Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home

Showing results 1 to 6 of 6 Search:
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion 07-08-2015, 07:59 AM  
Pentax K-3 New User and sampels
Posted By normhead
Replies: 30
Views: 3,136
I try not to get into name calling.. myself....

But, let's make a deal, I put you on my ignore list, you put me in your ignore list, we never have to interact again. No sweat of my back.

I'm not for everybody, your mistake is, you think your opinion is somehow better than mine. If you could respect my opinion you would't even be saying anything. So, in the same thread you want opinions respected, you say mine is rude... cute.
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion 07-08-2015, 07:07 AM  
Pentax K-3 New User and sampels
Posted By normhead
Replies: 30
Views: 3,136
Ya, I just can't seem to get that "let everyone say whatever they want no matter how wrong it is" attitude. To me that's kind of goofy. If I were to say that I'd have to say "yuck. yuck, yuck" right after it.

Other people may come here for the touchy feely lets all share and treasure each others opinions. I tend to value those opinions a little more if they actually have some useful information.

Other people are entitled to their opinions, and I'm entitled to my opinion of their opinion. If you don't want your opinions bumping up against other people's opinions don't post them on the internet. That's really simple.

I've never once gone into someone's house, listened to their opinions and criticized them for it. This is not your house.

If someone asks for lens advice, and you want to promote your lens, feel free to do so. If you want to talk crap about a lens I own, I'm going to correct you. Expect that. If everyone sticks to what they know, we'll all do just fine.

What is that attitude that says "In order to tell people why I like my lens, I have to misrepresent someone else's." Wat wid dat?

I quite appreciate it when people talk about why they like a lens they use. I really dislike it when they talk crap about a lens I own. Deal with it.

My question would be, why do you feel it's OK to come on a site like this and disseminate misleading information? Shouldn't you have to do at least a little bit of research before you trash someone else's lens?

For myself, I've learned a lot because I do research before I open my mouth. Find out what's true, then give your take on it, that's an opinion I can respect. There's lot's o fuse for opinion based on that actual characteristics of a lens and who it can be made use of. If you believe it, you can use reviews and test sites to explain what you've observed. Just repeating the nonsense that's been repeated by others, to the point where it's true because it's been said so many times. That's just sheep going baa, baa ,baa. That's someone else's opinion, and you're a believer. Have a short fuse with believers.
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion 07-07-2015, 07:10 AM  
Pentax K-3 New User and sampels
Posted By normhead
Replies: 30
Views: 3,136
That's a great portrait.... check out Richard Avedon... you might like his style in his street portraits.

Whatever gave you that impression? :D
It's not so much that I like it. I just hate to see it unfairly maligned. It's an issue of justice and fairness? :D

I'm as much aware as anyone else, there are times when you just have to take it off the camera. But , those times seem to get greatly exaggerated in importance. I always say you can fake a stop 99% of the time. So the ones stop better the16-50 type 2.8 lenses are is really pretty irrelevant, unless you wish to shoot wide open for smoother DoF. There will be the odd time when ƒ4 is not quite there and ƒ2.8 is good, but unless you are experiencing that on a regular basis, you have to justify carrying the extra glass.

I have never been able to look at the Photozone chart on the DA*16-50 and feel inspired. And owning the Tamron 17-50, in many ways a better lens, hasn't changed that at all.

The 18-135 values for CA aren't really bad 50-70, if you don't compare them to the DA 70 or any 50, which is just are stellar lenses for sharpness. That being said, in my day and age we bought portrait lenses that were intentionally soft. IN the portrait above, you definitely lean towards sharpness, and the 70 would suit your style and well as the 50. A more traditional, "soft and dreamy" studio type portrait, you probably want to use the AA filter to soften it up a bit.
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion 07-06-2015, 07:24 AM  
Pentax K-3 New User and sampels
Posted By normhead
Replies: 30
Views: 3,136
The reason for the 16-50 is a waterside ƒ2.8, as afar a I can tell. By 30mm mm, the 18-135 at ƒ4, You need to let in twice as much light, to get to ƒ2.8, so the DA*16-50 needs to be quite a bit heavier and for DoF if you want it, the DA*16-50 is going to open wider and create more pleasing out of focus areas. There are advantages. But, landscape at ƒ5.6 or higher insn't one of them between maybe 22and 30. Personally I've stopped carrying my DA*35 2.4, because the DA 18-135 will give me the image I want, even thought the DA 35 is a very good lens. I'm sure the DA 35 will be marginally better pixel peeping, but as in my 50's example above, any differences will be insignificant. The 18-135 is two lenses, a very high end 18-50 and a centre sharp DA 60-135. Every one of the criticisms I've seen on the forum has been people comparing the 60-135 part of the lens to someone else's 16-50 or 17-50. That's just misrepresentation. And personally, I find it offensive, that after I've taken the time to correct this over and over again, people who support other lenses for this role, continue the malign the 18-135, and proposed other lenses that are no where near what it is at it's strongest.

