Request: Comparison between DA 18-135mm and DA 17-70mm

gnaztee · 12-03-2010, 09:26 AM

Just throwing this out there for anyone who has both of these (realize not many have the 18-135 yet). I'm really interested in selling the 17-70 to buy the 18-135, IF the IQ is closely comparable (stopped down...looking for mostly landscape use).

So, if anyone has both, I'd love to see any comparison shots that demonstrate sharpness between the lenses (they don't have to be boring test shots, I'll take real-world pics too!)

Anyway, if anyone gets around to this, I think some on here would like to see it! Thanks!

Adam · 12-03-2010, 06:51 PM

I don't have both, but here's a simple proof:

The 18-135mm is better than the kit lens but worse than the DA* 50-135mm.
The 17-70mm is better than the kit lens but worse than the DA* 16-50mm and 50-135mm.

Therefore, both the 17-70mm and 18-135mm are better than the kit lens and worse than the DA*, which makes them comparable

I'm sure you've already read our review: SMC Pentax-DA 18-135mm Review | Pentax 18-135mm | PentaxForums.com

In a nutshell, the IQ is pretty good, but nothing spectacular considering it covers such a wide zoom range. Stopped down, it's just fine- check those sample photos in the dropdown.

Adam · 12-03-2010, 06:58 PM

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)

gnaztee · 12-03-2010, 09:09 PM

Thanks Adam,

One thing though: I'm not convinced the 17-70 is worse than the 16-50, which would mess the tidy comparison up a little bit. I've already read your review (great job, btw), but I'm still not sure. I might be better off just selling the 17-70 to pay for part of a 50-135!

simico · 12-04-2010, 03:25 AM

Originally posted by gnaztee

I'm not convinced the 17-70 is worse than the 16-50

Me neither. After owning both lenses, the 17-70 isn't worse in IQ than the 16-50. At least my copies, in my experience

VF-19 · 12-04-2010, 06:12 AM

Before I make the leap to the 18-125, I'm wondering if it's better or comparable to the sigma 18-125 (the older, non HSM 3.5-5.6 model) I have.

It is a rather large chunck of change...

Biro · 12-04-2010, 12:22 PM

I'd like to know if the old DA 16-45 is better or worse than the new 18-135 in the 18-45mm range. Anyone have experience with both lenses yet?

GeneV · 12-04-2010, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by simico

Me neither. After owning both lenses, the 17-70 isn't worse in IQ than the 16-50. At least my copies, in my experience

With tested center MTF values up over 2,200 for both of them at most shared FL and aperture values, they are both excellent to the point that I could see how it might be hard to say one is a clear winner. They are both darn good. Each has other advantages, as well.

Aegon · 12-04-2010, 01:13 PM

IQ aside, the 18-135 doesn't have SDM. Which makes it the winner in my book.

gnaztee · 12-04-2010, 01:38 PM

Actually, I find the AF on the 17-70 quite fast, but I'm guessing that's the short focus throw. I've had no issues with SDM either.

I've waited for quite awhile for a moderate superzoom with WR and very good resolution. The 18-135 is everything I want, I just want to make sure the resolution rivals the 17-70 for landscapes in the range around F8. If so, it's a no-brainer for me. Until I have some comparison on this, I'll sit on my hands!

simonkit · 12-04-2010, 01:56 PM

I use the DA17-70 and personally find it excellent, I've been following the development of the 18-135 with interest, mainly due to the WR but having read the review, which I didn't think was particularly positive considering its written by a pentax fan, I can't imagine it's as good as the 17-70. I can't see as it justifies spending more cash than the 17-70. Just my initial thoughts

Simon

GeneV · 12-04-2010, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by gnaztee

Actually, I find the AF on the 17-70 quite fast, but I'm guessing that's the short focus throw. I've had no issues with SDM either.

I've waited for quite awhile for a moderate superzoom with WR and very good resolution. The 18-135 is everything I want, I just want to make sure the resolution rivals the 17-70 for landscapes in the range around F8. If so, it's a no-brainer for me. Until I have some comparison on this, I'll sit on my hands!

I also own the 17-70, and I will be very surprised if the 7x lens performs like this excellent 4x which sells for around the same price. I just don't see them as filling the same niche.

**Clarkey** · 12-05-2010, 05:54 PM

Interestedly following the thread. I sold my 16-45 for a 15mm, but I am really missing a zoom. I have the 18-55mm WR, but it isn't good enough below F6.3-7.1 for my taste, and the colour and contrast are not a patch on the 16-45.

