[asdf]

Is that what you think it is?

When nothing in the shot is in crisp focus, it is not the best shot to compare the sharpness of different areas.

My attempt at humor fails, again. All I meant was that the corners were blurrier than the rest of the bottom border.

[Chex]

hehe sarcasm.. definitely has the hardest time to send its message through short texts! IMO the entire 18-135mm suffers from "thermal distortions" at almost all point except dead center. I think Pentax should issue a $200-$250 rebate on their next Pentax purchase to all who over paid for this lens.

[GeneV]

My attempt at humor fails, again. All I meant was that the corners were blurrier than the rest of the bottom border.

Not really, but my attempt to answer back with humor fails.

[audiobomber]

I would agree. The entire foreground is less sharp on my screen, though the corners may be somewhat more so. I keep waiting for the brick wall shot.

I've done a brick wall shoot that shows my 18-135 murders my 18-250. I did some testing for myself vs the 18-55, the 18-135 beats it too. No one cares, they still keep hating on the 18-135. I'm sure that at some point it will gain some deserved recognition as the best kit zoom.

[pinholecam]

I've done a brick wall shoot that shows my 18-135 murders my 18-250. I did some testing for myself vs the 18-55, the 18-135 beats it too. No one cares, they still keep hating on the 18-135. I'm sure that at some point it will gain some deserved recognition as the best kit zoom.

Too much love for intrigue here and not much for real photos

[audiobomber]

Too much love for intrigue here and not much for real photos

Like these, or do you want to pixel peep my brick wall?

[Chex]

Here's a pano I did from a friends backyard, this was shot at 18mm so it distorted the shot a bit, but photoshop merged and corrected it enough to make it work.

[David&karen]

Hi everyone. It's been a little while since we have posted because of a nasty weather freeze here in New Mexico(I meant to post pics from the Tamron 70-200 2.8, but y'all beat me to the punch!). Karen got the 18-135 lens and I have to agree with the resolution tests from Photozone, as our sample is comparable. BUT: This lens is also sharper than the 18-55WR that Karen's K7 came with, and faster at the longer focal lengths also(35-55mm). This lens is also the only choice in roughly the 18-135mm range that is 1. Weather resistant, 2. has a 7 or 9 bladed diaphragm(Karen and I like to do multi pointed sun stars on bright points of light, and the 18-55 has 6 blades for 6 pointed stars vs 7 blades for 14 pointed stars) and 3. Has a pretty silent and fast focussing motor. At 70-85mm this lens gets pretty sharp in the corners, a bit less so at 100mm, thought f16 helps there. It never gets sharp extreme corners at 135mm, but so what? She has the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 for more detailed pics. Also, the 50-200mm WR is weaker at 100-135mm from wide open to f8, but then becomes fantastically sharp at f11-f16. What this lens gives is a big range in a great build that is also WR. And there is no other choice for all that in one lens at the moment. And she does own all the lenses described here. Another note, this was my third choice for a walk around lens to replace the 18-55 WR for Karen: I tried the Sigma 18-70 OS because it started at f2.8 but it was really decentered and it had a huge amount of field curvature at 70mm(maybe the decentering did that also?), then tried the Pentax 17-70 DA but it was horribly miscentered also, so she chose to try the 18-135, and it does very well IMHO and Karen's as well. I did not post pics as everyone here has shown what the lens is like, as always, YMMV!

[pinholecam]

Like these, or do you want to pixel peep my brick wall?

I like all that I am see here on this thread

Here's a pano I did from a friends backyard, this was shot at 18mm so it distorted the shot a bit, but photoshop merged and corrected it enough to make it work.

Wow! nice backyard!

[audiobomber]

I like all that I am see here on this thread

Here you go then: https://picasaweb.google.com/bonhommed/18135Vs18250#

I used auto exposure, It was a cloudy day so light was changing. I took two shots of each scene and posted the sharper one, I repeated the brick wall shots in manual focus (two shots per scene) but took the photos down because they didn't add anything. All the AF photos were as sharp or sharper. I used a tripod and 2s lockup for the brick wall shots. I squared the camera to the wall for the brick closeups, it was not square for the photos of the entire house, focus was on the window in the middle of the wall.

For those who can't be bothered to peep, the 18-135mm has better resolution than the 18-250mm in every photo, at 18mm and 135mm, in the center, border and corners, wide open and stopped down. I had the same result vs my 18-55 II, the 18-135mm beats it in every possible way.

Mechanically the 18-135 is a dream. It makes the 18-55 feel cheap and comparing it to the 18-250 is like comparing a modern rifle to a blunderbuss.

[the swede]

Here you go then: https://picasaweb.google.com/bonhommed/18135Vs18250#

I used auto exposure, It was a cloudy day so light was changing. I took two shots of each scene and posted the sharper one, I repeated the brick wall shots in manual focus (two shots per scene) but took the photos down because they didn't add anything. All the AF photos were as sharp or sharper. I used a tripod and 2s lockup for the brick wall shots. I squared the camera to the wall for the brick closeups, it was not square for the photos of the entire house, focus was on the window in the middle of the wall.

For those who can't be bothered to peep, the 18-135mm has better resolution than the 18-250mm in every photo, at 18mm and 135mm, in the center, border and corners, wide open and stopped down. I had the same result vs my 18-55 II, the 18-135mm beats it in every possible way.

Mechanically the 18-135 is a dream. It makes the 18-55 feel cheap and comparing it to the 18-250 is like comparing a modern rifle to a blunderbuss.

Thanks alot for this! I'll rep you for it.
Im a litle ashamed i didnt contribute with this myself

[GeneV]

Taking the photo down will make the comments meaningless. It is OK to start a discussion.

[the swede]

Taking the photo down will make the comments meaningless. It is OK to start a discussion.

Yep!

[audiobomber]

Taking the photo down will make the comments meaningless. It is OK to start a discussion.

Are you addressing me? If so you'll have to clarify, because I'm not sure what this means.

[GeneV]

Are you addressing me? If so you'll have to clarify, because I'm not sure what this means.

Nope. I apologize for not quoting. I was encouraging The Swede not to take down his photo, because it would make a page of discussion meaningless. It is not wrong to post something that starts a discussion.