04-16-2011, 04:58 PM
Hi Dave,
the Canon 18-135mm is available for 340$ (whitebox) and B&H. The Pentax goes for 500$ there. So the pricing difference is not just a European thing.
The Pentax lens has a rather massive field curvature issue at 18mm (as mentioned in the review). The charts look much better than the actual quality at this setting.
The Canon is the better lens of the two. And both are beaten by the corresponding Nikkor.
I think the rating is valid as well as fair.
Klaus
[quote name='dave9t5' timestamp='1302966962' post='7679']
A couple of comments:
Optical Rating: The DA18-135 is an optical doppelganger of the [url="http://www.opticallimits.com/canon-eos/462-canon_18135_3556is?start=1"]Canon EF-S 18-135mm[/url], but the latter gets an extra +0.5 stars.
Not to mention the Canon benefits slightly from a smaller sensor size.
Further, the DA 18-135 is pretty tiny at 73mm length while the EF-S is 101mm, so the optical rating should be tempered a bit by the size...some concession can be made to trade-off for portability.
Price/Performance Rating: The DA 18-135 is only USD49 more than the EF-S 18-135 (according to the B&H ad beside the ratings), but the DA 18-135 includes the 2-pc hood (retail $60 value, FWIW), weather seals and metal body. Yet the Canon gets +1.5 stars. Sorry that the Europeans are getting shafted on the pricing, but the Price/Performance rating would be more fair with regional conditions (although they were mentioned at the beginning of the article, anyone jumping to the rating/conclusion would not get that).
That said, it's still only a mediocre lens, but the rating and "Avoid!" warning seem a bit harsh.
Also, I wonder how much the K-5 body will show up lens uneveness. As noted in the Canon review "...it's really surprising to see that this lens is bundled with the EOS 7D which is even more demanding in terms of required lens quality than the EOS 50D used for this test.".
[/quote]
the Canon 18-135mm is available for 340$ (whitebox) and B&H. The Pentax goes for 500$ there. So the pricing difference is not just a European thing.
The Pentax lens has a rather massive field curvature issue at 18mm (as mentioned in the review). The charts look much better than the actual quality at this setting.
The Canon is the better lens of the two. And both are beaten by the corresponding Nikkor.
I think the rating is valid as well as fair.
Klaus
[quote name='dave9t5' timestamp='1302966962' post='7679']
A couple of comments:
Optical Rating: The DA18-135 is an optical doppelganger of the [url="http://www.opticallimits.com/canon-eos/462-canon_18135_3556is?start=1"]Canon EF-S 18-135mm[/url], but the latter gets an extra +0.5 stars.
Not to mention the Canon benefits slightly from a smaller sensor size.
Further, the DA 18-135 is pretty tiny at 73mm length while the EF-S is 101mm, so the optical rating should be tempered a bit by the size...some concession can be made to trade-off for portability.
Price/Performance Rating: The DA 18-135 is only USD49 more than the EF-S 18-135 (according to the B&H ad beside the ratings), but the DA 18-135 includes the 2-pc hood (retail $60 value, FWIW), weather seals and metal body. Yet the Canon gets +1.5 stars. Sorry that the Europeans are getting shafted on the pricing, but the Price/Performance rating would be more fair with regional conditions (although they were mentioned at the beginning of the article, anyone jumping to the rating/conclusion would not get that).
That said, it's still only a mediocre lens, but the rating and "Avoid!" warning seem a bit harsh.
Also, I wonder how much the K-5 body will show up lens uneveness. As noted in the Canon review "...it's really surprising to see that this lens is bundled with the EOS 7D which is even more demanding in terms of required lens quality than the EOS 50D used for this test.".
[/quote]