18-135mm Reviews anyone?

r0ckstarr · 11-24-2010, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by Fl_Gulfer

It is quit heavy but it sure feels like a Pro lens. and it looks great on the K-5.

Now you have my curiosity going. Which one is heavier? The 18-135 or 18-250? I do agree, it does look good on your K5.

Cannikin · 11-24-2010, 05:56 PM

Originally posted by r0ckstarr

Now you have my curiosity going. Which one is heavier? The 18-135 or 18-250? I do agree, it does look good on your K5.

Official specs have it at 14.3oz/405g, so it is slightly lighter than the DA 18-250 (16oz/455g) and the DA 55-300 (15.5oz/440g), and a lot lighter than the Sigma 18-250 (22.2oz/630g).

This is very good to me, as my DA 55-300 feels very well balanced on my K-5.

audiobomber · 11-24-2010, 06:21 PM

Originally posted by Cannikin

Official specs have it at 14.3oz/405g, so it is slightly lighter than the DA 18-250 (16oz/455g) and the DA 55-300 (15.5oz/440g), and a lot lighter than the Sigma 18-250 (22.2oz/630g).

This is very good to me, as my DA 55-300 feels very well balanced on my K-5.

Balance has a lot to do with length too. The 18-250 and 55-300 feel quite different on the camera. The center of gravity is closer to the body with the 18-250. I find it feels considerably heavier than the 18-250, even though the gross weight is similar. It's more noticeable on smaller bodies.

r0ckstarr · 11-24-2010, 11:11 PM

I know when I go from the DA LTD's to the 18-250, it feels like I mounted a cinder block on my camera.

syoon1970 · 11-25-2010, 03:47 AM

Just got this lens. Quick and dirty test, against my DA35mm Macro Limited. Very rough setup, I know, but gives some idea against a benchmark lens. My untrained eye has a hard time distinguishing the results.. Perhaps a little more vivid colour from the Macro Limited, but I don't really see a difference in sharpness (at this aperture and focal length, anyway). Even the bokeh looks similar, don't you think?

The DC motor is a tad slower than the DA35Macro (certainly not slow, though), and manual focus feels tight and well damped but not quite creamy like the limited lens (let alone a Takumar). On the flip side, it is almost silent in comparison and what sound there is, is more refined.

Shot with K-5: Under-exposed by 4 stops using ISO 200, then push-developed in ACR. Both at 35mm (exif says 36mm for the DA18-135), F4.5, 1/45.

DA35mm Macro then DA18-135, followed by 100% crops. (Note Web upload seems to modify the files - the originals look even closer than they appear here..)

Pentaxor · 11-25-2010, 10:35 AM

Originally posted by syoon1970

Just got this lens. Quick and dirty test, against my DA35mm Macro Limited. Very rough setup, I know, but gives some idea against a benchmark lens. My untrained eye has a hard time distinguishing the results.. Perhaps a little more vivid colour from the Macro Limited, but I don't really see a difference in sharpness (at this aperture and focal length, anyway). Even the bokeh looks similar, don't you think?

The DC motor is a tad slower than the DA35Macro (certainly not slow, though), and manual focus feels tight and well damped but not quite creamy like the limited lens (let alone a Takumar). On the flip side, it is almost silent in comparison and what sound there is, is more refined.

Shot with K-5: Under-exposed by 4 stops using ISO 200, then push-developed in ACR. Both at 35mm (exif says 36mm for the DA18-135), F4.5, 1/45.

DA35mm Macro then DA18-135, followed by 100% crops. (Note Web upload seems to modify the files - the originals look even closer than they appear here..)

hmmm...comparing two different lenses are quite tricky especially if one is a zoom lens. personally I won't just rely on the exif for focal length equivalence but would look at the images on the viewfinder for exact focal length comparison. you can use the focal length indicator on the lens as a starting point and make the necessary adjustment from there. use the prime lens first as your basis for focal length.

it would be also advisable to use a tripod. in this scenario, it is better to shoot at proper exposure for both lenses rather than have to adjust. also, you need something with a better and a definitive background, subject shot from equivalent mfd for both lenses to infinity for the background. this is a bit of work, but atleast the tests would be more reliable.

as far as the samples are concerned, bokeh don't seem to be different due to the difference in focal length distance. one seems to be short of 5mm (2nd pic). sharpness seems to be sharper on the 2nd pic as well, although this is a bit hard to judge since they don't have the similar focal length distance. I would assume the 2nd pic would appear better if the focal length distance are identical.

