Pentax DA 18-135mm, general discussions and samples

Glen · 08-31-2011, 05:59 PM

I've had this lens for a few weeks now and I'm enjoying it. As others before me have said, it is quick and quiet. Actually amazingly so. I'm hoping that the new DC motor lasts longer than the SDM systems of the past however I managed to secure a lifetime warranty so I'm protected. The lens does have a nice quality feel to it. The manual focus ring is actually useful (unlike the short throw of the 17-70). I'm still examining photos so no conclusions there yet except that they are what I would expect from a middle priced lens. They are not as good as I would expect from a $1k lens but much better than I would expect from a kit lens. The zoom range is sure useful. As they say, the worst photo is the one you missed. With this focal range I will not miss many shots changing lenses.

Spotmatic · 09-01-2011, 03:56 AM

Glenn,

My conclusions mirror yours. It is a good, flexible 'just in case lens'.

The only review that matters...is yours.

ide508 · 09-01-2011, 11:37 PM

Well two pictures to compare, one taken with an 50mm f1.4 the other with the 18-135.
Both taken hand held, f7.1 125 iso400 and f7.1 125 iso200 One can barely tell the difference don't you think ?
Better than a just in case lens,at least for me

**crewl1** · 09-02-2011, 12:05 AM

Top picture may be a touch over exposed, otherwise no visible difference from my perspective. The 18-135 is my favorite zoom on my K-5.

Spotmatic · 09-02-2011, 04:16 AM

Originally posted by crewl1

Top picture may be a touch over exposed, otherwise no visible difference from my perspective. The 18-135 is my favorite zoom on my K-5.

It is my favorite and only zoom.

To expect it to perfom on par with primes at
all focal lengths is unreasonable.

Sinister · 09-09-2011, 04:09 AM

I definitely enjoy this lens!

Waterproof von Ineound auf Flickr

**TER-OR** · 09-09-2011, 10:06 AM

So...I have a 16-45 which has been a decent performer but would be made redundant if I got this 18-135. Or would it? I'd gain a lot of reach, and waterresistanceness

But would I miss anything about the 16-45?
Does anyone here have experience with that?

I made my wife use the K-10 and 10-17 a few weeks ago at a park and she said it was interesting. (I was using a manual 50mm and having fun). She did say she wants a "mommy lens" aka super-zoom for flexibility. I understand that, but want at least one weather-resistant lens.

Anyone have experience with both lenses they can share?

audiobomber · 09-09-2011, 10:24 AM

Originally posted by TER-OR

So...I have a 16-45 which has been a decent performer but would be made redundant if I got this 18-135. Or would it? I'd gain a lot of reach, and waterresistanceness

But would I miss anything about the 16-45?
Does anyone here have experience with that?

I have both. The 16-45 is a higher performing lens but not radically better. I would miss 16mm if I didn't have anything wider, but for some uses you can get along with 17mm on the fisheye. With two shooters in the family, why not get the 18-135 and keep the 16-45?

I tend to carry the 18-135 with the DA 15 and DA 40. I usually carry the 16-45 when I bring my more specialized kit; 16-45, 55-300, 10-17, three primes, filters, flash (no lenses from the 18-135 kit).

PALADIN85020 · 09-10-2011, 05:58 PM

We just returned from a 2-week vacation to Hawaii. It was beautiful. I took my K-5 and just this one lens - the 18-135mmWR. I probably took thousands of shots, but here are a few representative examples. I would have wished for an extended reach (like my 18-250mm), but this one covered 90% of my needs and I can crop the full extended shots to still get usable results. The WR feature was great for Hawaii - it rained almost every day. I took the camera, this lens, a spare charged battery, the battery charger, and a handful of memory cards. Traveling light, this was an ideal combination. Here are some shots demonstrating the versatility.

John

Chex · 09-10-2011, 09:21 PM

Nice set, looks like you had some nice outings! Now imagine if your 18-250mm was weather sealed and had a macro.. it would be hard pressed to ever need to change the lens other than for birding!

dr_romix · 10-27-2011, 06:13 AM

With Lens correction option on K-5, this is a must buy.. I'm getting one soon...

PALADIN85020 · 10-28-2011, 03:01 PM

I've been going through more of the shots I took with the 18-135mm WR in Hawaii. I rather like this one, taken at sunset off the coast of Maui. I think it shows off the dynamic range of the K-5 and the capabilities of this lens as well or better than any I took on our recent trip. The reduction in size from the original makes it appear a bit fuzzy, but the original is tack sharp from foreground to horizon.

