Anyone with the DA 18-135 and the DA 16-45?

gazonk · 12-02-2010, 04:19 AM

The DA 18-135 is tempting me! It's a very useful lens for those rainy or snowy days, both because of the WR, and in terms of focal length range. While it could be very useful as my first WR lens for my K10D, I'm also watching for good kit prices with the K-5.

BUT... if IQ is just so-so, I'm afraid I may end up not using it except for the rainy days. So I wonder of any of you early 18-135 owners also use the DA16-45 and could give any judgement on how they compare IQ-wise? I see the 18-135 has some CA, but I'm used to that from the 16-45, so if it's not any worse, I can live with that. But I wonder if they're comparable in terms of sharpness, rendering, bokeh, contrast?

imtheguy · 12-02-2010, 06:12 AM

I will add the da18-135 to my da16-45 when UPS arrives around noon today.

If no one else has answered your question in a couple of days I should be able to.

gazonk · 12-02-2010, 06:36 AM

Originally posted by imtheguy

I will add the da18-135 to my da16-45 when UPS arrives around noon today.

If no one else has answered your question in a couple of days I should be able to.

Great! Looking forward to your report!

pcarfan · 12-02-2010, 06:44 AM

Originally posted by imtheguy

I will add the da18-135 to my da16-45 when UPS arrives around noon today.

If no one else has answered your question in a couple of days I should be able to.

Thank you....I'd be very interested in this as well.

pcarfan · 12-09-2010, 04:50 PM

A friendly bump as a reminder

imtheguy · 12-09-2010, 07:04 PM

I THOUGHT I had filled all my promises from weeks ago. Missed one.

So far I compared the 18-135 to the 55-300 @ 135mm and to the 16-45 @18mm. Nothing scientific but the 55-300 is sharper at 135mm (its sweet spot likely) and the 16-45 has less PF at 18mm of twigs against the sky. Those are the only things that were obvious. I owe us a closer look but don't have the matching shots handy. I will get some identical shots but will be shocked if the 16-45 does not look slightly better in all aspects over its range..

That said, I really like the 18-135 so far and took it downtown today to do some wide shots with sun, blue sky and square buildings. For my only walk-around lens I am happy. This is my third try at a walk-around lens and feels like it will stick. The other two were sold (Sigma 24-135/2.8-?, Pentax 18-250) after a few months each.

Is there anything in particular in pics the folks in Dayton and Oslo would like to see so you can judge for yourselves between the two lenses?

gazonk · 12-10-2010, 03:36 AM

Originally posted by imtheguy

Is there anything in particular in pics the folks in Dayton and Oslo would like to see so you can judge for yourselves between the two lenses?

Thanks for the report! Good to hear that you're happy with the lens so far.

That the 16-45 has less PF may be a little worrying (I think it has more than enough CA), but maybe something one can live with. The 16-45 is IMHO very nice for close to close-up work in the long part of its range (35-45mm), sharp and with quite nice bokeh. Do you have any shots from the 18-135 in this range which could tell anything about center sharpness and bokeh?

pcarfan · 12-10-2010, 05:26 AM

Lee,

Thanks for the report, that was sufficent for me.

12-02-2010, 04:19 AM	#1
gazonk Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Oslo area, Norway Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,746	Anyone with the DA 18-135 and the DA 16-45? The DA 18-135 is tempting me! It's a very useful lens for those rainy or snowy days, both because of the WR, and in terms of focal length range. While it could be very useful as my first WR lens for my K10D, I'm also watching for good kit prices with the K-5. BUT... if IQ is just so-so, I'm afraid I may end up not using it except for the rainy days. So I wonder of any of you early 18-135 owners also use the DA16-45 and could give any judgement on how they compare IQ-wise? I see the 18-135 has some CA, but I'm used to that from the 16-45, so if it's not any worse, I can live with that. But I wonder if they're comparable in terms of sharpness, rendering, bokeh, contrast?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Chinon 135 & Chinar 135 , Good Bad or Ugly	seacapt	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	1	02-26-2010 09:03 PM
shoot out DA50-135 v.s. A50 A85 A100 A*135	Douglas_of_Sweden	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	42	12-11-2008 10:44 AM

12-02-2010, 06:12 AM	#2
imtheguy Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Virginia Beach Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,950	I will add the da18-135 to my da16-45 when UPS arrives around noon today. If no one else has answered your question in a couple of days I should be able to.

12-02-2010, 06:36 AM	#3
gazonk Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Oslo area, Norway Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,746 Original Poster	Originally posted by imtheguy I will add the da18-135 to my da16-45 when UPS arrives around noon today. If no one else has answered your question in a couple of days I should be able to. Great! Looking forward to your report!

12-02-2010, 06:44 AM	#4
pcarfan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Dayton, Ohio Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,978	Originally posted by imtheguy I will add the da18-135 to my da16-45 when UPS arrives around noon today. If no one else has answered your question in a couple of days I should be able to. Thank you....I'd be very interested in this as well.

12-09-2010, 04:50 PM	#5
pcarfan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Dayton, Ohio Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,978	A friendly bump as a reminder

12-09-2010, 07:04 PM	#6
imtheguy Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Virginia Beach Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,950	I THOUGHT I had filled all my promises from weeks ago. Missed one. So far I compared the 18-135 to the 55-300 @ 135mm and to the 16-45 @18mm. Nothing scientific but the 55-300 is sharper at 135mm (its sweet spot likely) and the 16-45 has less PF at 18mm of twigs against the sky. Those are the only things that were obvious. I owe us a closer look but don't have the matching shots handy. I will get some identical shots but will be shocked if the 16-45 does not look slightly better in all aspects over its range.. That said, I really like the 18-135 so far and took it downtown today to do some wide shots with sun, blue sky and square buildings. For my only walk-around lens I am happy. This is my third try at a walk-around lens and feels like it will stick. The other two were sold (Sigma 24-135/2.8-?, Pentax 18-250) after a few months each. Is there anything in particular in pics the folks in Dayton and Oslo would like to see so you can judge for yourselves between the two lenses?

12-10-2010, 03:36 AM	#7
gazonk Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Oslo area, Norway Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,746 Original Poster	Originally posted by imtheguy Is there anything in particular in pics the folks in Dayton and Oslo would like to see so you can judge for yourselves between the two lenses? Thanks for the report! Good to hear that you're happy with the lens so far. That the 16-45 has less PF may be a little worrying (I think it has more than enough CA), but maybe something one can live with. The 16-45 is IMHO very nice for close to close-up work in the long part of its range (35-45mm), sharp and with quite nice bokeh. Do you have any shots from the 18-135 in this range which could tell anything about center sharpness and bokeh?

12-10-2010, 05:26 AM	#8
pcarfan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Dayton, Ohio Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,978	Lee, Thanks for the report, that was sufficent for me.