[rawr]

Sheesh, you don't get away with nothing around here.

Nope. Pentax obsessives from all over the world congregate here. You know the risks.

They mixed up the pictures taken with the two Pentax lenses they reviewed simultaneously.

LOL. Maybe we will see some 70-200 test images mixed up in their review of the 150-450 too.

I sincerely hope they didn't mix the lenses up when they were doing their Imatest lens tests.

[monochrome]

How horribly embarrassing.

If I were ePhotozine I'd be inclined to pull the entire post, apologize and start over with production lenses and a production K-3 with the new Firmware.

[audiobomber]

How horribly embarrassing.

If I were ePhotozine I'd be inclined to pull the entire post, apologize and start over with production lenses and a production K-3 with the new Firmware.

Unfortunately the embarrassment is for Pentax. Most readers will not hear the rigorous protestations advanced here. They will read the article and remember the ePZ criticisms of IQ and AF. If the lens and software weren't ready, the lens should not have been loaned out for review. My bet is that the review will remain on their website with no changes or updates and will negatively impact the lens' reputation.

[derekkite]

Unfortunately the embarrassment is for Pentax. Most readers will not hear the rigorous protestations advanced here. They will read the article and remember the ePZ criticisms of IQ and AF. If the lens and software weren't ready, the lens should not have been loaned out for review. My bet is that the review will remain on their website with no changes or updates and will negatively impact the lens' reputation.

This. And to emphasize, Yes, it is Pentax' fault. Marketing consists in large part of someone holding reviewer's hands while they try your stuff, making sure they have calibrated and sharp copies. The other manufacturers do it.

[Rondec]

Unfortunately the embarrassment is for Pentax. Most readers will not hear the rigorous protestations advanced here. They will read the article and remember the ePZ criticisms of IQ and AF. If the lens and software weren't ready, the lens should not have been loaned out for review. My bet is that the review will remain on their website with no changes or updates and will negatively impact the lens' reputation.

Exactly. The lens was selected by Pentax and sent to the site. It is on Pentax if things weren't really ready for show time.

[audiobomber]

The 150-450 review is up:
Pentax HD PENTAX-D FA 150-450mm f/4.5-5.6 ED DC AW Review

[woodywesty]

Exactly. The lens was selected by Pentax and sent to the site. It is on Pentax if things weren't really ready for show time.

Would that be Pentax USA?

[Mistral75]

The 150-450 review is up:
Pentax HD PENTAX-D FA 150-450mm f/4.5-5.6 ED DC AW Review

Indeed. And pointed out in the dedicated thread some hours ago .

(...)

A new review :

Pentax HD PENTAX-D FA 150-450mm f/4.5-5.6 ED DC AW Review

[audiobomber]

Indeed. And pointed out in the dedicated thread some hours ago .

I haven't been following the 150-500mm thread. I'm reading too many threads. I should go out and take some photos. Or process the several hundred raw images waiting in my computer.

[Stavri]

The 150-450 review is up:
Pentax HD PENTAX-D FA 150-450mm f/4.5-5.6 ED DC AW Review

A lot of their pictures seemed to be poorly/out of focus, the chicken and the swan in particular.

Note to the readers: All initial reviews should be scrutinized carefully. I am personally a guilty party in this regard. Most sites like Ephotozine employ sensor based analytics (the lens being as good as the camera/sensor its mounted on) to extrapolate their MTF findings. More serious review sites like LensRentals employ an optic bench circumventing the sensor bias. There will be a lot of sites that will try to rush a review on these new lenses, either using pre-production models, older firmware or cutting corners to get those initial views by a curious public who thirsts to know. I would be weary of these sites personally.

Note: Be extra careful of lens AF findings,it's often the hardest, inconclusive and least scientific part of any lens review, prone to user error and other issues.

[RGlasel]

Most readers will not hear the rigorous protestations advanced here.

There will be more readers of the review from here than from other sources. And readers from other sources will only be looking for affirmation of their own preferences. They wouldn't buy the D-FA* lens just because ePhotozine posted a positive review, so a faint praise review with results that no one (not even the content producers) fully understands how to interpret, isn't going to cost Pentax customers. Even the readers from this site aren't going to use this review as their final arbitrator.

It is an example of poor judgment on the part of whoever supplied the lenses for review. The reviewers need new products to review more than the sellers of new products need published reviews. As a marketer, if you are going to sell yourself, at least make yourself attractive enough to get the best johnsreviewers.

[audiobomber]

There will be more readers of the review from here than from other sources.

I doubt that. PF members are only a small percentage of Pentax shooters.

[RGlasel]

I doubt that. PF members are only a small percentage of Pentax shooters.

Even if ePhotozine has 100,000 visitors, a very small fraction will be reading this one specific review, and virtually every one of those readers will have come there because they were looking for something specific, not just random browsing. I originally came upon this forum because I googled a question about the K-30, Pentax Forums tends to be near the top of any search queries related to Pentax lenses and cameras. Partly because Pentax doesn't have anywhere near the brand recognition of Canon and Nikon, and the sites that review different brands of equipment will be ranked higher for better known brands that they review more often, which in turn leads to fewer referrals from Pentax-specific queries. If we had access to ePhotozine's referrer logs, I'm sure a large majority of the visitors who stick on this particular review page will have come from Pentax Forums.

One of the amazing things about the Internet is how 2 billion pairs of eyeballs can be divided into groups of less than a hundred. It's a good thing it is so cheap to publish a page on the Internet, otherwise there would be millions of pages of content that won't draw enough traffic to justify the paper they would have to be printed on.

[Nicolas06]

I find it fun to see all the criticism on the ephoto ezine review.

They basically say that both lenses have exceptionnal quality, the picture they provide are extremely sharp, the MTF results are near perfect and the overall rating they give to the lense is the same as they give to the Canon 70-200 lense.

The only drawback if the AF of the 70-200 apparently that they say is "it and miss". But on the opposite, there was no reason to expect Pentax AF to match Canon AF as they are quite late on the topic. The lense may be fine but the body is for sure not on same level.

I know we would want even better review but I don't think the reviews provided are any bad.

[JimmyDranox]

I find it fun to see all the criticism on the ephoto ezine review.

They basically say that both lenses have exceptionnal quality, the picture they provide are extremely sharp, the MTF results are near perfect and the overall rating they give to the lense is the same as they give to the Canon 70-200 lense.

The only drawback if the AF of the 70-200 apparently that they say is "it and miss". But on the opposite, there was no reason to expect Pentax AF to match Canon AF as they are quite late on the topic. The lense may be fine but the body is for sure not on same level.

I know we would want even better review but I don't think the reviews provided are any bad.

Here is a big problem. What we want? Good reviews, or honest reviews?

I also think that the review is good in most of his part, and the pictures very good. The only think that they can do more was to specify that this test was done with a camera which is not still updated with the last firmware for this lens, if this is the case.