[curiouspeter]

IIRC, the 18-135 does not have a distance scale and the 17-70 has a short throw. Do you guys find hyperfocal focusing difficult with either of these?

I am interested in replacing my 18-55mm with something sharper in the 20-70mm range. The kit zoom is really bad from 55mm on...

[bushwhacker09]

I love the 18-135! I had gotten a bit too smitten with my 43 & 77mm "jewels", and had forgotten just how fun an all-in-one zoom could be. The autofocus is zippy, and I honestly wouldn't think twice about ditching the 17-70.

[civiletti]

Definitely take a look at these comparisons, especially this one (linked through anchor): SMC Pentax-DA 18-135mm Review | Pentax 18-135mm | PentaxForums.com

The new zoom flattens the kit lens in performance at 18mm. Furthermore, we've actually that the new zoom has its worst resolution around 85mm for some reason (also the most vignetting there)

For landscape use, I see no advantage in the 18-135 over the kit lens. Images at f11 [a common aperture for critical landscape work] are very close.

[bpjod]

This thread has been quiet lately, but I'm still awaiting some definitive comparison between these two lenses. I did try the 18-135 in the store and I loved the size and weight. I'm also interested in the WR. My only concern is image quality. I took a few shots in store, and they were pretty decent, but all I had to compare to were my DA 21, 40 & 70 lenses - not really a fair comparison. I'd like a normal zoom. The 16-50 I've decided is too big and if I want f/2.8 I'll use my primes. I'm deciding between the 17-70 and 18-135. The 18-135 pleased me in pretty much all respects, but it's image quality is a step down from the DA Ltds (not that I expected it to be as good) so I know there's some room for improvement. If it's the same or better image quality as the 17-70 then I'll get it with no hesitation. If the 17-70 is noticeably better in its range, then I'll likely get that instead.

[Clarkey]

I now own an 18-135mm. Like the colour and contrast. Someone was asking earlier about comparison with 16-45mm in 18-45mm range. I think equivalent for colour and contrast, and that the 18-135mm has the edge with respect to sharpness and Bokeh. CA much better on 18-135mm, as is flare control.

I would have no issues printing 11x17's from this lens at low iso.

Compared to 21mm, 40mm, with which I can magnify to 12-14x on K-7 LCD at low iso with fine detail rendering, I can magnify to around 8x with 18-135mm. It's pretty good.

I'm happy, but find indoors I need to boost the iso a bit due to the lack of speed - this is an issue on the K-7. Subject motion indoors is the part that is not so good, unless you really crank the iso (not an issue with K-x, K-r and K-5).

I'm considering buying a k-r to pair with it and a 40mm for a travel rig.

[Biff]

I don't have a technical comparison. I wanted to simplify and have some of the advantages of the 18-135 WR, so I sold 18-55 WR, 16-45, and 35-70 and bought this one for all three, and while I haven't shot a lot with it yet, have been very happy with the handling and results so far.

Next will be either a 15 or 12-24, and I'll be set for a while, except maybe for the 100mm macro. . .

[the swede]

I would like to know how the AF from 18-135 compare to others like 17-70, 18-55 and 16-50.
I dont mean the speed from end to end, but AF speed in general use.

Edit: aahhh, nevermind, just read the review

[rustynail925]

Anyone knows the Max aperture / focal length range of the DA18-135?

[Clarkey]

F3.5 @18mm, F4 @19-~28mm, F4.5@ 28-70mm, above, F5.6