Pentaxor · 11-25-2010, 10:48 AM

reading further, I just noticed that you shot both images at f4.5? if this is the case, then it would be understandable if the bokeh are not that far from one another. this would had been different if you shot one at f2.8 and the other at f4.5. however, if you want to see if there is any difference with the bokeh at similar apertures, you need a better background for checking it. you might want to consider shooting something with background highlights. as far as exposure is concerned, better use a flash.

alexeyga · 11-25-2010, 10:58 AM

A couple of questions:

Originally posted by syoon1970

Shot with K-5: Under-exposed by 4 stops using ISO 200, then push-developed in ACR. Both at 35mm (exif says 36mm for the DA18-135), F4.5, 1/45.

Why? Why not simply expose it properly to begin with?

Originally posted by syoon1970

The DC motor is a tad slower than the DA35Macro (certainly not slow, though), and manual focus feels tight and well damped but not quite creamy like the limited lens (let alone a Takumar). On the flip side, it is almost silent in comparison and what sound there is, is more refined.

That's strange... One of Frank's comments regarding the 18-135 was that i was the fastest-focusing lens made by Pentax so far... DA35 on the other hand is pretty freaking far from being the AF-speed demon... Actually DA35 is probably the slowest-focusing DA lens...

Fl_Gulfer · 11-25-2010, 12:04 PM

I think IQ is pretty close but the 135 is a touch better. Both shots were 2 sec. delays on a tripod at 100mm f5.6
The 135mm focuses alot faster than the 250mm and locks MUCH faster.

"Thumb Nails" click on each one for 4000 x 3000 jpgs

18-135

18-250

18-135 @100mm 5.6

18-250 @100 5.6

audiobomber · 11-25-2010, 12:20 PM

The photos open in a new window but remain thumbnail size for me.

Would you mind showing distortion at 18mm and sharpness at 135mm, wide open?

syoon1970 · 11-25-2010, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by Pentaxor

hmmm...comparing two different lenses are quite tricky especially if one is a zoom lens. personally I won't just rely on the exif for focal length equivalence but would look at the images on the viewfinder for exact focal length comparison. you can use the focal length indicator on the lens as a starting point and make the necessary adjustment from there. use the prime lens first as your basis for focal length.

it would be also advisable to use a tripod. in this scenario, it is better to shoot at proper exposure for both lenses rather than have to adjust. also, you need something with a better and a definitive background, subject shot from equivalent mfd for both lenses to infinity for the background. this is a bit of work, but atleast the tests would be more reliable.

as far as the samples are concerned, bokeh don't seem to be different due to the difference in focal length distance. one seems to be short of 5mm (2nd pic). sharpness seems to be sharper on the 2nd pic as well, although this is a bit hard to judge since they don't have the similar focal length distance. I would assume the 2nd pic would appear better if the focal length distance are identical.

Lol, thanks for the tips, guys. I do know most of the facts you mention, and perhaps I should have guessed there would be criticisms despite the disclaimer of "quick and dirty".. I guess I was a bit excited after seeing the impressive results. Just a few explanations for what it's worth:
1. I dislike flash intensely for indoor shots. I also wanted a clean image which was the reason for ISO200, which then meant that to get a fast enough shutter speed, I had to underexpose. I can do this knowing K-5's dynamic range.
2. Regarding focus speed asked about, I believe the favourable comparison is to other SDM lenses, not internal focus motor of K-5. Additioanally, there is an even bigger gap when using live view contrast detect.
Despite the failings of my test methods, I think the lens does extremely well against a prime..

pcarfan · 11-25-2010, 03:15 PM

Thank you for the 18-250 comparison....in firefox it opens the full size, not in explorer.

It is a very close call, I wonder whether you will be posting shots at other focal lengths?

audiobomber · 11-25-2010, 03:34 PM

I can see the 1024 pixel versions now. I didn't look at which lens was which, I just looked at the photos. I thought the 18-135 was the winner due to better contrast.

bobmaxja · 11-25-2010, 03:40 PM

Honestly for 99.9 % of the peoples, nobody will see the difference when photo are printed but Still a good all around lens

audiobomber · 11-25-2010, 04:03 PM

Originally posted by bobmaxja

Honestly for 99.9 % of the peoples, nobody will see the difference when photo are printed but Still a good all around lens

The 18-250 is a good all-round lens too, but in the end I felt it was not good enough. Maybe I shouldn't be looking at the 18-135, but I'm attracted to the features it has over the 18-250 (WR, DC, no zoom creep).

