[excanonfd]

The Sigma 18-125 zoom gets a 2.5 optically, but the FA* 24 gets a 2....

I rest my case.



Cameron

You are comparing a consumer zoom lens performance against a professional quality prime lens. That should be like comparing apples with oranges. Aside from that, look at the resolution test; you would expect a pro quality prime lens would outperform a consumer zoom lens at every level but clearly, that's not happening here. The FA* has great centre sharpness but fairly mediocre borders, the Sigma at 35mm has better border sharpness than the FA*. Judging the FA* based on resolution test numbers, I'd say Photozone was spot on when it awarded 2 stars for the FA* 24/2.0. As for price/performance, it seems a good thing the FA*20/2.0 is discontinued.

I have also heard just about every refrain about Photozone's less than favourable review of Pentax lens' performance: Either the test procedure is flawed or the test sample was bad. If you believe a not so favourable review is flawed, then you have to also discard all of the positive results, because the test procedure is the same for both. If the test sample is a lemon, I'd say the vaunted Pentax quality control is a nothing but a myth.

Back to the 18-135; for a briefest instant I thought about getting one when it was announced last year, until the sticker shock kicked in. $600.00 to gain an extra 10mm over my $150.00 Sigma 18-125, I'd have to be rolling in dough-re-mi to do that.

Thanks,

[HEAHA]

Finally an honest review of a Pentax lens!!

What you should all be arguing about is this sites obvious Fan-Boy reviews of everything Pentax.

Didn't this sites review claim "This lens can be seen as an "upgraded" kit lens"
and
"Contrary to popular belief, this lens isn't a consumer zoom like the 18-55mm WR, 50-200mm WR, or 55-300mm. Rather, it is a higher-quality "prosumer" lens aimed at serious amateurs and those willing to spend the extra buck for a higher-quality lens"

After seeing Ned Bunnels review of it, I knew it was Garbage and overpriced. But then I read this sites review and thought hmmm, maybe Ned "his photos" got it wrong.

I then read Every review this site does and saw the obvious trend and figured Neds photos were in fact correct and this current review only proves it.

It is just an extended zoom kit quality lens, with all the draw backs of each.
the lens should be no more then $250/$300 retail. After all, it really is just a variant of the WR 50 -200 or 18 - 55 WR

$500+ is an insult, Same with the Over priced 35 2.4 plastic mount, no hood, No focus over ride, no case lens for $219 retail. Compared to the $199, 1.8, metal mount, Hood and Case and focus over ride nikon 35mm

[MPrince]

Finally an honest review of a Pentax lens!!

Not sure I would call photozone a review site. More like a measurebating site.

[audiobomber]

Didn't this sites review claim "This lens can be seen as an "upgraded" kit lens"
and
"Contrary to popular belief, this lens isn't a consumer zoom like the 18-55mm WR, 50-200mm WR, or 55-300mm. Rather, it is a higher-quality "prosumer" lens aimed at serious amateurs and those willing to spend the extra buck for a higher-quality lens"

It is just an extended zoom kit quality lens, with all the draw backs of each.
the lens should be no more then $250/$300 retail. After all, it really is just a variant of the WR 50 -200 or 18 - 55 WR

The 18-55 and 50-200 WR together cost $360. That's $140 less than the 18-135. I actually had the 50-200 ordered then cancelled. I decided the extra cost was justified just for the advantage of not having to change lenses in dust, rain or snow.

The superzoom is a lot more compact than two kit lenses. Construction is not comparable; mostly metal, very solid, the kit lenses feel like rattleboxes in comparison. DC focus is silent and sure, rounded blades, smooth MF. The 18-135 is clearly an upgrade over the kit lenses, but you probably can't tell unless you've used both.

[Eruditass]

I have owned and used this lens recently and have to say I was personally quite disappointed in it. For 'normal' use it's a great walk around lens, but as soon as I looked a bit closer at my images I was not impressed. Maybe I had a bad copy but my corners were horrible, even at f8 / f11 (especially the left side) and I found it hard to eliminate the PF.

Samples taken while on ski trips over the past month (these are obviously resized for the web - I'm trying to show that the lens takes great photos for most applications, just not for pixel peepers or people trying to print really large):

Great shots. It's a shame that those shots won't hold up to big prints.

[ogl]

I've played with RAW from 18-135 - and I can confirm Photozone test results -
not bad at wide-angle, very good for zoom lens, but
this lens is rather weak in range 70-135 mm and suffers from high field curvature. Lens is very weak even at f8 in telerange.

[audiobomber]

this lens is rather weak in range 70-135 mm and suffers from high field curvature. Lens is very weak even at f8 in telerange.

Compared to what?

[dgaies]

I've played with RAW from 18-135 - and I can confirm Photozone test results -
not bad at wide-angle, very good for zoom lens, but
this lens is rather weak in range 70-135 mm and suffers from high field curvature. Lens is very weak even at f8 in telerange.

Well then it's a good thing I bought the 18-135 to replace my 16-50 and not my 50-135

Compared to what?

Exactly. I'm starting to think this is a case of people's expectations being too high, perhaps somewhat justified given the high price of the lens. I have a feeling my 18-135 outperforms my 16-50 from 70-135mm

[frogfoot]

Compared to what?

To 50-200 in the same range, for example.

[Rondec]

To 50-200 in the same range, for example.

But not the Tamron/Pentax 18-250, which has been the "gold standard" for super zooms up to this point. Audiobomber posted some photos taken with both lenses and truthfully, it was hard to see the differences, but the 18-135 certainly had at least as good border resolution as the 18-250.

People don't buy superzooms for ultimate image quality (that's why they buy primes). They buy them for convenience.

[ogl]

Compared to what?

simply bad. nothing to compare. but....I think even 18-250 is better or 50-200

[Spotmatic]

Well then it's a good thing I bought the 18-135 to replace my 16-50 and not my 50-135



Exactly. I'm starting to think this is a case of people's expectations being too high, perhaps somewhat justified given the high price of the lens. I have a feeling my 18-135 outperforms my 16-50 from 70-135mm

Maybe the PZ review will cause the price to drop?

[frogfoot]

Audiobomber posted some photos taken with both lenses

Could you please give me the link to this comparison? I couldn't find.

[audiobomber]

simply bad. nothing to compare. but....I think even 18-250 is better or 50-200

My 18-135 has better sharpness than my 18-250 in the center and across the frame, at 18mm and 135mm. I only tested wide open because the gap disappears as the apertures close.

https://picasaweb.google.com/bonhommed/18135Vs18250#

The tests were done on a tripod with 2s timer, auto exposure, two shot with AF, two with MF, best photo posted. The MF photos are a mess. I included them to show that autofocus is accurate. I took care to align for the brick wall shots. The photos of the entire building are taken from a side position to minimize the effect of field curvature. Focus was the window in the center of the wall. No tripod used on the shot of the garden.
PS My K20D just returned from Pentax after recalibration.

I'll believe a 50-200 is sharper when I see it confirmed. Sharpness is not comparable on the PZ tests due to different bodies, and I strongly suspect the lens used was substandard (not Klaus' fault).

[Rondec]

Right here: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/140953-superzo...ml#post1472037.