The only lens I'd recommend over it based on the test charts would be the Tamron 17-50, and I have to put an asterisk on that because so many have had mechanical issues with that lens. I was already at the point of refusing to recommend it, when the AF on mine totally died. It's adjusted to +10 and still won't focus.

IN a way, it's not that the 18-135 is all that great, it's that the other offereings The Sigma 16-50, the Pentax 16-50 and the Tamron 17-50 are rated at the highest , an 8 put of 10.

DA* 16-50mm vs. Sigma and Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 Comparison Review - The Bottom Line | Reviews

The DA 18-135 rated at 8.4 is right behind the DA*35 2.4 rated at 8.5 and a half point ahead of any of the above 3.

The people who go on about these other lenses, putting down the 18-135 just shooting off their mouths without doing their home work. At this point there is just no excuse for that. Personally, I'm going to start ramping it up a bit when the OP asks for something top notch and people recommend inferior lenses for the described purpose. The question isn't "What lens did I buy, that I'll stick with no matter what?" The question is, "For the use described by the OP, what is the best lens?" These question turn into cheerleading sessions for one lens or the other.

Even in a football game half the cheerleaders are wrong every game, in that the team they cheer for isn't the best team that day. :D

There area pile of folks who post here who are nothing but cheerleaders for helens they bought, and absolutely no restraint recommending it over better lens. Accept no advice without supporting links or investigating the forum reviews and Photozone. That would be my advice. These guys who buy on helens and think they know everything, or who got a bad copy of a lens and continuously trash that lens, ignore them. Use multiple sources read what the forum reviews and protozone have to say, and look in the Lens Clubs both for images and for what people say about the lens, and you have a informed decision.

Some jackass saying crap like "the 18-135 is soft at the edges" don't even pay attention to the one liners. They clearly haven't done a stitch of research on the lens, and are just repeating nonsense posted by other posters.

Now if someone wants to make a coherent logical case stating some other people's research and testing, other than joe blow shooting off his mouth, I'll be happy to look at what you come up with. I'e got my case outlined above with relevant quotes. Bring it on. :D

I won't be holding my breath. I've been through the evidence enough times, to know, you have nothing.:D

My biggest regret is that the first time this trash was tossed out as advice I didn't create a comprehensive file I could just paste into every thread where it cam up , and create a bot to do it automatically. I have continually put the information out there, and people I can only describe as lazy have continued on about how weak the lens is, without actually looking at the tests and reviews. :D

Lazy, there's no other word to describe those attitudes.

At this point I'm almost certain there's going to be a few people come on and justify their bad advice. Not with reviews, not with test scores, not with side by side comparisons of images, but with a rehash of every poster who's contributed an untruth about this lens.
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion 07-04-2015, 05:20 PM  
Pentax K-3 New User and sampels
Posted By normhead
Replies: 30
Views: 3,136
We all gotta do our jobs..... :D
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion 07-04-2015, 10:09 AM  
Pentax K-3 New User and sampels
Posted By normhead
Replies: 30
Views: 3,136
I'm so tired of saying this, and I've said it so many times, at this point I'm just going to come out and flat out say it. Some of the above poster's are lying.

In parts of it's like range 24mm to 28mm, the DA 18-135 has edge sharpness rated as excellent, better than any Pentax prime at those ranges. In that sense it's simply a superlative lens and beyond everything else available from Pentax. It is not and can in no way be described as "edge soft. IN fact to say it would be edge excellent would be just as accurate as to say it's edge soft, because both describe only part of the lenses Focal Length range. Yet people constantly describe it as edge soft. Usually people who don't use the lens. No one who has used it for landscape from 22-30mm would say it is edge soft. Other people who prefer to use other lenses say this when they are blowing their horn for the lens they prefer, even when the lens they own doesn't match it in it's best FLs.

Now to the subject at hand. CA. The 18-135 has high CA values for a prime, (not for this type of zoom), so for that aspect you can improve on performance in the desired focal lengths. Unfortunately the DA*16-50 isn't a lot better than the DA 18-135 in it's range, nor is the DA*50-135 in the 50-70range. In that range, something like the DA 70 ƒ2.4 is probably what you are looking for control of CA i The DA*55 1.4 is also excellent in control of CA until ƒ8 and over. Then it starts to get out of my comfort zone. But looking 50-70 mm for control of CA and excellent IQ those are your best choices. The DA18-135 CA numbers are acceptable from 50 to 85mm but by then it's starting to get edge soft. outside that range they are pretty poor, well over 1.5 pixels on a 16mp camera.

If you really want the area around 70mm in a zoom and you want excellent control of CA plus excellent sharpness centre and edge, the DA*60-250 is probably your only option, but it's only an ƒ4 lens. It stacks up nicely with any prime you care to put it up against.
Search took 0.00 seconds | Showing results 1 to 6 of 6

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:53 PM. | See also:, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]