11-24-2010, 05:56 PM	#17
Cannikin Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: SW Washington Posts: 833	Originally posted by r0ckstarr Now you have my curiosity going. Which one is heavier? The 18-135 or 18-250? I do agree, it does look good on your K5. Official specs have it at 14.3oz/405g, so it is slightly lighter than the DA 18-250 (16oz/455g) and the DA 55-300 (15.5oz/440g), and a lot lighter than the Sigma 18-250 (22.2oz/630g). This is very good to me, as my DA 55-300 feels very well balanced on my K-5. Last edited by Cannikin; 11-24-2010 at 06:02 PM.

11-25-2010, 12:04 PM	#24
Fl_Gulfer Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Florida Gulfer Photos: Albums Posts: 3,054	I think IQ is pretty close but the 135 is a touch better. Both shots were 2 sec. delays on a tripod at 100mm f5.6 The 135mm focuses alot faster than the 250mm and locks MUCH faster. "Thumb Nails" click on each one for 4000 x 3000 jpgs 18-135 18-250 18-135 @100mm 5.6 18-250 @100 5.6 Last edited by Fl_Gulfer; 11-25-2010 at 02:33 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Some New KX Reviews	harleynitelite	Pentax DSLR Discussion	5	02-12-2010 11:06 PM
For Sale - Sold: SuperTak 35mm f/3.5, Soligor 135mm f/2.8, Hanimex 135mm f/2.8 (M42 lens)	hinman	Sold Items	14	01-14-2008 11:36 AM
Pentax-F 35-135mm F3.5-4.5 no reviews	regken	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	4	08-03-2007 11:48 AM
Mid Range Zoom - Tamron 24-135mm or Pentax F 35-135mm?	Khukri	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	0	06-26-2007 02:02 AM
For Sale - Sold: Make Offers: Haminex 135mm f/2.8, Sears 135mm f/2.8, Super Albinar 100-200mm f	inneyeseakay	Sold Items	1	06-23-2007 02:05 AM

11-24-2010, 05:33 PM	#16
r0ckstarr Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,507	Originally posted by Fl_Gulfer It is quit heavy but it sure feels like a Pro lens. and it looks great on the K-5. Now you have my curiosity going. Which one is heavier? The 18-135 or 18-250? I do agree, it does look good on your K5.

11-24-2010, 06:21 PM	#18
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by Cannikin Official specs have it at 14.3oz/405g, so it is slightly lighter than the DA 18-250 (16oz/455g) and the DA 55-300 (15.5oz/440g), and a lot lighter than the Sigma 18-250 (22.2oz/630g). This is very good to me, as my DA 55-300 feels very well balanced on my K-5. Balance has a lot to do with length too. The 18-250 and 55-300 feel quite different on the camera. The center of gravity is closer to the body with the 18-250. I find it feels considerably heavier than the 18-250, even though the gross weight is similar. It's more noticeable on smaller bodies.

11-24-2010, 11:11 PM	#19
r0ckstarr Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,507	I know when I go from the DA LTD's to the 18-250, it feels like I mounted a cinder block on my camera.

11-25-2010, 10:35 AM	#21
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by syoon1970 Just got this lens. Quick and dirty test, against my DA35mm Macro Limited. Very rough setup, I know, but gives some idea against a benchmark lens. My untrained eye has a hard time distinguishing the results.. Perhaps a little more vivid colour from the Macro Limited, but I don't really see a difference in sharpness (at this aperture and focal length, anyway). Even the bokeh looks similar, don't you think? The DC motor is a tad slower than the DA35Macro (certainly not slow, though), and manual focus feels tight and well damped but not quite creamy like the limited lens (let alone a Takumar). On the flip side, it is almost silent in comparison and what sound there is, is more refined. Shot with K-5: Under-exposed by 4 stops using ISO 200, then push-developed in ACR. Both at 35mm (exif says 36mm for the DA18-135), F4.5, 1/45. DA35mm Macro then DA18-135, followed by 100% crops. (Note Web upload seems to modify the files - the originals look even closer than they appear here..) hmmm...comparing two different lenses are quite tricky especially if one is a zoom lens. personally I won't just rely on the exif for focal length equivalence but would look at the images on the viewfinder for exact focal length comparison. you can use the focal length indicator on the lens as a starting point and make the necessary adjustment from there. use the prime lens first as your basis for focal length. it would be also advisable to use a tripod. in this scenario, it is better to shoot at proper exposure for both lenses rather than have to adjust. also, you need something with a better and a definitive background, subject shot from equivalent mfd for both lenses to infinity for the background. this is a bit of work, but atleast the tests would be more reliable. as far as the samples are concerned, bokeh don't seem to be different due to the difference in focal length distance. one seems to be short of 5mm (2nd pic). sharpness seems to be sharper on the 2nd pic as well, although this is a bit hard to judge since they don't have the similar focal length distance. I would assume the 2nd pic would appear better if the focal length distance are identical.