John

causey · 11-21-2011, 03:29 PM

Wonderful pics in this thread. It seems the rendering of the DA 18-135mm is quite special. There seems to be more 3-dimensionality to the pics taken with this lens... I'm contemplating buying one--but I would like to ask a question. I know the 18-135 has soft borders at larger apertures, especially beyond 70mm or so. But I was wondering whether at, say, f5.6 its borders are better than those of the kit lens at similar settings. Thank you!

**crewl1** · 11-21-2011, 09:26 PM

Originally posted by causey

Wonderful pics in this thread. It seems the rendering of the DA 18-135mm is quite special. There seems to be more 3-dimensionality to the pics taken with this lens... I'm contemplating buying one--but I would like to ask a question. I know the 18-135 has soft borders at larger apertures, especially beyond 70mm or so. But I was wondering whether at, say, f5.6 its borders are better than those of the kit lens at similar settings. Thank you!

See for yourself here Pentax-DA 18-135mm Zoom - Review

I found the 18-135 to be better overall vs the 18-55WR.

causey · 11-21-2011, 09:41 PM

Originally posted by crewl1

See for yourself here Pentax-DA 18-135mm Zoom - Review

I found the 18-135 to be better overall vs the 18-55WR.

Thanks for your input.
I've read the PF review and looked at the comparative pics there. But quite a few other reviewers (on various sites) report the lens is softer than the kit lens. I suppose it's a matter of copy variation--I was curious to know how widespread the issue of serious border softness was. (To have a kind of measure of softness I referred to the DA 18-55 at f5.6. I'd consider serious any softness that's worse than that of the kit lens at f5.6.) I'd be willing to pay $400+ for the range, the lightness, the fast and quiet AF, and the unique rendering (for a zoom) of the DA 18-135mm provided it's a bit better than the kit lens with respect to sharpness. Anything else can be corrected.
I went through the entire thread and read the comments made by other contributors who regard it as being clearly superior to the DA 18-55. Useful thread.

09-10-2011, 05:58 PM	#234
PALADIN85020 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 442	The 18-135mm in Hawaii We just returned from a 2-week vacation to Hawaii. It was beautiful. I took my K-5 and just this one lens - the 18-135mmWR. I probably took thousands of shots, but here are a few representative examples. I would have wished for an extended reach (like my 18-250mm), but this one covered 90% of my needs and I can crop the full extended shots to still get usable results. The WR feature was great for Hawaii - it rained almost every day. I took the camera, this lens, a spare charged battery, the battery charger, and a handful of memory cards. Traveling light, this was an ideal combination. Here are some shots demonstrating the versatility. John

10-28-2011, 03:01 PM	#237
PALADIN85020 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 442	Boats at sunset off the coast of Maui I've been going through more of the shots I took with the 18-135mm WR in Hawaii. I rather like this one, taken at sunset off the coast of Maui. I think it shows off the dynamic range of the K-5 and the capabilities of this lens as well or better than any I took on our recent trip. The reduction in size from the original makes it appear a bit fuzzy, but the original is tack sharp from foreground to horizon. John

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Scanner Questions/Discussions...Where Do They Belong?	stevebrot	Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom	22	09-27-2010 01:08 PM
Suggestion Recent discussions (List of)	hcc	Site Suggestions and Help	6	04-26-2010 12:09 PM
Takumar 135mm f/2.5 - samples	ajuett	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	12	04-24-2009 06:56 AM
50-135mm - looking for low light samples	Duh_Vinci	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	4	04-15-2008 03:23 AM
PENTAX-DA★ 50-135mm Samples Collection	and	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	18	07-29-2007 05:44 PM

08-31-2011, 05:59 PM	#226
Glen Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Alberta, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 329	I've had this lens for a few weeks now and I'm enjoying it. As others before me have said, it is quick and quiet. Actually amazingly so. I'm hoping that the new DC motor lasts longer than the SDM systems of the past however I managed to secure a lifetime warranty so I'm protected. The lens does have a nice quality feel to it. The manual focus ring is actually useful (unlike the short throw of the 17-70). I'm still examining photos so no conclusions there yet except that they are what I would expect from a middle priced lens. They are not as good as I would expect from a $1k lens but much better than I would expect from a kit lens. The zoom range is sure useful. As they say, the worst photo is the one you missed. With this focal range I will not miss many shots changing lenses.

09-01-2011, 03:56 AM	#227
Spotmatic Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Ft. Myers Florida Posts: 169	Glenn, My conclusions mirror yours. It is a good, flexible 'just in case lens'. The only review that matters...is yours.

