Originally posted by Pål Jensen Are you sure this test can be taken seriously?
Given that this is the website that originally trashed my DA 18-135, and then watched every other website including this one join in the charge, I don't take them very seriously.
The problem being there are no other websites I take more seriously.
Which is why I said
Originally posted by normhead is the numbers suggest (even if they can't definitely confirm)
. This is a case of too little information. But I have to say, the fact that camera manufacturers release lw/ph numbers based on the lens designs, not actual performance and that there is no standard test lab where these kinds of things can be confirmed. I'd argue that at the moment it's the best we have.
That being said, I've always been suspicious of the 16 MP 31ltd. test. I just can't prove it's wrong. Sometimes you go with what you know. What put me on to this was Kenspo's statement about needing modern glass for modern sensors. As a good spokesman for the brand, I've been trying to unpack that. Pentax isn't going to say the limiteds suck, and they don't. Their rendering is fantastic.But if you need really high res, maybe they aren't the correct choice.
I'm just trying to make sense of the old "Lenses for the way people take pictures, not for the test charts" as opposed to the new "modern glass for modern sensors" The only way that makes sense to me is if they are going for both rendering and test charts, as if they might not be mutually exclusive as the old motto would suggest.
I don't know what the DFA 28-105 would test as on the charts, but compare to my 7 or 8 other non DA+ zooms, it's the sharpest, it has 3d rendering, and overall, it renders better than even my beloved 18-135. Personally I think Pentax has turned a page, and it will be good for those who can afford it. The big question now is , will the clearly heavy investment in development of probably pretty slow selling lenses, kill the company, before they see the fruits of their labours?
I wish the first wasn't a 50. And I wish they could show me, it's similar to the Nikon 24, in terms of giving APS-c better resolution than I can currently get on my K-1. And also confirm what the resolution will be like on the K-1. The camera industry habit of releasing the specs the lens was designed to rather than measurements of actual lenses as at photozone is really irritating.
It's like someone coming to clean the snow your drive, calculating how many cubic feet of snow there are, reading the stats on how much snow the snow blower can throw and hour. Working for an hour and claiming according to spec, your driveway is clean, when it's like to be less than 2/3 done.
I'm the kind of guy that says, "If I pay you to clean my driveway, clean my driveway. I don't care how much cubic feet of snow there is, I don't care how many cubic feet an hour your snow blower is rated for, I'm paying you to clean the driveway. You're not done until it's clean."