DA 18-135mm Full-Length REVIEW

whojammyflip · 11-29-2010, 12:53 AM

Originally posted by Class A

Any lens stopped down to f/8 will get you into business

damn, should have just set my camera phone to f8 rather than buy all that glass

Originally posted by yusuf

slow, limited focal range, overpriced piece of glass

A zoom range of 7.5x is really interesting to me. Its not slow in comparison to the competition, check out the Canon 18-200mm f3.5-f5.6. Price wise, we are heading into Christmas, and this is a new product: if you want to pick it up cheaper, you could wait a few months. Besides, its much cheaper than the RRP prices of lenses like the Canon 18-200mm. Its impossible to have cheap, fast and good: there has to be a compromise.

Last edited by whojammyflip; 11-29-2010 at 01:25 AM.

Class A · 11-29-2010, 01:38 AM

Originally posted by hoojammyflip

damn, should have just set my camera phone to f8 rather than buy all that glass

Hey, let's not start a format war here.

akanarya · 11-29-2010, 01:44 AM

thanks very much for review, it is needed.
And IMHO, comparision of this lens with 50-135 & 60-250 is honour thinking 1/2 to 1/3 price.
But i would wish that 18-135 price would be say 200$ more but IQ is very close to 50-135.

**ManuH** · 11-29-2010, 08:03 AM

Originally posted by Class A

Sorry, but I don't like the Sigma bashing based on past years. Have a look at this comparison involving the Pentax 16-50, a Sigma 18-50 and the Tamron 17-50 and tell me the Pentax is the best. It surely doesn't come across like the best at all.

I'm surprised by this test, in particular the softness of the Pentax @ f/2.8. Maybe a bad copy or wrong focusing (not unheard of, even by "pro" reviewers...) ? I'd swear my 16-50mm is sharp at f/2.8 at all focal length at least in the center. That was the Photozone result too BTW.

I have access to a Tamron 17-50mm, I may indulge myself in pixel peeping comparisons...

GeneV · 11-29-2010, 10:00 AM

Originally posted by Class A

But isn't the rumour that the newer (cheaper) Pentax AF is more reliable than the old and slow SDM?

Sorry, but I don't like the Sigma bashing based on past years. Have a look at this comparison involving the Pentax 16-50, a Sigma 18-50 and the Tamron 17-50 and tell me the Pentax is the best. It surely doesn't come across like the best at all.

Not my intent to bash Sigma as a brand at all. I own one that I like very much. I am just saying that the Sigma 18-250 is, to my knowledge, a relatively untested product in the Pentax mount. I don't hear much about it on this board, either. I would be far less inclined to send about $500 off for that lens than the DA 18-135, reviewed here. Now, if a test showed it to be equivalent or truly superior, that is another matter.

audiobomber · 11-29-2010, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by GeneV

I am just saying that the Sigma 18-250 is, to my knowledge, a relatively untested product in the Pentax mount. I don't hear much about it on this board, either. I would be far less inclined to send about $500 off for that lens than the DA 18-135, reviewed here. Now, if a test showed it to be equivalent or truly superior, that is another matter.

SLR Gear tested the Sigma 18-250 in Canon or Nikon mount. It appears to be just a tick below the Tamron 18-250. If the new 18-135 doesn't outperform the Sigma, I'll be shocked.

Parallax · 11-29-2010, 10:59 AM

Originally posted by GeneV

Not my intent to bash Sigma as a brand at all. I own one that I like very much. I am just saying that the Sigma 18-250 is, to my knowledge, a relatively untested product in the Pentax mount. I don't hear much about it on this board, either. I would be far less inclined to send about $500 off for that lens than the DA 18-135, reviewed here. Now, if a test showed it to be equivalent or truly superior, that is another matter.

I have the Sigma 18-250 OS HSM. It is a bit better than I expected, but not as good as I had hoped. I have had some really good shots from it, and some that were disappointing. (I have to assume that the good ones were due to my abilities and the not-so-good ones are due to the lens' shortcomings.

)
Seriously, the OS doesn't seem as good as the internal stabilization of the body, its focus speed on my K20 is fine, and the IQ is pretty good for a super zoom. That is all purely subjective, but that is my impression. (see my sig line).
The one thing that is not subjective is that, as with other Sigma lenses, it is not identified properly to the camera. The camera thinks it is a 70-200 so when using auto ISO it will let the shutter speed drop to 1/180 before raising ISO instead of holding at 1/250.