11-25-2010, 10:48 AM	#22
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	reading further, I just noticed that you shot both images at f4.5? if this is the case, then it would be understandable if the bokeh are not that far from one another. this would had been different if you shot one at f2.8 and the other at f4.5. however, if you want to see if there is any difference with the bokeh at similar apertures, you need a better background for checking it. you might want to consider shooting something with background highlights. as far as exposure is concerned, better use a flash.

11-25-2010, 10:58 AM	#23
alexeyga Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Montreal, Canada Posts: 838	A couple of questions: Originally posted by syoon1970 Shot with K-5: Under-exposed by 4 stops using ISO 200, then push-developed in ACR. Both at 35mm (exif says 36mm for the DA18-135), F4.5, 1/45. Why? Why not simply expose it properly to begin with? Originally posted by syoon1970 The DC motor is a tad slower than the DA35Macro (certainly not slow, though), and manual focus feels tight and well damped but not quite creamy like the limited lens (let alone a Takumar). On the flip side, it is almost silent in comparison and what sound there is, is more refined. That's strange... One of Frank's comments regarding the 18-135 was that i was the fastest-focusing lens made by Pentax so far... DA35 on the other hand is pretty freaking far from being the AF-speed demon... Actually DA35 is probably the slowest-focusing DA lens...

11-25-2010, 12:20 PM	#25
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	The photos open in a new window but remain thumbnail size for me. Would you mind showing distortion at 18mm and sharpness at 135mm, wide open?

11-25-2010, 01:07 PM	#26
syoon1970 New Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Sydney Posts: 16	Originally posted by Pentaxor hmmm...comparing two different lenses are quite tricky especially if one is a zoom lens. personally I won't just rely on the exif for focal length equivalence but would look at the images on the viewfinder for exact focal length comparison. you can use the focal length indicator on the lens as a starting point and make the necessary adjustment from there. use the prime lens first as your basis for focal length. it would be also advisable to use a tripod. in this scenario, it is better to shoot at proper exposure for both lenses rather than have to adjust. also, you need something with a better and a definitive background, subject shot from equivalent mfd for both lenses to infinity for the background. this is a bit of work, but atleast the tests would be more reliable. as far as the samples are concerned, bokeh don't seem to be different due to the difference in focal length distance. one seems to be short of 5mm (2nd pic). sharpness seems to be sharper on the 2nd pic as well, although this is a bit hard to judge since they don't have the similar focal length distance. I would assume the 2nd pic would appear better if the focal length distance are identical. Lol, thanks for the tips, guys. I do know most of the facts you mention, and perhaps I should have guessed there would be criticisms despite the disclaimer of "quick and dirty".. I guess I was a bit excited after seeing the impressive results. Just a few explanations for what it's worth: 1. I dislike flash intensely for indoor shots. I also wanted a clean image which was the reason for ISO200, which then meant that to get a fast enough shutter speed, I had to underexpose. I can do this knowing K-5's dynamic range. 2. Regarding focus speed asked about, I believe the favourable comparison is to other SDM lenses, not internal focus motor of K-5. Additioanally, there is an even bigger gap when using live view contrast detect. Despite the failings of my test methods, I think the lens does extremely well against a prime..

11-25-2010, 03:15 PM	#27
pcarfan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Dayton, Ohio Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,978	Thank you for the 18-250 comparison....in firefox it opens the full size, not in explorer. It is a very close call, I wonder whether you will be posting shots at other focal lengths?

11-25-2010, 03:34 PM	#28
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	I can see the 1024 pixel versions now. I didn't look at which lens was which, I just looked at the photos. I thought the 18-135 was the winner due to better contrast.

11-25-2010, 03:40 PM	#29
bobmaxja Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Laval, Quebec Canada Posts: 2,171	Honestly for 99.9 % of the peoples, nobody will see the difference when photo are printed but Still a good all around lens

11-25-2010, 04:03 PM	#30
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by bobmaxja Honestly for 99.9 % of the peoples, nobody will see the difference when photo are printed but Still a good all around lens The 18-250 is a good all-round lens too, but in the end I felt it was not good enough. Maybe I shouldn't be looking at the 18-135, but I'm attracted to the features it has over the 18-250 (WR, DC, no zoom creep).