[pcarfan]

Frank,

Thank you very much for these shots,...a nice variety to give a good idea on it's peformance.

[r0ckstarr]

Thanks for this review. This is what I have been waiting for. Line charts and graphs do nothing for me. I prefer to see the lens in actual use.

[samski_1]

Cheers Frank,

Excellent write-up. Quite impressive pictures from my perspective for a first glance at this lens.

Thanks,
Sam

[KxBlaze]

Sorry I'm not really interested to do this 'cause I still prefer actual shooting. If the results are good enough from my shaky hands, it'd be better from a tripod Besides, I'm sure we'd see a lot better reviews in next a few days.

I'm sure someone will do a controlled test soon enough and now that I think about it yours is more of a "real world" test, at least for me it is because I shoot 90% hand-held outdoors, but am still curious about the controlled results. Thanks again.

[Cambo]

Got this lens a few days ago, didn't really have time to do a thorough review, here I'm just sharing some hands-on experiences, and some sample photos taken w/ it on a K5.

The lens is much smaller than I expected, just a little bit bigger than the 1855 kit lens. But it seems to be very well built, feels solid and sturdy, no shaking even when the lens is fully extended. I don't have the DA17-70 w/ me anymore, but I do feel this new 18-135 lens is better built than the DA17-70.

AF speed is very fast, faster than any SDM lens I've ever used, and I've used all the current SDM lenses. AF is very quiet too, similar to the SDM if not quieter. Focusing ring does not turn during AF, which is a big plus to me. Oh btw, it does feature quick-shift for eash AF/MF shift. Focusing ring is located close to the camera body end, not like all the other Pentax lenses, which I think is a very clever design 'cause we won't be using the focusing ring much for a lens like this, better just put it somewhere out of the way.

The lens can focus pretty close, about 40cm all the way from 18 to 135mm, pretty useful when using it for some closeups. The round shaped aperture blades do help getting smoother bokeh. Aperture is still pretty decent at near 70mm, here is the max apertures at different focal range:

18-20mm：F3.5
21-28mm:F4
29-68mm:F4.5
69mm-135mm:F5.6

Optically the lens is pretty sharp through out the focal range, performs the best from 24 to around 100mm, sharp enough even used wide open at the wide or tele end, if focused properly. It produces very nice contrasty photos w/ pleasing colors, plus its small and compact size, fast AF, great built quality and weather-resistant design, it's one of the best travel or walkabout lens Pentax currently is offering I think.

Oh I forgot to mention, the lens looks very nice too, especially when mounted on K-5:






Here are two comparison photos between this new 18-135 lens and a 18-55 kit lens:






I didn't spend too much time taking serious review samples, all the following photos are just some random photos taken either under my flat or around Orchard Rd - the busiest shopping street here in Singapore. All photos were taken in RAW, converted with Pentax Photo Utility v4.30.

Here are a couple of comparison photos to show the focal range this lens covers:

18mm end:


135mm end:


Here are another pair:

18mm end:


135mm end:


You can see the lens covers a great range of focal length, very convenient for travel or walkabout.


Is the lens sharp enough? I think it is. Here is a shot at 48mm:

A 100% crop of the above photo:

Some wide angle sample

Some closeups:

Some street people shots:

Here are a couple for my kids to finish the review samples:



That's all for my quick review. Hope you like it.

Cheers!

and all the great photos! If you get a minute, and feel like contributing a little more, could you photograph a brick wall, dead on, at minimum - medium - maximum aperture, and at minimum - medium - maximum focal lengths? Just trying to get a grip on distortions and light falloff/vignetting.

Thanks,
Cameron

[paperbag846]

and all the great photos! If you get a minute, and feel like contributing a little more, could you photograph a brick wall, dead on, at minimum - medium - maximum aperture, and at minimum - medium - maximum focal lengths? Just trying to get a grip on distortions and light falloff/vignetting.

Thanks,
Cameron

If you can't see those things in these pictures, then it really does not matter does it?

[frank]

and all the great photos! If you get a minute, and feel like contributing a little more, could you photograph a brick wall, dead on, at minimum - medium - maximum aperture, and at minimum - medium - maximum focal lengths? Just trying to get a grip on distortions and light falloff/vignetting.

Thanks,
Cameron

Hmm, I haven't even seen a brick wall around my new flat.

Anyway, I'll only be able to take some outdoor daylight photos until weekend...

[frank]

Thanks for all the comments. This is indeed a very good travel and walkabout lens, matches great with a WR body. But it is still a slow (not slow AF, but rather small max aperture) mega zoom lens, so don't expect it'd be much better than the 1855+50200 combo

[alexeyga]

Thanks for all the comments. This is indeed a very good travel and walkabout lens, matches great with a WR body. But it is still a slow (not slow AF, but rather small max aperture) mega zoom lens, so don't expect it'd be much better than the 1855+50200 combo

Thanks for the feedback Frank... I figured a long time ago that the first company who will come up a 12-135 f/2.8 WR'ed zoom lens for APS-C, will be golden... wishful thinking....

[audiobomber]

Thanks for the feedback Frank... I figured a long time ago that the first company who will come up a 12-135 f/2.8 WR'ed zoom lens for APS-C, will be golden... wishful thinking....

There's not enough demand for a lens the size of a Volkswagen.

[alexeyga]

There's not enough demand for a lens the size of a Volkswagen.

I have a sneaky suspicion that if it was white in color with a Canon badge on it and and an "L" in specs it would sell like hotcakes despite it's size...

[Pentaxor]

could anyone exactly point where those a lot of PF on the images? I'm having a difficulty looking for those. thanks.

anyway, with regards to sharpness, bokeh, color and contrast, it is definitely better than the 18-55. there is a degree of distortion at the wide end also, but personally it looks better and improved compared to the 18-55. well-controlled CA, I expected this.

[deadwolfbones]

could anyone exactly point where those a lot of PF on the images? I'm having a difficulty looking for those. thanks.

anyway, with regards to sharpness, bokeh, color and contrast, it is definitely better than the 18-55. there is a degree of distortion at the wide end also, but personally it looks better and improved compared to the 18-55. well-controlled CA, I expected this.

I mostly noticed it in this shot (on the cars to either side):



But it's very minor.

[Pentaxor]

I mostly noticed it in this shot (on the cars to either side):



But it's very minor.

thanks. true enough that it's very minor and negligible by most circumstances. same with the other images where I find it difficult to pinpoint the pfs or easily negligible. the other instance that I saw some minor shades of pf is the last photo (lilttle girl running), the guy eating noodles, and the pair of east indian girls which I think is the worse of the pf detected on the images. other than that, the pf is not too bad. I'm saying this because I have seen much worse than these on other lenses. so, not bad.

[Nick Siebers]

Thanks Frank! Very interesting. I will say, I thought your DA 35/2.4 pics looked a little nicer. Apples to oranges, obviously, but do you agree with what you can see? Thanks again, Nick