[clackers]

I can see your point and thats a smart thing to do but should we really have to? Should I have to drive 3 different cars to find one that's not defective? Shouldn't these lenses be tested before they are put out to be sold?

I've written before about this.

Roger Cicala, the owner of Lens Rentals, understands this better than nearly anyone out there. He always tests ten or more copies because of modern quality control, which consists of getting it roughly right, then putting it out there to the distributors. He would never do what you did, say everyone else's lens was as bad as yours. You even refused to believe it when I showed you the other owners' thread, saying something along the lines that somehow the resolution they were posting at was hiding their true performance!

Rather than pay for a final step of QC, it's cheaper on a whole for the companies, and cheaper on a whole for us consumers, if we do the final step and send back something as a return.

And yes, he's documented the variation in Canon L Series lenses. Are you aware of those? They're the top of the line in that brand.

[robert]

I've written before about this.

Roger Cicala, the owner of Lens Rentals, understands this better than nearly anyone out there. He always tests ten or more copies because of modern quality control, which consists of getting it roughly right, then putting it out there to the distributors. He would never do what you did, say everyone else's lens was as bad as yours. You even refused to believe it when I showed you the other owners' thread, saying something along the lines that somehow the resolution they were posting at was hiding their true performance!

Rather than pay for a final step of QC, it's cheaper on a whole for the companies, and cheaper on a whole for us consumers, if we do the final step and send back something as a return.

And yes, he's documented the variation in Canon L Series lenses. Are you aware of those? They're the top of the line in that brand.

Maybe you can show me where I said everyone elses lens was as bad as mine?

[clackers]

Maybe you can show me where I said everyone elses lens was as bad as mine?

Now, let's not be coy, Robert, you opened a thread called 'Can't Pentax Make A Good Cheap Zoom' offering no evidence other than your own, and were skeptical of the pictures from other people!

By post 19, you're accepting copy variation after it was explained to you. So if you were mistaken, just own up to it, don't fight it, everyone's watching!

[robert]

Now, let's not be coy, Robert, you opened a thread called 'Can't Pentax Make A Good Cheap Zoom' offering no evidence other than your own, and were skeptical of the pictures from other people!

By post 19, you're accepting copy variation after it was explained to you. So if you were mistaken, just own up to it, don't fight it, everyone's watching!

To me you aren't making a good cheap zoom when you have such a variation in different copies. As far as other photos posted, most lenses will look good at the sizes posted. I don't remember seeing any posted at 100% size.

---------- Post added 04-11-19 at 11:43 PM ----------

Now, let's not be coy, Robert, you opened a thread called 'Can't Pentax Make A Good Cheap Zoom' offering no evidence other than your own, and were skeptical of the pictures from other people!

By post 19, you're accepting copy variation after it was explained to you. So if you were mistaken, just own up to it, don't fight it, everyone's watching!

To me you aren't making a good cheap zoom when you have such a variation in different copies. As far as other photos posted, most lenses will look good at the sizes posted. I don't remember seeing any posted at 100% size. Even the one posted from my 16-45 looked decent until you look at the 100% crops

To me you aren't making a good cheap zoom when you have such a variation in different copies. As far as other photos posted, most lenses will look good at the sizes posted. I don't remember seeing any posted at 100% size.

---------- Post added 04-11-19 at 11:43 PM ----------



To me you aren't making a good cheap zoom when you have such a variation in different copies. As far as other photos posted, most lenses will look good at the sizes posted. I don't remember seeing any posted at 100% size. Even the one posted from my 16-45 looked decent until you look at the 100% crops

DA 17-70 bought used in 2011 and used a lot since. The attached is as full res as this site allow, last summer at Raleigh Farmers Market. Happy to send you full size. I'm not about to post client images anywhere in full res.


But you can go to my web site and look at my blog. Latest post is with same lens. Asked for use permission today from dance wear company.


In 11 years, 9 DSLR bodies, six Pentax lenses and 3 non Pentax lenses. I've had to repair 1 Pentax 465 lens and one Sigma lens. Even Rolls Royce has a warranty and service technicians.


So if you got a bad copy of product xyz anything, so what?

[bassek]

Just shot some lab equipment shots with my DA16-45 in poor light without flash. 1/40 sec. f/6.3 16mm ISO400.

I had surprisingly sharp corners.

Seb

[BigMackCam]

To me you aren't making a good cheap zoom when you have such a variation in different copies.

All lenses, all cameras, all complex products - from all manufacturers - have sample variation... including, unsurprisingly, that $300 14-45 Lumix lens you picked up used for $100. You were fortunate to get a very good and inexpensive copy of that, but not everyone has been so lucky. See this thread over at DPR:

In Praise of the Panasonic 3.5-5.6/14-45 vs. PL 1.7/15: Micro Four Thirds Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

... and scroll down to see a reply from user SpacemanUA that reads:

"14-45 is a nice lens on test charts but it's very hard to find a good copy. I've tried 3 or 4 copies and all of them were decentered, just like this one."

The reason you've had a few robust replies is that you've taken just two lenses - one sample of the DA16-45 (which turns out to be a bad one), and one sample of the Panasonic 14-45 (which turns out to be a good one) - and concluded that Pentax can't make a good cheap zoom. I understand why, but - with respect - it's a big jump to make

[Rondec]

I just think you have a bad copy of the 16-45. Clearly this doesn't say either (a) All 16-45s have the same issues or (b) Pentax can't make a cheap zoom. I will say that when you delve into the cheap zoom market, particularly when you are looking at used gear, you are much more likely to find lenses with issues, whether they are focus issues or decentering.

