I find it hard to take seriously a reviewer who attributes digital bloom as a lens problem and not a sensor problem, (see his review of the 10-17 mm fisheye). He seems to find and emphasize the fly in the ointment to the extent of manufacturing a fly, in all of his conclusions. I don't know if he does this for other manufactures or just Pentax, but then I shoot Pentax more or less exclusively these days, so reading reviews of Canon Nikon Olympus and Sony specific lenses isn't really going to do me much good.. He's not on the same level as K-R, at least he actually seems to use the equipment he writes his tests on, but he does seem to need to find at least one fault in every review if not several. His conclusions on 50-200mm seem to be at odds with the real world experience of most everyone on this list who uses one. Admittedly this is a Pentax equipment cheering section, but if we're disappointed with a piece of Pentax equipment we'll savage it.
Digital Image Studio wrote: > On 08/07/07, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Since I've seldom seen a positive review of any Pentax lens from >> Photozone, I'm not in the least surprised. >> > > There are many positive Pentax reviews there if you have more than a > cursory look at the tests. I really like Klaus's Photozone > reviews/tests, he really does just say it how it is with no fluff. The > fact that all tests are done by him means that generally he has > sufficient personal experience with peer spec products to be able to > draw real world comparisons. > > -- All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a dog. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
