100 users are quite certainly worse then a prime that get 8 from 100.

You have a ghost of a point here, I think. Certainly, where a lens has a large number of reviews, if the majority are 8/10 or better, you can at least conclude that most people are happy with it (perhaps for a variety of reasons - but, overall, happy). Similarly, if the majority are 7/10 or less, you can conclude most people aren't all that impressed with it (again, for a variety of reasons). What you can't necessarily do is gauge whether one well-rated lens is better or worse than another (and why), and the same for poorly-rated lenses (if there is such a thing in our review ratings!!).

[Lord Lucan]

Let's say a lens is given a 10/10 rating by one of our members in their user review. That could be for so many reasons,

I agree that the numerical rating is of limited value. In another forum I use (nothing to do with cameras) there was a big discussion of numerical ratings. It emerged that some people gave a very high or very low score (the latter does not tend to happen here) to try to pull the average towards what they thought it should be. Some also gave a bad review but a 10/10 score to draw attention to their bad review! I don't think that happens here though. In fact I tend to head straight for the low scoring/bad reviews when I am thinking of buying something.

On other review websites, people often give high or low scores according to how promptly or not the item was delivered by mail order, nothing to do with the item itself, or according to the quality of advice and assistance they got, like : [" 0/10 . because the IKEA delivery guys refused to assemble it for me".

[angerdan]

I did this little exercise - copied ratings of all primes and sorted them in descending order.

In two hours most of the work can be done.
Or go to other databases:
Very handy Lens Comparison query on Photozone - PentaxForums.com
Lens Performance Survey - INTERPRETED OUTPUT

HD DA 35mm F2.8 Limited Macro is also is good lens.
Pentax Lens Tournament | PentaxForums.com