[Alizarine]

Pretty well much stopped at the DFA 150-450......

Try the FA*600 f/4 big and fast.

[normhead]

Go to the lens database and find me a single lens that has less than 80% recommendations. This is a great forum with a lot of smart and talented members, but the user reviews are certainly not the most objective ones. Based on them every single thing that Pentax has ever made is absolutely amazing, and we both know that's not true.

What we know is your statement isn't true.

SMC Pentax-FA 28-80mm F3.5-4.7 rated 6.0
SMC Pentax-FA 80-200mm F4.7-5.6 rated 5.6
SMC Pentax-F 35-80mm F4-5.6 rated



That was easy, it took less than three minutes, and it's not even a lens I've heard of before, so, it wasn't easy because I was familiar with the lens.... now what were you saying again?

Damn, another one....


That's two when you suggested I couldn't find any. Just another reason I don't say stuff like that.

But I am curious, since you trashed the forum ratings... who or what do you think is better? As far as I can tell the forum ratings are pretty much unmatched as a resource for making your way through Pentax lens purchases. I assume since you went negative on it, you have a better alternative.

I have found out stuff reading the experiences of forum users that you can't find on any other source, if you want, I'll pul up some facts gleaned from reading forum user notes, and we'll see if you can find another source for them. I met your challenge, are you ready for mine?

[FantasticMrFox]

What we know is your statement isn't true. [...] That was easy, it took less than three minutes, and it's not even a lens I've heard of before, so, it wasn't easy because I was familiar with the lens.... now what were you saying again?

[...]

That's two when you suggested I couldn't find any. Just another reason I don't say stuff like that.

Cambridge Dictionary: Hyperbole

"We use hyperbole /haɪˈpɜ:bəlɪ/ to exaggerate. We sometimes do this to emphasise something, to add humour or to gain attention. When we use hyperbole, we often make statements which are obviously untrue: …"

I met your challenge, are you ready for mine?

See above. I didn't pose any challenge, I was using a rhetorical device, and I've certainly got better things to do than participate in yours. I wonder how you react to rhetorical questions ...

My point stands, the reviews in the lens data base are on average much more positive than independent third party reviews, and thus in my eyes not very objective.

[clackers]

My point stands, the reviews in the lens data base are on average much more positive than independent third party reviews, and thus in my eyes not very objective.

You can adjust numberically for that, I think, like the Centigrade/Fahrenheit scale.

Norm himself has proposed that you deduct five from a score, treat the result as out of five, and you probably have what we expect from a five star review system.

Those independent reviews never achieve the 30 sample points often accepted for statistical robustness. Roger Cicala at Lens Rentals *does* frequently.

[Alizarine]

We can now go back to CP+ reports.... Chill guys

[carolina_sky]

Hello all, thanks for taking the time to read through my writeup over at DPR!

Just wanted to weigh in on the sharpness of the samples - as I stated in the article, the maximum size I was allowed to post was VGA resolution (640px longest side). My first export was from Adobe Camera Raw at that resolution, but then at the suggestion of a couple of readers, I went through and exported full-size JPEGs from ACR, and then did bicubic downsampling (sharper) on those in Photoshop to get down to the 640px resolution, and re-uploaded those. Maybe they'll look better now.

Make sure you click through each image - our site does down-sample images a bit more to get them into the image table.

And my apologies again for the fact that only VGA samples were allowed. I'm still waiting to hear back from Ricoh on that.

Last note - I can assure you, the full-size images are quite sharp. Even on 36MP, and even on the older lenses. Keeping my shutter speed at 1/125 or higher most of the time probably helped with the number of "keepers," and I had much better results with the K-1 than I had with a D800 I used at a previous gig. I guess they're probably not all as sharp as they could possibly be, but dragging a tripod all over town didn't seem too appealing to me at the time.

Cheers, and hope this helps.

Carey

Carey, welcome! and thanks for the first impressions write up. You have some very passionate folks following over here in PF that maybe feel that Pentax has been under appreciated as an innovator for a while. I thought your article was well written, objective, insightful, and overall gave me hope that the K-1 is delivering on what I first saw in Pentax when I picked up a used K10D many years ago, a well-designed sturdy WR body and lenses that provided excellent image quality and the best value for the money. A fair bit of nitpicking over minutiae which you have patiently explained. I look forward to more in-depth analysis on DPReview, so thank you and keep it coming!