I hesitate to comment on the Lumix, as I have not used it, but it does look like you have a decent copy of that. It looks to me like for just a bit more (like 150-ish) you could get a used copy of the DA 18-135. It is understood that when you buy used, there is no real warranty and older lenses can be the worse for wear. What Clackers says is important, to test your lens when you get it at different focal lengths and make certain that there are no issues (this is just as true with a new lens). Still, the 18-135 has plenty of supporters and seems to give good results, at least up to 80mm.

To be a bit critical of your opening post, you are comparing a good copy of a used lens you got to a not good copy of a pretty old Pentax lens and drawing some pretty broad assumptions from this. It is possible to find good lenses for Pentax and they don't have to break the bank, maybe we'll just leave it at that.

[clickclick]

I'm going to throw something else out here having bought many new lenses and having swapped a few out for better copies. I've been amazed at the pathetic handling of the lenses in shipping to me. It's everything from sloppy packing by the merchant to what looks like boxes being drop kicked off the back of trucks. When you think of the precision required for multiple elements to be perfectly aligned, I can't help but think that some of these sample variations etc. are tied to the way the lenses have been handled before you ever receive them. There's no way for me to test my theory on this, but really have to wonder if this is part of what we experience as we find a "good one".

[Piotrek K]

Well I have beaten up copy of 16-45 with no AF - stuck at infinity, and consider it sharp at least in f 4.5 - 5.0 (and smaller of course) range. But for the lens that old I would not be surprised if the results were awful - you never know how it was treated in th past.
BTW I often adjust contrast with this one, but the OP lens seems to have some optical problem.

[normhead]

That particular lens is indeed sharp. I have it. It's well known. The purple fringing is also common for Panasonic lenses on Olympus cameras because Olympus doesn't filter the purple out (you can find long threads about the buying the right filter to "fix" Panasonic lenses when used with Olympus cameras).

Sounds like having built in purple filter is away to make it more difficult for brand jumpers. Isn't that the way of the corporate world. Adopt a common mount, and then make your lenses harder to use on different hardware. The corporate silliness continues.

[pres589]

I thought the mk1 18-55 was decent save for barrel/pincushion distortion. I remember getting quite well saturated and colorful images on my K100D.

For a general purpose zoom, either the 18-50 or the 18-55's (especially the later ones with WR) are not bad hardware to work with and great for a beginner.

[normhead]

I thought the mk1 18-55 was decent save for barrel/pincushion distortion. I remember getting quite well saturated and colorful images on my K100D.

For a general purpose zoom, either the 18-50 or the 18-55's (especially the later ones with WR) are not bad hardware to work with and great for a beginner.

The quality off the original 18-55s was a big selling point. Between the 18-55 and the 55-300PLM, I'd argue Pentax makes the best cheap glass lineup out there.

I was happy with my 18-55, Sigma 70-300, and FA 50 1.7 for the first 3 years of my DSLR life. If my Sigma 70-300 had been as good as the 55-300 who knows if I ever would have bought my DA* 60-250.

[lesmore49]

My first lens for my K10D was a 16-45. I thought it did a pretty fair job for the money. I also have a 18-55 and a Pentax 12-24. I've never been too impressed with my 18-55, it's ok, but nothing exceptional. On the other hand, my 12-24 has been a great lens. To me exceptional. Very sharp and I've used it for a couple thousands + of pictures. One of my favourites.

My ranking for these three Pentax lenses is like the old Sears rating of good, better and best. For me, good was the 18-55, better was the 16-45 and best was the 12-24...which corresponds to the price of each lens. So I guess with these three lenses...you get what you pay for....in my view and experience anyways.

[normhead]

My first lens for my K10D was a 16-45. I thought it did a pretty fair job for the money. I also have a 18-55 and a Pentax 12-24. I've never been too impressed with my 18-55, it's ok, but nothing exceptional. On the other hand, my 12-24 has been a great lens. To me exceptional. Very sharp and I've used it for a couple thousands + of pictures. One of my favourites.

My ranking for these three Pentax lenses is like the old Sears rating of good, better and best. For me, good was the 18-55, better was the 16-45 and best was the 12-24...which corresponds to the price of each lens. So I guess with these three lenses...you get what you pay for....in my view and experience anyways.

When you have lens like the DA 55-300 PLM which ws rated best in class by at least one site, I think you can argue you get better than you pay for.

A 10 MP camera is significantly less demanding than a 24 MP camera. That 2 pixel chromatic aberration is now going to be 4 pixel.

As I recall that 12-24 is an FF lens, and they've become really hard to find in Pentax mount.

I can't believe people complain about distortion on cheap lenses. The definition of how to make manufacturing lenses cheap. Do very little distortion correction, do very little CA correction, crank out a lot of those cheap easy to produce lenses.

We aren't suggesting here that anyone can make excellent glass for the same price as cheaper lenses. What we are talking about is compromise lenses that while not top shelf, are good enough to get along with based on your personal shooting preferences. Shopping for heavily corrected top shelf glass in the "cheap" section is pointless. Although I'd add, by going MF with a Samyang/Rokinon is the way to go if you want great IQ and low price.