I wonder if this is another case of variable quality? Here's another review with quite different results...
http://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/pentax_18-135mm_review.php#comp Regards, Pete Mac in Melbourne On 19 April 2011 01:48, Steven Desjardins <[email protected]> wrote: > Yikes. That's as bad as I've seen from that site. Pixel peeping or > not, that kind of rep is going to be a problem. > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Jaume Lahuerta <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Since I was interested in the new 18-135 zoom, and more after having seen in >> person how (relatively) compact is, I was impatiently awaiting the Photozone >> test. Some preliminary comments were not very promising and the final test >> has >> confirmed the worst predictions: >> http://www.photozone.de/pentax/597-pentax_18135_3556?start=2 >> >> As a summary, I just copy a couple of notes placed at the end of the test: >> >> "Just to mention again - we couldn't believe the rather poor performance so >> we >> asked the local Pentax service in Hamburg/Germany for an assessment of the >> situation. Result: the lens is within factory specifications." >> >> "After the friction this has caused in the community I will request a >> statement >> from Pentax once again why they think that this is a valid sample." >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> [email protected] >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> follow the directions. >> > > > > -- > Steve Desjardins > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
