[Lens tester]

When buying Pentax K, M and A lenses, I took into account the grades included in this forum.
Unfortunately, in some cases they are very different from those which I obtained by testing the lenses.

[jatrax]

very different from those which I obtained by testing the lenses.

Sure. Most of the reviews are not actual tests, just user opinions. Some people try hard to make an honest opinion with at least some testing, some do not. What experience the user has is also a factor. If the only prior lens someone has is a poor kit lens then a nice prime or even a better zoom suddenly becomes a '10'. Some include the price in their opinion, so an average lens that is available cheap becomes a '10'.

Use the reviews for what they are, a collection of opinions not tests.

[vonBaloney]

You mean the subjective reviews of individual copies that we have in the review section? (That often don't even agree with each other.)

So, for instance, what lens disappointed you and what "grades" led you astray?

[UncleVanya]

Pure opinion and no direct clarification on their other experiences for comparison. Read each review with an eye towards what their experience with other lenses is.

[Parallax]

When buying Pentax K, M and A lenses, I took into account the grades included in this forum.
Unfortunately, in some cases they are very different from those which I obtained by testing the lenses.

So what's your point?

[Cerebum]

My Miranda 24mm f2.8 (cosina) gets an average rating on here but it was recommended to me by my camera shop. I absolutely love it. The colour rendition is a little on the warm side but it is crisp and clear. I would have given it a nine but on the other side of the coin was the Pentax SMC da 50-200mm which wasn’t well received and I had to agree with the consensus, despite some people really liking it. I generally follow its guidance on lenses because I believe that if a lens is only really good as a door stop it will be reported truthfully. Equally if something is a peach it will say. It’s just the middle ground lenses where you have to adopt something of a suck it and see approach because, being somewhere in the middle, reviews can swing from good to bad on personal experiences and, like my lovely Miranda, what is a sweet lens for me can get a sour review either way, it makes great reading and doesn’t help me control my LBA one iota.

[jatrax]

Sample variation is also a factor, especially on glass that is 30 or 40 years old and might have been knocked about some.

[jlstrawman]

When buying Pentax K, M and A lenses, I took into account the grades included in this forum.
Unfortunately, in some cases they are very different from those which I obtained by testing the lenses.

What's "good enough" for me may not be for you.

[Cerebum]

I suspect this may be one of those threads where I find myself reaching for my tin hat

[pepperberry farm]

I suspect this may be one of those threads where I find myself reaching for my tin hat

... or the 'ignore' button...

[Cerebum]

... or the 'ignore' button...

What, and miss out on a good argument?!?!?!

[pepperberry farm]

What, and miss out on a good argument?!?!?!

there's enough of that action IRL, I can afford to miss it here...

[thazooo]

Here's another site with Opinions from the PDML Group, circa 1990ish.

Stan's Pentax Photography

The opinions there aren't as Glorified as they are here.

[Rondec]

You are getting pretty old lenses. Who knows what they have been through and how the copy you purchased compares with those that the reviewer reviewed? I would recommend buying new lenses if you are concerned with copy variation -- you'll certainly have better warranties than you get with most K, M and A lenses.

[normhead]

I normally won't buy a lens rate less than a 9 on the forum unless it's $100 or less just for fun lens. I've never found that that let me down. But what people think makes an excellent lenses is very different.

I definitely don't agree with the DFA 100 macro rating, it's good but not 9.63 good.

MY DA* 18-135 is my most used lens but you have to know how to use it. It's excellent used to it's strengths, sub par when used to get quality out of areas of weakness. So how do you rate that? Photozone rated it 1.5 out of 5, the forum 8.63 (as in, not a lens I would buy) yet I've sold images taken with it.

My advice would be find someone in the forum reviews who shoots what you want to shoot and see what they use and why.
If I had read the Photozone review before I bought the lens, and he hadn't posted the test results just given an opinion I wouldn't have bought it. Yet, it's by far my most used lens. What the test site did do for me was help me realize that used for to it's strengths it would be a great lens, and it is. Now that is for my use. There are many who sold their lens because it didn't suit the way they shoot or what they wanted out of a picture,

Do you really think there is a possibility that there is a reviewer out there who can anticipate every shooting style, what the other lenses are in everyone's collections (the reason I do well with the 18-135 is because I have the 60-250 for when I want edge to edge sharpness in the long end, where the 18-135 is only centre sharp.)

The simple fact is what you need depends on what you have and how you shoot. How is a lens reviewer supposed to anticipate those things? The notion that a reviewer can tell you what's best for you is pretty far out when you think of all the subjective variables that go into what's good for you.

when I first got my FA-J 18-35 rated poorly here on the forum, 7.74 I expected the worst and I got it. When I tested it on the K-3 it was just terrible. However, using it on the K-1 it's not bad. The larger pixel sites and more resolution make it a decent lens. Show me a lens reviewer that can anticipate things like that.

The best thing to remember about lens reviews, no lens reviewer sees the world exactly as you do. It may not work for him, or it may work great, but that makes no difference to you. All that matters to you is can you make it work.