On the table for me are all three: 17-70, 18-135, 16-50.
Each have their pros and cons.
I just wish that the 18-135 had been a 16-85 like another brand - imagine that range, sealed....

I'm scared 18mm will not be wide enough for me. Then again, I shot 28-200mm for a long while on film, so maybe.

**Clarkey** · 12-05-2010, 07:23 PM

Originally posted by simonkit

I use the DA17-70 and personally find it excellent, I've been following the development of the 18-135 with interest, mainly due to the WR but having read the review, which I didn't think was particularly positive considering its written by a pentax fan, I can't imagine it's as good as the 17-70. I can't see as it justifies spending more cash than the 17-70. Just my initial thoughts

Simon

Interesting. The website in your link has some fairly wonderful photos - kudos.
Do you find you use the 17-70 for a fair bit of your work, or do you use a variety of lenses?
I ask, since my serious (e.g. not family) photography is landscape based.

I'm also curious about the price, since the 17-70 is priced well above the 18-135mm here in Canada, and the 16-50 even more so.

cheers.

opiet70 · 12-05-2010, 08:15 PM

Originally posted by Clarkey

Interestedly following the thread. I sold my 16-45 for a 15mm, but I am really missing a zoom. I have the 18-55mm WR, but it isn't good enough below F6.3-7.1 for my taste, and the colour and contrast are not a patch on the 16-45.

On the table for me are all three: 17-70, 18-135, 16-50.
Each have their pros and cons.
I just wish that the 18-135 had been a 16-85 like another brand - imagine that range, sealed....

I'm scared 18mm will not be wide enough for me. Then again, I shot 28-200mm for a long while on film, so maybe.

You can always get a 12-24. That's a wonderful landscape lens! Sorry for attributing to your LBA..

12-03-2010, 09:26 AM	#1
gnaztee Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: West Palm Beach, FL Posts: 772	Request: Comparison between DA 18-135mm and DA 17-70mm Just throwing this out there for anyone who has both of these (realize not many have the 18-135 yet). I'm really interested in selling the 17-70 to buy the 18-135, IF the IQ is closely comparable (stopped down...looking for mostly landscape use). So, if anyone has both, I'd love to see any comparison shots that demonstrate sharpness between the lenses (they don't have to be boring test shots, I'll take real-world pics too!) Anyway, if anyone gets around to this, I think some on here would like to see it! Thanks!

12-03-2010, 06:51 PM	#2
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,595	I don't have both, but here's a simple proof: The 18-135mm is better than the kit lens but worse than the DA* 50-135mm. The 17-70mm is better than the kit lens but worse than the DA* 16-50mm and 50-135mm. Therefore, both the 17-70mm and 18-135mm are better than the kit lens and worse than the DA, which makes them comparable I'm sure you've already read our review: SMC Pentax-DA 18-135mm Review \| Pentax 18-135mm \| PentaxForums.com In a nutshell, the IQ is pretty good, but nothing spectacular considering it covers such a wide zoom range. Stopped down, it's just fine- check those sample photos in the dropdown. Adam* PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide \| Site Help \| My Photography) PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

12-03-2010, 06:58 PM	#3
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,595	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) Adam PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide \| Site Help \| My Photography) PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
DA* 50-135mm vs Tamron 70-200mm Comparison and Shootout	heliphoto	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	39	11-04-2022 06:28 PM
Comparison of photographs. DA 18-135mm/3.5-5.6 , DA 70mm, Carl Zeiss 28, 50, 100mm	Mr. A.S.	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	35	12-06-2010 08:29 AM
DA* 50-135mm or DA 70mm limited?	shang	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	10	11-16-2010 08:00 PM
comparison shot request: Zenitar 16mm vs. 18-55	Steve Beswick	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	12	10-25-2010 05:28 PM
DA 70mm or DA* 50-135mm	disya2	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	22	04-20-2010 11:13 PM

12-03-2010, 09:09 PM	#4
gnaztee Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: West Palm Beach, FL Posts: 772 Original Poster	Thanks Adam, One thing though: I'm not convinced the 17-70 is worse than the 16-50, which would mess the tidy comparison up a little bit. I've already read your review (great job, btw), but I'm still not sure. I might be better off just selling the 17-70 to pay for part of a 50-135!

12-04-2010, 03:25 AM	#5
simico Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Budapest Posts: 821	Originally posted by gnaztee I'm not convinced the 17-70 is worse than the 16-50 Me neither. After owning both lenses, the 17-70 isn't worse in IQ than the 16-50. At least my copies, in my experience

12-04-2010, 06:12 AM	#6
VF-19 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Ottawa Posts: 364	Before I make the leap to the 18-125, I'm wondering if it's better or comparable to the sigma 18-125 (the older, non HSM 3.5-5.6 model) I have. It is a rather large chunck of change...