I agree with audiobomber. I will be surprised as well if the Pentax doesn't surpass it optically.

deadwolfbones · 11-29-2010, 11:19 AM

My 18-135 just got here... as others have said, I'm really surprised at how compact it is. Build seems really nice. AF is accurate and about as quick as a comparable screwdrive lens. Makes a quiet humming noise when focusing. Doesn't seem to adjust focus as much as screwdrive lenses. I'll be taking it out for lunch and will hopefully have some photos to show after work.

ohyouloveme · 11-29-2010, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by deadwolfbones

My 18-135 just got here... as others have said, I'm really surprised at how compact it is. Build seems really nice. AF is accurate and about as quick as a comparable screwdrive lens. Makes a quiet humming noise when focusing. Doesn't seem to adjust focus as much as screwdrive lenses. I'll be taking it out for lunch and will hopefully have some photos to show after work.

looking forward to it!

GeneV · 11-29-2010, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by deadwolfbones

My 18-135 just got here... as others have said, I'm really surprised at how compact it is. Build seems really nice. AF is accurate and about as quick as a comparable screwdrive lens. Makes a quiet humming noise when focusing. Doesn't seem to adjust focus as much as screwdrive lenses. I'll be taking it out for lunch and will hopefully have some photos to show after work.

You may get some camera shake from the cold wind we are having.

deadwolfbones · 11-29-2010, 02:41 PM

Originally posted by GeneV

You may get some camera shake from the cold wind we are having.

At least I'll be ok if it starts snowing...

GeneV · 11-29-2010, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by Parallax

I have the Sigma 18-250 OS HSM. It is a bit better than I expected, but not as good as I had hoped. I have had some really good shots from it, and some that were disappointing. (I have to assume that the good ones were due to my abilities and the not-so-good ones are due to the lens' shortcomings.

)
Seriously, the OS doesn't seem as good as the internal stabilization of the body, its focus speed on my K20 is fine, and the IQ is pretty good for a super zoom. That is all purely subjective, but that is my impression. (see my sig line).
The one thing that is not subjective is that, as with other Sigma lenses, it is not identified properly to the camera. The camera thinks it is a 70-200 so when using auto ISO it will let the shutter speed drop to 1/180 before raising ISO instead of holding at 1/250.

I agree with audiobomber. I will be surprised as well if the Pentax doesn't surpass it optically.

Yeah, my Sigma 17-35 also shows up as a Tamron of some other focal length in EXIF.

I would think that the stabilization issues could possibly make a difference in how this lens performs on a Pentax as compared to some other mount. In any case, I like to see a test of a complicated zoom like this in the Pentax mount or hear from others before sending in $500. Adam's test goes a long way toward making the Pentax more attractive.

Parallax · 11-29-2010, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by GeneV

........ Adam's test goes a long way toward making the Pentax more attractive.

It makes it more attractive to me, too.

GeneV · 11-29-2010, 03:06 PM

Originally posted by Parallax

It makes it more attractive to me, too.

Fortunately, a walkaround superzoom is not what I need right now. My next lens will be a longish macro--probably a Sigma, coincidentally--with a macro flash. I had so much fun shooting butterflies last September that I got hooked.

Class A · 11-29-2010, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by ManuH

I'm surprised by this test, in particular the softness of the Pentax @ f/2.8.

I was surprised as well, after having heard so much praise for the Pentax 16-50. I thought maybe it is this phenomenon about some Pentax lenses, like the 12-24, that receive tremendous praise from Pentaxians but when evaluated by other people in other mounts (in this case the Tokina 12-24), they are regarded as competent but not out of this world. However, it is quite possible that the comparison I referenced doesn't do the Pentax 16-50 full justice. I'd be interested to see your comparison to the Tamron 17-50.

Originally posted by GeneV

Not my intent to bash Sigma as a brand at all.

All good then.

And thanks for being easy me regarding my response.

Originally posted by deadwolfbones

Doesn't seem to adjust focus as much as screwdrive lenses.

That should not depend on the AF drive mechanism of the lens but rather on the AF module of the camera and sometimes the optical properties of the lens.

BTW, I also expect the 18-135 to be better than a 18-250. All I was trying to say that a) it is not a given and b) the Tamron 18-250 is better than the term "super zoom" suggests.

