[pepperberry farm]

ok

I've never saw that part of the reviews, I wonder if it is used often

I use it all the time....

[garywakeling]

Added: In reference to PF member reviews, my pet peeves (other than those mentioned above) are rating low for not being AF, not being a Zoom, and not having "A" contacts on the mount. If one buys a lens that obviously lacks one of those features and doing so causes inconvenience, it is hardly a matter to influence the rating or even a "con" entry.

I couldn't agree more, reading those reviews leaves me grumbling .....

---------- Post added 10-15-19 at 11:58 AM ----------

Hey I did a review like that (I took it out 3 times for an initial run through) with my 400/2.8 lens but then I looked at specific things that hadn't been covered by others who had reviewed it. It was clear that the lens would be a reasonable performer for astrophotography from previous reviews but would suck in a bunch more light. After the first 3 sessions it was clear it was a very good lens for that and wrote my review but then I went out and put it through its paces specifically to test things and went back and added an addendum with additional detailed information on how it performed after the deep dive.

and I thank you for the addendum ( if not the initial thoughts )

[northcoastgreg]

I'll read reviews to get a general sense of what reviewers think of a lens, but I'd never buy a lens based on such reviews. I find a lot of reviews online quite frustrating because (1) many non-technical reviewers use lenses very differently from how I use them (e.g., a lot of hand-held wide-open shooting), and therefore rate lenses on how they use (and sometimes misuse) them; and (2) many technical reviewers are so intent on measurements that they lose any sense of how those measurements correlate to actual images and how the eye and (perhaps more importantly) the mind. But it's even worse than that. Reviews that concentrate measurements only measure those aspects of lens performance that are most easily measured. Often it is merely sharpness at a given distance. But some lenses are change sharpness at different distances. My DA 15 is reasonable sharp toward the edges close-up, but not so good at greater distances. Did any reviewer measure that? What about field curvature? You would think that would be an important characteristic of a lens, but because it's very hard to measure field curvature, we don't hear much about it in technical reviews. In such reviews, what is easily measured takes on an exaggerated importance at the expense of whatever characteristics may be difficult or perhaps even impossible to measure.

So for investigating lenses, I prefer to look at images. I go to flickr and hope to find images shot by good photographers in good light of the lens I'm interested in.

[Sandy Hancock]

I buy Pentax gear almost exclusively, so I tend to stick with this website.

The lens reviews are a little over-rated generally, and someone once suggested to subtract five from the average rating and make it out of five. That works pretty well for me.

That said, if it's something I really want to double down on, I read all the reviews and look at which ones are thought helpful, and dismiss out of hand the outliers that give a lens a three because it's heavy, or lacks autofocus, or they obviously had a bad copy.

Looking at actual images - preferably lots of them - is also very helpful.

Despite all this, sometimes I just buy the thing. If it doesn't suit me I sell it on.

[garywakeling]

I buy Pentax gear almost exclusively, so I tend to stick with this website.

The lens reviews are a little over-rated generally, and someone once suggested to subtract five from the average rating and make it out of five. That works pretty well for me.

That said, if it's something I really want to double down on, I read all the reviews and look at which ones are thought helpful, and dismiss out of hand the outliers that give a lens a three because it's heavy, or lacks autofocus, or they obviously had a bad copy.

Looking at actual images - preferably lots of them - is also very helpful.

Despite all this, sometimes I just buy the thing. If it doesn't suit me I sell it on.

Sometimes??? I was sure you had a standing order for any new Pentax item to be sent automatically

[MossyRocks]

( if not the initial thoughts )

I at least tried to provide some valid initial thoughts on my usage of that lens that were adding information. It was clear after the in depth testing session that most of what I found was valid and held with the exception of some oddities that cropped up with the usage of that lens. Most notably was the coma that I was getting in the first 2 deep sky imaging sessions where not a defect in the lens design but a defect in how I was using the lens by not giving that huge mass of glass enough time to come into thermal equilibrium. Even then the aspects I was looking at the lens from initially were ones where I do have knowledge in and have some good reference points for that others hadn't really touched on.

[bkpix]

I find the most reliable indicator for me is not professional reviews, though I do look at them. What I look for, in addition, you might call the pixie-dust factor.

If a lot of people are irrationally happy about using a camera or a lens, then that piece of equipment probably has something special going for it. The 15 Limited comes to mind. I bought it after reading posts in the "controls my mind" thread.

They're right. It's an amazing lens. Though it took me a while to warm up to it, the 15 is now on my KP most of the time.

Another example is the Nikon D700, which I haven't bought but have only barely held out now that you can get one for $400.

[Sandy Hancock]

Sometimes??? I was sure you had a standing order for any new Pentax item to be sent automatically

Harsh. But fair

[Culture]

When I watch or read reviews I focus more about the negatives. The positives are the ones that everyone talks about in the beginning. So that is always out there.
The negatives come later. So if I can work with the negative, or does not apply to the way I shoot then I go ahead and make a purchase if needed.

Culture

[garywakeling]

I at least tried to provide some valid initial thoughts on my usage of that lens that were adding information. It was clear after the in depth testing session that most of what I found was valid and held with the exception of some oddities that cropped up with the usage of that lens. Most notably was the coma that I was getting in the first 2 deep sky imaging sessions where not a defect in the lens design but a defect in how I was using the lens by not giving that huge mass of glass enough time to come into thermal equilibrium. Even then the aspects I was looking at the lens from initially were ones where I do have knowledge in and have some good reference points for that others hadn't really touched on.

Well after reading your review on the 400mm and the addendum , I issue an apology to you, the first review was not the type of review I was referring to, you had some good information in there. You even managed to post 2 photos from the lens, having said that, most other quick reviewers are not very similar

[MossyRocks]

Well after reading your review on the 400mm and the addendum , I issue an apology to you, the first review was not the type of review I was referring to, you had some good information in there. You even managed to post 2 photos from the lens, having said that, most other quick reviewers are not very similar

My first response was mostly tongue in cheek as I am familiar with the type of reviews that you are referring to that are completely worthless. I actually hate those as well. Unlike a lot of people I do effort post and even with reviews I do although the numeric values assigned for quality I have been known to rate things higher because of what they are. I reviewed the tamron 28-300 I have and that is one where I made a point that I like the lens for what it is and that I realize that it is a jack of all trades master of none and was cheap, but that sometimes those are the right attributes.

[Mikesul]

Reviews are just bits of data to be considered along with the manufacturers claims, photos, the comments of users etc. If I know anything about the reviewer that information goes into the calculation as well. In the end what is unacceptable to one may be a nice feature to another person (things like ovf/evf, gps, beefy grip) no guarantee ever. I liked the suggestion earlier that with reviews the poster suggested only looking at the negatives and then weighing them. Good technique.

[edri]

Reviews are useful when I want to buy new photo equipment, but I do not consider them as absolute truths.