09-01-2011, 11:37 PM	#228
ide508 Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Gistoux Belgium Posts: 34	Well two pictures to compare, one taken with an 50mm f1.4 the other with the 18-135. Both taken hand held, f7.1 125 iso400 and f7.1 125 iso200 One can barely tell the difference don't you think ? Better than a just in case lens,at least for me

09-02-2011, 12:05 AM	#229
crewl1 Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Los Angeles, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,807	Top picture may be a touch over exposed, otherwise no visible difference from my perspective. The 18-135 is my favorite zoom on my K-5.

09-02-2011, 04:16 AM	#230
Spotmatic Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Ft. Myers Florida Posts: 169	Originally posted by crewl1 Top picture may be a touch over exposed, otherwise no visible difference from my perspective. The 18-135 is my favorite zoom on my K-5. It is my favorite and only zoom. To expect it to perfom on par with primes at all focal lengths is unreasonable.

09-09-2011, 04:09 AM	#231
Sinister Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Berlin Posts: 1,045	I definitely enjoy this lens! Waterproof von Ineound auf Flickr

09-09-2011, 10:06 AM	#232
TER-OR Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Dundee, IL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,699	So...I have a 16-45 which has been a decent performer but would be made redundant if I got this 18-135. Or would it? I'd gain a lot of reach, and waterresistanceness But would I miss anything about the 16-45? Does anyone here have experience with that? I made my wife use the K-10 and 10-17 a few weeks ago at a park and she said it was interesting. (I was using a manual 50mm and having fun). She did say she wants a "mommy lens" aka super-zoom for flexibility. I understand that, but want at least one weather-resistant lens. Anyone have experience with both lenses they can share?

09-09-2011, 10:24 AM	#233
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by TER-OR So...I have a 16-45 which has been a decent performer but would be made redundant if I got this 18-135. Or would it? I'd gain a lot of reach, and waterresistanceness But would I miss anything about the 16-45? Does anyone here have experience with that? I have both. The 16-45 is a higher performing lens but not radically better. I would miss 16mm if I didn't have anything wider, but for some uses you can get along with 17mm on the fisheye. With two shooters in the family, why not get the 18-135 and keep the 16-45? I tend to carry the 18-135 with the DA 15 and DA 40. I usually carry the 16-45 when I bring my more specialized kit; 16-45, 55-300, 10-17, three primes, filters, flash (no lenses from the 18-135 kit).

09-10-2011, 09:21 PM	#235
Chex Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: The 'Stoke, British Columbia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,678	Nice set, looks like you had some nice outings! Now imagine if your 18-250mm was weather sealed and had a macro.. it would be hard pressed to ever need to change the lens other than for birding!

10-27-2011, 06:13 AM	#236
dr_romix Banned Join Date: May 2011 Location: Pittsburgh,PA Posts: 321	With Lens correction option on K-5, this is a must buy.. I'm getting one soon...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-21-2011, 03:29 PM	#238
causey Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Arlington, VA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,757	Wonderful pics in this thread. It seems the rendering of the DA 18-135mm is quite special. There seems to be more 3-dimensionality to the pics taken with this lens... I'm contemplating buying one--but I would like to ask a question. I know the 18-135 has soft borders at larger apertures, especially beyond 70mm or so. But I was wondering whether at, say, f5.6 its borders are better than those of the kit lens at similar settings. Thank you!

11-21-2011, 09:26 PM	#239
crewl1 Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Los Angeles, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,807	Originally posted by causey Wonderful pics in this thread. It seems the rendering of the DA 18-135mm is quite special. There seems to be more 3-dimensionality to the pics taken with this lens... I'm contemplating buying one--but I would like to ask a question. I know the 18-135 has soft borders at larger apertures, especially beyond 70mm or so. But I was wondering whether at, say, f5.6 its borders are better than those of the kit lens at similar settings. Thank you! See for yourself here Pentax-DA 18-135mm Zoom - Review I found the 18-135 to be better overall vs the 18-55WR.

11-21-2011, 09:41 PM	#240
causey Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Arlington, VA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,757	Originally posted by crewl1 See for yourself here Pentax-DA 18-135mm Zoom - Review I found the 18-135 to be better overall vs the 18-55WR. Thanks for your input. I've read the PF review and looked at the comparative pics there. But quite a few other reviewers (on various sites) report the lens is softer than the kit lens. I suppose it's a matter of copy variation--I was curious to know how widespread the issue of serious border softness was. (To have a kind of measure of softness I referred to the DA 18-55 at f5.6. I'd consider serious any softness that's worse than that of the kit lens at f5.6.) I'd be willing to pay $400+ for the range, the lightness, the fast and quiet AF, and the unique rendering (for a zoom) of the DA 18-135mm provided it's a bit better than the kit lens with respect to sharpness. Anything else can be corrected. I went through the entire thread and read the comments made by other contributors who regard it as being clearly superior to the DA 18-55. Useful thread.