11-29-2010, 10:39 AM	#51
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by GeneV I am just saying that the Sigma 18-250 is, to my knowledge, a relatively untested product in the Pentax mount. I don't hear much about it on this board, either. I would be far less inclined to send about $500 off for that lens than the DA 18-135, reviewed here. Now, if a test showed it to be equivalent or truly superior, that is another matter. SLR Gear tested the Sigma 18-250 in Canon or Nikon mount. It appears to be just a tick below the Tamron 18-250. If the new 18-135 doesn't outperform the Sigma, I'll be shocked. Last edited by audiobomber; 11-29-2010 at 11:31 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pentax K-5 Full-length Review by PentaxForums.com	Adam	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	79	12-14-2011 02:53 AM
Full Length Portraits 31mm or 35mm	candgpics	Photographic Technique	9	09-25-2009 06:51 AM
first Pentax K-7 full review w/ FW 1.0	jogiba	Pentax News and Rumors	125	08-18-2009 06:23 PM
Full length (super)telephoto portraits?	CSoars	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	14	12-01-2008 01:28 PM
News Our First Full-Length Reviews!	Adam	Site Suggestions and Help	10	01-17-2007 06:57 PM

11-29-2010, 12:53 AM	#46
whojammyflip Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 417	Originally posted by Class A Any lens stopped down to f/8 will get you into business damn, should have just set my camera phone to f8 rather than buy all that glass Originally posted by yusuf slow, limited focal range, overpriced piece of glass A zoom range of 7.5x is really interesting to me. Its not slow in comparison to the competition, check out the Canon 18-200mm f3.5-f5.6. Price wise, we are heading into Christmas, and this is a new product: if you want to pick it up cheaper, you could wait a few months. Besides, its much cheaper than the RRP prices of lenses like the Canon 18-200mm. Its impossible to have cheap, fast and good: there has to be a compromise. Last edited by whojammyflip; 11-29-2010 at 01:25 AM.

11-29-2010, 01:38 AM	#47
Class A Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 11,251	Originally posted by hoojammyflip damn, should have just set my camera phone to f8 rather than buy all that glass Hey, let's not start a format war here.

11-29-2010, 01:44 AM	#48
akanarya Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Çankırı, Turkey Posts: 210	thanks very much for review, it is needed. And IMHO, comparision of this lens with 50-135 & 60-250 is honour thinking 1/2 to 1/3 price. But i would wish that 18-135 price would be say 200$ more but IQ is very close to 50-135.

11-29-2010, 08:03 AM	#49
ManuH Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Montreal Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,249	Originally posted by Class A Sorry, but I don't like the Sigma bashing based on past years. Have a look at this comparison involving the Pentax 16-50, a Sigma 18-50 and the Tamron 17-50 and tell me the Pentax is the best. It surely doesn't come across like the best at all. I'm surprised by this test, in particular the softness of the Pentax @ f/2.8. Maybe a bad copy or wrong focusing (not unheard of, even by "pro" reviewers...) ? I'd swear my 16-50mm is sharp at f/2.8 at all focal length at least in the center. That was the Photozone result too BTW. I have access to a Tamron 17-50mm, I may indulge myself in pixel peeping comparisons...

11-29-2010, 10:00 AM	#50
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by Class A But isn't the rumour that the newer (cheaper) Pentax AF is more reliable than the old and slow SDM? Sorry, but I don't like the Sigma bashing based on past years. Have a look at this comparison involving the Pentax 16-50, a Sigma 18-50 and the Tamron 17-50 and tell me the Pentax is the best. It surely doesn't come across like the best at all. Not my intent to bash Sigma as a brand at all. I own one that I like very much. I am just saying that the Sigma 18-250 is, to my knowledge, a relatively untested product in the Pentax mount. I don't hear much about it on this board, either. I would be far less inclined to send about $500 off for that lens than the DA 18-135, reviewed here. Now, if a test showed it to be equivalent or truly superior, that is another matter.

11-29-2010, 10:59 AM	#52
Parallax Senior Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Dakota Photos: Gallery Posts: 19,332	Originally posted by GeneV Not my intent to bash Sigma as a brand at all. I own one that I like very much. I am just saying that the Sigma 18-250 is, to my knowledge, a relatively untested product in the Pentax mount. I don't hear much about it on this board, either. I would be far less inclined to send about $500 off for that lens than the DA 18-135, reviewed here. Now, if a test showed it to be equivalent or truly superior, that is another matter. I have the Sigma 18-250 OS HSM. It is a bit better than I expected, but not as good as I had hoped. I have had some really good shots from it, and some that were disappointing. (I have to assume that the good ones were due to my abilities and the not-so-good ones are due to the lens' shortcomings. ) Seriously, the OS doesn't seem as good as the internal stabilization of the body, its focus speed on my K20 is fine, and the IQ is pretty good for a super zoom. That is all purely subjective, but that is my impression. (see my sig line). The one thing that is not subjective is that, as with other Sigma lenses, it is not identified properly to the camera. The camera thinks it is a 70-200 so when using auto ISO it will let the shutter speed drop to 1/180 before raising ISO instead of holding at 1/250. I agree with audiobomber. I will be surprised as well if the Pentax doesn't surpass it optically.

