[ogl]

Pentax SMC-DA 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 ED AL [IF] WR - Review / Lens Test

Verdict: Optical Quality

Very Good center resolution at all apertures and focal ranges with 24 mm top.
Very Bad corner resolution at 85-135 mm range (from 1 till 8 MP at 16 MP camera). It's the shame.
Very Good Mechanical Quality
Weather Resist
DC motor

---

Last edited by ogl; 04-16-2011 at 07:41 AM.

[robbiec]

This is what I expected, it is a compromise design. A jack of all trades, master of none. Good build quality though

[liukaitc]

This is optically regression..better get the old 18-250...

[audiobomber]

1.5 stars for optical quality. "The biggest problem of the lens is its pricing which is simply not in line with the optical performance. Therefore: Avoid!"
Ouch!

[falconeye]

Klaus actually told me about the deceiving test.

IMHO, it confirms that Pentax tried to do an 18-250 replacement all by themselves but lacked the appropriate lens designer. Lesson: when firing, never let your engineers go ...

I'm glad I got the DA 18-250. It is better optically and spawns a wider focal range.

[Ivor K Ecks]

I find that there are 2 problems with that test/review.
Firstly, this lens is optically superior to the DA 18-55mm. I have owned both and can see from the photo results i get that it is better. Yet Photozone give the DA18-55mm 2.5 stars for optical quality and only 1.5 stars for this lens.
Secondly, one of the test photos is supposedly taken at f2.4. That is a good trick for a lens with a maximum aperture of f3.5

[sterretje]

Quite sure that that 2.4 one ended up there by accident. Same image in the DA(L)35/2.4 test.

[liukaitc]

Yeah, I saw that f2.4 one too. What hell is this...

[Fl_Gulfer]

I have both lenses and I think the review is a bunch of crap.

[ogl]

If to be unbiassed, I think that 2 stars is more honest mark than 1.5.

Good center resolution at all apertures. Very good mechanical quality of lens. Weather resist. Not bad CA. Anyway, for zoom lens at 16 MP camera is not bad result. IMO.
135 mm sucks. No way. It's true. 85 mm is so-so.

[ogl]

I find that there are 2 problems with that test/review.
Firstly, this lens is optically superior to the DA 18-55mm. I have owned both and can see from the photo results i get that it is better. Yet Photozone give the DA18-55mm 2.5 stars for optical quality and only 1.5 stars for this lens.

85-135 range is real problem as I understand.

[GeneV]

Speaking of the photos, the one taken at 115mm, where the problem with corner resolution would be at its worst, is of a scene in which the corners would probably not be withing the depth of field of the lens at F/5.6. At 100mm, there is little detail to judge in the snow at the bottom and hazy, distant mountains at the top. The scene looks pretty good overall, though.

With numbers as lousy as these for the corners, it would be nice to have good examples that would let us see what difference it makes in the real world. The sample photos posted on this board have been quite nice.

[dgaies]

I have both lenses and I think the review is a bunch of crap.

Could not have said it better myself

[ogl]

I have both lenses and I think the review is a bunch of crap.

Could you be so kind to upload RAW with K-5 at 100-135mm@5.6-8 so I can trust you?

[GeneV]

It is also difficult to compare the numbers from this review with past reviews of other lenses. Perhaps I am just not understanding, but it seems like the use of the K5 seems to have put the center resolution in territory that would be off the charts in prior reviews. Should the new 16mp sensor also raise the corner resolution over what it would have been on the K10d sensor or exaggerate the difference?

Corner resolution at 135mm is measured at significantly worse than the oft-maligned 50-200 tested on a lower resolution sensor. Really?