Pentax 12-24mm bottom of class

Digital SLR magazine have a UWA lens test. Bizarrely the Tokina 12-24 just edged slightly ahead of the usual Sigmas etc, whereas the Pentax was singled out for damning comments. I thought they were the same lens design? Quality control issues again?

Individual lenses can vary, but review samples may also have had some rough handling. This lens has been out for some time now so it depends where the sample came from and how it has been treated.

All reviews are on one sample only and that should always be borne in mind.

Taking the "one sample" caveat in mind, what use therefore is a review test, as any "failure" or "exceptional" could be put down to these parameters.

Bernard

Manufacturers supplying samples for testing ought to make sure they supply a decent represenative sample. Photozone.de's experience with the 18-135mm jumps to mind... from what I've seen from other users, and the review on PentaxForums, this lens is as good or better than the 18-55mm and therefore a pretty good lens.

And of course they ought to work even harder to reduce sample variation!

and when some mag turns up late to the party they might ask for a new lens rather than the bashed about copy that has already done 2 years on the review circuit?

Simple solution don't buy Digital SLR magazine

I recently took up an offer of 6 months of DSLR mag for £5 - to be honest I still feel I paid a bit too much, I don't think it's one of the better mags out there.

The test results certainly seem a bit odd as they are the same lens - the test results are contrary to every test I've ever read on it too, as well as my own experience

Simon

I emailed the Editor a week or so ago, attaching a selection of other (positive) reviews from other mags, and posing the simple question 'why is your mag so different?'. So far, no response.

I think you are being a little unfair on Photozone.

My understanding is that Photozone don't ask manufactures for test samples but get test examples on loan from users. Often they name and thank the source of the lens.

While there is a risk that the test sample is a rouge I think this should help provide results which are representative of what you might expect to find on general sale.

On the 18-135mm Photozone were so unhappy with their results they asked Pentax to check the calibration of the sample:

"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."

Glyn

My comment isn't against Photozone, it's against the manufacturer, if you read carefully

I don't buy it, I just read it and put it back on the shelf! But I wouldn't not buy a magazine just because they include a test which doesn't fit my own prejudices. Anyway, DSLR User magazine have Pentax sponsorship, and reviewed the K7 really well.

But what I was trying to say is that I thinks it is much safer, and representative, not to specifically ask manufactures for test examples. Perhaps I was also hinting that with all reviews we should think about its objective and possibly who has has sponsored it.

I maintain that these issues are well addressed by Photozone and so perhaps you should not link their reviews with a statement on manufacture supplied samples.

Glyn

IC. Then Pentax really have no excuse - I can only conclude that being 'within factory specifications' is a rather broad term, for Pentax!

This is why, perversely, I tend to go for second hand lenses - I can ask for a sample photo to check if it's a duffer...

I do not buy the theory about reviews being biased because of sponsorship issues.

None, usually. The only reviews I prefer to believe are my own.

Can't complain about that review. Maybe they just got a bad sample of the 12-24mm.