11-29-2010, 11:19 AM	#53
deadwolfbones Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: La Crescenta, CA Posts: 7,450	My 18-135 just got here... as others have said, I'm really surprised at how compact it is. Build seems really nice. AF is accurate and about as quick as a comparable screwdrive lens. Makes a quiet humming noise when focusing. Doesn't seem to adjust focus as much as screwdrive lenses. I'll be taking it out for lunch and will hopefully have some photos to show after work.

11-29-2010, 11:49 AM	#54
ohyouloveme Inactive Account Join Date: Apr 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 79	Originally posted by deadwolfbones My 18-135 just got here... as others have said, I'm really surprised at how compact it is. Build seems really nice. AF is accurate and about as quick as a comparable screwdrive lens. Makes a quiet humming noise when focusing. Doesn't seem to adjust focus as much as screwdrive lenses. I'll be taking it out for lunch and will hopefully have some photos to show after work. looking forward to it!

11-29-2010, 02:05 PM	#55
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by deadwolfbones My 18-135 just got here... as others have said, I'm really surprised at how compact it is. Build seems really nice. AF is accurate and about as quick as a comparable screwdrive lens. Makes a quiet humming noise when focusing. Doesn't seem to adjust focus as much as screwdrive lenses. I'll be taking it out for lunch and will hopefully have some photos to show after work. You may get some camera shake from the cold wind we are having.

11-29-2010, 02:41 PM	#56
deadwolfbones Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: La Crescenta, CA Posts: 7,450	Originally posted by GeneV You may get some camera shake from the cold wind we are having. At least I'll be ok if it starts snowing...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-29-2010, 02:53 PM	#57
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by Parallax I have the Sigma 18-250 OS HSM. It is a bit better than I expected, but not as good as I had hoped. I have had some really good shots from it, and some that were disappointing. (I have to assume that the good ones were due to my abilities and the not-so-good ones are due to the lens' shortcomings. ) Seriously, the OS doesn't seem as good as the internal stabilization of the body, its focus speed on my K20 is fine, and the IQ is pretty good for a super zoom. That is all purely subjective, but that is my impression. (see my sig line). The one thing that is not subjective is that, as with other Sigma lenses, it is not identified properly to the camera. The camera thinks it is a 70-200 so when using auto ISO it will let the shutter speed drop to 1/180 before raising ISO instead of holding at 1/250. I agree with audiobomber. I will be surprised as well if the Pentax doesn't surpass it optically. Yeah, my Sigma 17-35 also shows up as a Tamron of some other focal length in EXIF. I would think that the stabilization issues could possibly make a difference in how this lens performs on a Pentax as compared to some other mount. In any case, I like to see a test of a complicated zoom like this in the Pentax mount or hear from others before sending in $500. Adam's test goes a long way toward making the Pentax more attractive.

11-29-2010, 03:02 PM	#58
Parallax Senior Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Dakota Photos: Gallery Posts: 19,332	Originally posted by GeneV ........ Adam's test goes a long way toward making the Pentax more attractive. It makes it more attractive to me, too.

11-29-2010, 03:06 PM	#59
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by Parallax It makes it more attractive to me, too. Fortunately, a walkaround superzoom is not what I need right now. My next lens will be a longish macro--probably a Sigma, coincidentally--with a macro flash. I had so much fun shooting butterflies last September that I got hooked.

11-29-2010, 03:25 PM	#60
Class A Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 11,251	Originally posted by ManuH I'm surprised by this test, in particular the softness of the Pentax @ f/2.8. I was surprised as well, after having heard so much praise for the Pentax 16-50. I thought maybe it is this phenomenon about some Pentax lenses, like the 12-24, that receive tremendous praise from Pentaxians but when evaluated by other people in other mounts (in this case the Tokina 12-24), they are regarded as competent but not out of this world. However, it is quite possible that the comparison I referenced doesn't do the Pentax 16-50 full justice. I'd be interested to see your comparison to the Tamron 17-50. Originally posted by GeneV Not my intent to bash Sigma as a brand at all. All good then. And thanks for being easy me regarding my response. Originally posted by deadwolfbones Doesn't seem to adjust focus as much as screwdrive lenses. That should not depend on the AF drive mechanism of the lens but rather on the AF module of the camera and sometimes the optical properties of the lens. BTW, I also expect the 18-135 to be better than a 18-250. All I was trying to say that a) it is not a given and b) the Tamron 18-250 is better than the term "super zoom" suggests.