[Chex]

P.S Dim/dark lighting seems to be the reoccurring theme for me... Bah.

Nothing Camera RAW can't take care of. Especially if your shooting with a K-5 I can recover an almost black screen.

[Vylen]

Nothing Camera RAW can't take care of. Especially if your shooting with a K-5 I can recover an almost black screen.

That'd be good and all if I had a K-5

[Chex]

Maybe time for an upgrade? My cousin also has a K20D and is contemplating an upgrade when he has time to shoot again.

[Vylen]

Nah, the K20D is still fine for me. No need to upgrade

[Chex]

Thats what my cousin was saying as welll, but I'll let him try out my K-5 and see what he thinks. He has a Bigma 50-500 and a 2X TC (he's a birder), so I would like to see the difference when you start getting higher ISO's for catching birds in the shade of the tree's etc at max zoom.

[Vylen]

I've had the K20D for 2 years now - I think it'll still do me good for a couple more at least

Plus, if I bought a new K-5, I wouldn't have any spending money for a new lens if I spot one I fancy

[the swede]

Heres a few snaps. Nothing scientific about them, just handheld test shots. Sorry for the poor weather, not optimal conditions for a test.
Shot them RAW, adjusted the curves a litle and gave them a tad clarity.

18mm @ f/3,5 (some vignetting, descent sharpness)

crop



18mm @ f/8 (vignetting better, sharpness not much improved)

crop



The lamp below is the lamp from above pictures.
135mm @ f/5,6 (vignetting, good sharpness on object, to my eye at least)




135mm @ f/8 (vignetting better, sharpness a tad better)




135mm @ f/8


Crops from above, shows details of CA or PF or whatever. Note, this would probably have been worse in brighter weather.





88mm @ f/8 (overall nice IQ)



135mm @ f/5,6 (quite nice bokeh there, both in front and after



Two casuals 135mm @ f/5,6 (i think the look nice. More PP here though)

---

Last edited by the swede; 03-10-2011 at 11:28 AM.

So the 18-135 is not a good camera for shooting window blinds. Noted. However, it has pretty respectable bokeh at the long end for sure. If some are not blown away by the colour, contrast or sharpness, I'm blown away by what seems to be a small, wicked fast, weather sealed hiking and take-anywhere machine.

[the swede]

However, it has pretty respectable bokeh at the long end for sure. If some are not blown away by the colour, contrast or sharpness, I'm blown away by what seems to be a small, wicked fast, weather sealed hiking and take-anywhere machine.

"If some are not blown away"

Does that mean you are not or you are?

My images above (exept the baby shots) are all pretty much untouched RAW files from a K-7 with no extra settings aplied in camera.

I dont think this is an fantastic lens regarding IQ, being used to Ltd's.
But, i think its a darn good lens!

The pros is:
Very good IQ (sharpness, contrast, colours) compared to other kitlenses.
Very small and compact lens, same size as an Nikkor 18-55 VR.
Really good and confident AF motor.
WR.
Usefull zoom ratio.

The possible no no's are (for some people):
High prize at the moment compared to lenses with better IQ (16-45 17-70)
not very far from a used DA*16-50.
CA and PF might be an issue (i dont not know this yet, need more testing).
Vignetting seems quite pronounced at some FL's (this is not a problem for me).

[Vylen]

I agree with the bokeh on this lens. I'm fairly fond of it - at least in the photos I've taken where it matters

And it is indeed quite sharp - as shown with that cake picture I posted a while back - the detail in the strawberries was very nice.

I haven't really taken shots where CA would be noticed so I can't comment on that.

The vignetting might be annoying for some but its not too pronounced in photos where there's a lot of detail and are busy (obviously). So if you're bothered by it, then stop taking photos of things of uniform colour

Unsuprisingly, if you take photos with the hood on and use the on-body flash, the hood will be in the way of the flash - even at the shorter focal lengths. Something people would be familiar with with long lenses but it's just something to remember.

"If some are not blown away"
Does that mean you are not or you are?

I haven't had the opportunity to use one so can't personally comment on image quality. I'm not blown away by other's images, however there are some great shots posted here by capable photographers using this lens. I wouldn't expect it to satisfy like a good prime, and that's fine. I do really think that the size and specs are pretty spiffo for a general use or hiking lens. They seemed to have packed about as much as one can into a single lens. And it's the compactness that appeals to me... and why I'm lookie-looing at a K5 and this lens along with a selection of tiny limiteds. I have this great Sony a850 and some legendary Minolta primes, but it's all so huge and heavy, and I'm a hobbyist photog with kids who travels and hikes and likes to have a very portable setup.

[Chex]

Well I just got word mine should be arriving early next week, so I'm now I'm getting anxious since I don't really want to head out in the sleet and rain with my FA 43mm Ltd. Nice PP work, love the big brown eyes.

Vignetting is pretty minor as long as its not TOO pronounced, even then it depends on what your shooting.. sometimes it helps frame your shot. I'm mainly looking for decent sharpness... I don't expect the same as my limited, as long as its decent I'll be happy. Looking at your streetlight shots I'm sure it will be fine.

[the swede]

Just some thinking out loud here.....

Im quite happy with this "allround" lens! In fact im very impressed by Pentax take on this on this one. They seem to have done everything right with this.

Theres so many good feautures to it. Now, theres always optical compromises with lenses like this, but they pulled it of great and made a kick ass package of it.

This will be my only zoom, paired with my Ltd trio. My LBA is finished for this year

Some memories. Not so long ago i had the most price worthy/image quality combo there is today. The 16-45 and 55-300. Thats a damn good setup. The crisp and punchy 16-45 always made everything pop out nicely, and the 55-300 hade a great reach for a small lens (compared to Canikon) and good enough IQ.
The CA was though a bit rough on the 16-45, but honestly it never ever made a shot look bad.

That combo is still what i recomend to everyone asking about Pentax gear, price is unbeatable compared to IQ.

Sometimes i miss the 16-45, but not the 55-300 very much. Tele is just not my thing.

So.... I really really hope there will be more DA lenses like this, primes or zooms or whatever.

The need to update the 55-300 to WR, and lets just hope they make it 100-300mm with DC and WR. And just maybe...i'll be all over it!

Have a nice weekend everyone! I will try to post pictures here from the 18-135 to keep the thread going.

[gtxtom]

Heres a few snaps. Nothing scientific about them, just handheld test shots. Sorry for the poor weather, not optimal conditions for a test.
Shot them RAW, adjusted the curves a litle and gave them a tad clarity.

18mm @ f/3,5 (some vignetting, descent sharpness)

crop



18mm @ f/8 (vignetting better, sharpness not much improved)

crop



The lamp below is the lamp from above pictures.
135mm @ f/5,6 (vignetting, good sharpness on object, to my eye at least)




135mm @ f/8 (vignetting better, sharpness a tad better)




135mm @ f/8


Crops from above, shows details of CA or PF or whatever. Note, this would probably have been worse in brighter weather.





88mm @ f/8 (overall nice IQ)



135mm @ f/5,6 (quite nice bokeh there, both in front and after



Two casuals 135mm @ f/5,6 (i think the look nice. More PP here though)

Man, you made that street lamp look so sexy!

[Chex]

I'll be posting some probably within the first hour I'm home from work and get to play with it when it arrives next week.