[normhead]

SO making a statement trashing the review system is a rhetorical device?

"We use hyperbole /haɪˈpɜ:bəlɪ/ to exaggerate. We sometimes do this to emphasise something, to add humour or to gain attention. When we use hyperbole, we often make statements which are obviously untrue: …"

I don't think it quite fits the description.

Go to the lens database and find me a single lens that has less than 80% recommendations. This is a great forum with a lot of smart and talented members, but the user reviews are certainly not the most objective ones. Based on them every single thing that Pentax has ever made is absolutely amazing, and we both know that's not true.

And you accuse me of hyperbole? I'll leave it up to the readers to decide who was using hyperbole and who wasn't.

Do you really want to continue on this track. You're digging deeper hole than the one you were in.

This would be a good time to let it go.

[mee]

We can now go back to CP+ reports.... Chill guys

This is what happens.. every. single. time.

1) Rumor crafted and/or news announced
2) Cheers and/or Jeers
[after the rumor/news has become stale]
3) Slappyhandsfest between forum members


It seems like clockwork that the 'discussion' always ends up becoming a nitpicky debate based on personalities clashing (usually who has the biggest ego).

[monochrome]

[B]My point stands, the reviews in the lens data base are on average much more positive than independent third party reviews, and thus in my eyes not very objective.

@Carey Rose:

The DPR posts have been pretty fair and accurate recently. It is kind of their reviewer to JOIN the Forum (New Member) and post in one of our threads, so we can understand the process he used (and know he understands the shortcomings). It's particularly refreshing that one of our members reached out to him to explain a fine detail of the Pentax files and jpeg conversions - and the writer actually reprocessed the images and re-posted them. That is, I think, unprecedented. In all my time on these fora . . . .

The over-rating in the Review database has been discussed often over the years, from many perspectives. The way to use the ratings is to accept the standard here is different than an independent database, then compare the rating of a reference lens that you own yourself to the ratings of the other lenses.

The absolute rating number doesn't matter - it is just an index. What matters is the relative rating of each lens, when compared to the others. So an M28/2 at 9.33 is clearly preferred over an M28/2.8 at 8.22. And a K28/2 at 9.69 is preferred to the M28/2 at 9.33. And a K28/3.5 at 9.31 is about equivalent to the M28/2 at 9.33. I own all four of those lenses. The relative ratings accurately describe the relative attractiveness of these 4 28's. The absolute numbers don't really matter.

Secondly, we all know in a non-scientific, open, subjective rating system, one poster with a curly hair in his . . . Is perfectly free to rate a lens 1 or 2, bringing down the average number. As a matter of habit I throw out the highest and lowest rating and calculate my own average number.

Thirdly, the number itself doesn't matter one whit. What matters is the comments the poster makes, and any sample images the poster uploads.

I hope these observations ease your tension and make your evening a bit more pleasant.

[FantasticMrFox]

And you accuse me of hyperbole? I'll leave it up to the readers to decide who was using hyperbole and who wasn't.

You don't even need to leave it to the readers, I can tell you who was using a hyperbole: I. I was using a hyperbole, and I wrote that exactly. I was well aware that there will be some lenses below 80% in the database, but they are few and far between. My point was that the ratings are inflated and my 'find me any lens below 80%' was a hyperbole. I was not actually asking you to find me lenses, it was a rhetorical device, and you could have spotted that if you didn't immediately jump on everything I write like a bull in Pamplona in July.

I'll now go and dig that hole you were talking about, maybe it's peaceful and quiet down there.

[normhead]

And as I noted the rating are just fine, the anecdotal information on the lenses is invaluable, as noted, if you want an accurate rating system just subtract 5 from the score, and a 95% recommend rating does mean something. It means 1 in 20 din't recommend it, and that is a pretty high rate.

SO keep digging , you're getting in deeper.

Go to the lens database and find me a single lens that has less than 80% recommendations. This is a great forum with a lot of smart and talented members, but the user reviews are certainly not the most objective ones. Based on them every single thing that Pentax has ever made is absolutely amazing, and we both know that's not true.

but the user reviews are certainly not the most objective ones.

