The K-S1 and the 18-135 lens

Jhaakas wrote:

Historicity wrote:

I always think of the Photozone negative review when I use the 18-135,

Tkae that just as an opinion, the 18-135 is a very nice lens

. A couple of other people looked at the shots from the earlier outings and said the 18-135 results seemed better than the 16-85.

I also feel that the 18-135 is better

At least in my opinion the test today produced some surprisingly good shots. They were clear with good control of light and shadow. In Lightroom I did correct glare, reducing highlights and whites. I didn't use any sharpening. Almost all the shots seemed very sharp. I did use the Lightroom corrective profile on all the shots, something I don't have to do with the 16-85.

I only use in camera lens correction and process raws in SilkyPix, have got good results with 18-135. This range is so good that you will want to put this lens back if u use some other lens. The color, sharpness is great. Only the da 35/1.4 and 50/1.8 probably beat this.

Avi,

I used to sit on a board for the evaluation of changes being proposed for the C-17. I represented Engineering and as such would walk the engineer proposing the change through his data and his reasons for wanting to make the change. In looking at the Photozone review I wouldn't be able to dismiss it as mere opinion. There is opinion in it but there is also data.  They are drawing conclusions based on their interpretations of the data. I would tell them that their test base wasn't adequate. You do not just test one article and draw conclusions about all the articles unless you can demonstrate that it would be impossible or nearlly so for one article to be different from the others.

And then I would refer to the note in the review:  "We were obviously surprised by the rather poor performance so we send the lens to the local Pentax service in Hamburg/Germany. Result: the tested lens is within factory specifications!"  I would ask what sort of tests did Hamburg do or have done to verify that it was within specifications.  I do I know that some Hamburg salesman didn't take the lens, shoot a couple of photos through it with his K5 and declare that it met specifications?  What was Photozone so ready to accept this declaration from Hamburg?  Were they convinced by Hamburg's argument?  Or were they peeved at being treated poorly.  Did they conclude, "well if that's your attitude we are going to leave our test as it is and move on.  We have better things to do than argue with you."

I would like a larger testing base.  Would this larger base support Photozone's findings?  Or would it support the experiences of every photographer I recall reading on the subject of this lens, including my own experiences.

And why doesn't Photozone swallow their pride and get at least one more copy of the 18-135 and go through the tests again?  They are not just hurting Pentax Hamburg by their attitude.  They are hurting themselves.  I would wager that many photographer who got good results from his 18-135 read this review and thought, "well Photozone obviously can't be trusted to draw proper conclusions so I'll look elsewhere for my reviews in the future."

I notice that they recommend the 17-70 as a preferable alternative, but didn't the 17-70 back then have drive motor problems?

And lastly I would ask about the corrective profiles.  Do they all, or any of them, correct all or some of the faults listed in the Photozone article?  And if "some" which ones?  And if they do, doesn't Photozone owe us a footnote to their review mentioning this?

And if they do, how about some more stars for the 18-135 with the corrective profile applied?

Lawrence, former engineer for 39 years at Douglas, McDonnell Douglas, and Boeing.