12-04-2010, 12:22 PM	#7
Biro Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 1,200	I'd like to know if the old DA 16-45 is better or worse than the new 18-135 in the 18-45mm range. Anyone have experience with both lenses yet?

12-04-2010, 12:41 PM	#8
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by simico Me neither. After owning both lenses, the 17-70 isn't worse in IQ than the 16-50. At least my copies, in my experience With tested center MTF values up over 2,200 for both of them at most shared FL and aperture values, they are both excellent to the point that I could see how it might be hard to say one is a clear winner. They are both darn good. Each has other advantages, as well.

12-04-2010, 01:13 PM	#9
Aegon Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 1,416	IQ aside, the 18-135 doesn't have SDM. Which makes it the winner in my book.

12-04-2010, 01:38 PM	#10
gnaztee Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: West Palm Beach, FL Posts: 772 Original Poster	Actually, I find the AF on the 17-70 quite fast, but I'm guessing that's the short focus throw. I've had no issues with SDM either. I've waited for quite awhile for a moderate superzoom with WR and very good resolution. The 18-135 is everything I want, I just want to make sure the resolution rivals the 17-70 for landscapes in the range around F8. If so, it's a no-brainer for me. Until I have some comparison on this, I'll sit on my hands!

12-04-2010, 01:56 PM	#11
simonkit Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: North Wales, UK Posts: 645	I use the DA17-70 and personally find it excellent, I've been following the development of the 18-135 with interest, mainly due to the WR but having read the review, which I didn't think was particularly positive considering its written by a pentax fan, I can't imagine it's as good as the 17-70. I can't see as it justifies spending more cash than the 17-70. Just my initial thoughts Simon

12-04-2010, 03:07 PM	#12
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by gnaztee Actually, I find the AF on the 17-70 quite fast, but I'm guessing that's the short focus throw. I've had no issues with SDM either. I've waited for quite awhile for a moderate superzoom with WR and very good resolution. The 18-135 is everything I want, I just want to make sure the resolution rivals the 17-70 for landscapes in the range around F8. If so, it's a no-brainer for me. Until I have some comparison on this, I'll sit on my hands! I also own the 17-70, and I will be very surprised if the 7x lens performs like this excellent 4x which sells for around the same price. I just don't see them as filling the same niche.

12-05-2010, 05:54 PM	#13
Clarkey Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Brampton, ON, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,456	Interestedly following the thread. I sold my 16-45 for a 15mm, but I am really missing a zoom. I have the 18-55mm WR, but it isn't good enough below F6.3-7.1 for my taste, and the colour and contrast are not a patch on the 16-45. On the table for me are all three: 17-70, 18-135, 16-50. Each have their pros and cons. I just wish that the 18-135 had been a 16-85 like another brand - imagine that range, sealed.... I'm scared 18mm will not be wide enough for me. Then again, I shot 28-200mm for a long while on film, so maybe.

12-05-2010, 07:23 PM	#14
Clarkey Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Brampton, ON, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,456	Originally posted by simonkit I use the DA17-70 and personally find it excellent, I've been following the development of the 18-135 with interest, mainly due to the WR but having read the review, which I didn't think was particularly positive considering its written by a pentax fan, I can't imagine it's as good as the 17-70. I can't see as it justifies spending more cash than the 17-70. Just my initial thoughts Simon Interesting. The website in your link has some fairly wonderful photos - kudos. Do you find you use the 17-70 for a fair bit of your work, or do you use a variety of lenses? I ask, since my serious (e.g. not family) photography is landscape based. I'm also curious about the price, since the 17-70 is priced well above the 18-135mm here in Canada, and the 16-50 even more so. cheers.

12-05-2010, 08:15 PM	#15
opiet70 Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Dallas, TX Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 499	Originally posted by Clarkey Interestedly following the thread. I sold my 16-45 for a 15mm, but I am really missing a zoom. I have the 18-55mm WR, but it isn't good enough below F6.3-7.1 for my taste, and the colour and contrast are not a patch on the 16-45. On the table for me are all three: 17-70, 18-135, 16-50. Each have their pros and cons. I just wish that the 18-135 had been a 16-85 like another brand - imagine that range, sealed.... I'm scared 18mm will not be wide enough for me. Then again, I shot 28-200mm for a long while on film, so maybe. You can always get a 12-24. That's a wonderful landscape lens! Sorry for attributing to your LBA..