Well yes they are "the most objective ones" because in many cases they are the only ones. I'm not objecting to your style, your use of rhetoric or anything else. I'm objecting to your negativity, which basically amounts to an attack on your fellow forum users, who have volunteered their time to share their opinions on various lenses. You really should be ashamed of yourself. And I have to say, you are most unrepentant.

Every one of those volunteers has made an effort to be as objective" as they could be. Say "thank you" you ingrate, instead of trashing their efforts.

I have many times read through the lens reviews a found a variety of often very objective and very helpful reviews, including a lot of data that is unique to the forum. What's you contribution here? besides bad mouthing the reviewers, which in my book is not something to be proud of.

Do you really want to go on?

It's not like your on high ground, easily defended.

But keep digging. This is like shooting fish in a barrel.

[Rondec]

You don't even need to leave it to the readers, I can tell you who was using a hyperbole: I. I was using a hyperbole, and I wrote that exactly. I was well aware that there will be some lenses below 80% in the database, but they are few and far between. My point was that the ratings are inflated and my 'find me any lens below 80%' was a hyperbole. I was not actually asking you to find me lenses, it was a rhetorical device, and you could have spotted that if you didn't immediately jump on everything I write like a bull in Pamplona in July.

I'll now go and dig that hole you were talking about, maybe it's peaceful and quiet down there.

I guess what I do is read the reviews and try to discern which ones are objective and which ones are from folks who just bought a new lens and are just super stoked about it. I know my first bought a FA 50 f1.4, I thought it was the most amazing lens ever. If I reviewed it, I would probably have given a 10. I certainly would give it a harder time now, as I have used a lot more lenses.

Overall scores are less important to me than finding a narrative that specifically describes strengths and weaknesses of a given lens and shows some photos as well.

I do agree with you, though, that a high percentage of lenses seem to end up in the 8 to 10 range. There probably should be a few lenses that are rated worse, whether based on build, sharpness wide open, poor contrast, or whatever.

[noelpolar]

Go to the lens database and find me a single lens that has less than 80% recommendations. This is a great forum with a lot of smart and talented members, but the user reviews are certainly not the most objective ones. Based on them every single thing that Pentax has ever made is absolutely amazing, and we both know that's not true.

I find it quite a useful data source. Of course, all data is useless if one can't interrogate it appropriately. That's pretty well much the nature of all information on the internet.

[FantasticMrFox]

Do you really want to go on?

It's not like your on high ground, easily defended.

But keep digging. This is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Norm, arguing with you is just tiering. Every time one writes something that is remotely critical of Pentax or this forum something clicks in your brain and you get a little seizure. It's what happened when I suggested that Pentax AF.C tracking in the z-axis is subpar, and it's what's happening now.

And every time you go into condescending mode, dancing around writing stuff like the above, about digging holes and 'shooting fish in a barrel', as if you're the biggest debater god has ever created and how amusing it is that someone else could dare trying to argue with you ...

I am tired of dealing with a grown man who argues on the level of a 12-year-old.

[Marktax]

Hello all, thanks for taking the time to read through my writeup over at DPR!

Just wanted to weigh in on the sharpness of the samples - as I stated in the article, the maximum size I was allowed to post was VGA resolution (640px longest side). My first export was from Adobe Camera Raw at that resolution, but then at the suggestion of a couple of readers, I went through and exported full-size JPEGs from ACR, and then did bicubic downsampling (sharper) on those in Photoshop to get down to the 640px resolution, and re-uploaded those. Maybe they'll look better now.

Make sure you click through each image - our site does down-sample images a bit more to get them into the image table.

And my apologies again for the fact that only VGA samples were allowed. I'm still waiting to hear back from Ricoh on that.

Last note - I can assure you, the full-size images are quite sharp. Even on 36MP, and even on the older lenses. Keeping my shutter speed at 1/125 or higher most of the time probably helped with the number of "keepers," and I had much better results with the K-1 than I had with a D800 I used at a previous gig. I guess they're probably not all as sharp as they could possibly be, but dragging a tripod all over town didn't seem too appealing to me at the time.

Cheers, and hope this helps.

Carey

I'll add my thanks to Carey for coming into the conversation, and for the review. I'm drummercam over on DPR, and I thought Carey did a good job in the limited time he was given with the K-1. It's an intimidating feature set to digest in a single afternoon. Mark