[the swede]

I find the lens pretty good, better than the kit lens. People need to remember that this is "package" lens with many nice feautures to it. If optical qulity is the most important thing. Then dont buy a super zoom.

However i expected a better result from that review, because i find the images that come out pretty good.

Looking at the results though, we can see that the image center quality is very good, and the borders not so good. This is quite common to all super zooms.

[gp1806]

For the price of this lens, I'll keep my DA 18-250mm.

[hyyz]

I think this review helps to drag down the price of this lens. Once that happens, I'll buy one.

It's hard for me to believe DA18-250 is better than DA18-135. If that's the case, why Pentax discontinued it. Why not just add WR, SP, Quick-Shift to it? I've got to trust Pentax more than PZ.

I tend to not too care about PZ's reviews. I'm not expert, but I heard their testing method is overly too simplified. Their review on FA*24 is not so good, yet I heard a lot of users praising it. And their review on FA35 is positive. However, my experience is not so good. Color redering is definitely not good. Resolution is not everything. PZ seems to care about border resolution a big deal.

[Rondec]

I think this review helps to drag down the price of this lens. Once that happens, I'll buy one.

It's hard for me to believe DA18-250 is better than DA18-135. If that's the case, why Pentax discontinued it. Why not just add WR, SP, Quick-Shift to it? I've got to trust Pentax more than PZ.

I tend to not too care about PZ's reviews. I'm not expert, but I heard their testing method is overly too simplified. Their review on FA*24 is not so good, yet I heard a lot of users praising it. And their review on FA35 is positive. However, my experience is not so good. Color redering is definitely not good. Resolution is not everything. PZ seems to care about border resolution a big deal.

The problem with the 18-250 from Pentax's standpoint is that it wasn't their lens. It was a rebadged Tamron lens and so they paid a significnat portion of the profit for the lens back to Tamron. Then, Tamron discontinued the 18-250 and that sort of left Pentax in the lurch.

I don't understand why the borders are so bad on it. If you look at the Nikon 18-105, it maintains good border sharpness up to 105mm. In particular, you would think that even if they were a little weak wide open, they would sharpen up nicely stopped down a little.

Edit: One thing is that while everyone mentions the Tamron/Pentax 18-250 as being great, Phozone didn't really give it great marks and remarked that from 135mm on it had a significant decline in border performance wide open (although it did improve with stopping down).

---

Last edited by Rondec; 04-16-2011 at 11:07 AM.

[Cambo]

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

These are the guys who gave the FA* 24 f=2 a '2' in optical quality...that alone makes them nuts as far as I'm concerned. And regarding the magical 77 Limited, they state, and I quote, "Optically it doesn't offer much beyond the mainstream in this class"...

Regarding this, our very own Pål Jensen states: "Clueless statement of the year from Photozone!"

and there's another thread on this very subject here:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-news-rumors/140658-da-18-135-photozone.html

and my full response on pg, 2...Pål concurs!

They're nuts...

Cheers,
Cameron

[Ben_Edict]

The PZ review echos what most other reviews also concluded: poor border sharpness and generally poor performance above and below a small medium focal length area. This may be what we expect from a super zoom lens, where it not for the comparetively high price tag. For the premium price of the 18-135 I would expect more.

I was really tempted by that lens, because it is small and would be a great addition to my newly acquired K-r, forming kinf of super zoom camera with better IQ, bit the 18-135 is simply too expensive for the performance.

Ben

[GeneV]

We really need a Rosetta stone to compare K10d results with K5 tests. By this test, just comparing numbers, one is better off with the kit pair 18-55 + 50-200, but I'm not sure how to compare these apples and oranges.

[falconeye]

If optical qulity is the most important thing. Then dont buy a super zoom.

However i expected a better result from that review, because i find the images that come out pretty good.

Looking at the results though, we can see that the image center quality is very good, and the borders not so good. This is quite common to all super zooms.

This is not true. Superzooms have weak corners, but not THIS weak.

The DA 18-135 has a very good center resolution, but I've never seen the border/corner drop below 1000 LW/PH (at f/5.6!). And this for a K-5 test with higher numbers overall than for K10D.

This is unprecedented. Otherwise, Klaus wouldn't have had to ask Pentax if the result can be true.

This is less than 1 MPixels in the corners. IMHO, it is not acceptable for any dSLR lens.

E.g., look at the borders of http://photozone.smugmug.com/photos/1253576403_fCVfGSD-O.jpg . Would you print this?

It's hard for me to believe DA18-250 is better than DA18-135. If that's the case, why Pentax discontinued it.

DA18-250 wasn't Pentax design and the designer moved on to 18-270 without sharing with Pentax.

But to say something good about Pentax: The Canon 18-135 is pretty poor too, maybe except at 35mm.

Making good superzooms seems to be an art only Sigma and Tamron mastered.

[jamesm007]

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.

Yes Pentax featured the DA18-135mm WR lens designer in an article to its share-holders. Basically it was a very young man; perhaps talented time will tell! The article said the young man consulted more "senior engineers" with questions and advice LOL but they let their best and world class lens designer(s) go! So yes Falk Pentax is cutting costs, but had better look for more talent to help this young man and stop cutting costs and Performance.

[the swede]

This is not true. Superzooms have weak corners, but not THIS weak.

The DA 18-135 has a very good center resolution, but I've never seen the border/corner drop below 1000 LW/PH (at f/5.6!). And this for a K-5 test with higher numbers overall than for K10D.

This is unprecedented. Otherwise, Klaus wouldn't have had to ask Pentax if the result can be true.

This is less than 1 MPixels in the corners. IMHO, it is not acceptable for any dSLR lens.

E.g., look at the borders of http://photozone.smugmug.com/photos/1253576403_fCVfGSD-O.jpg . Would you print this?

Well that image looks really bad! I have never seens such smeared corners from my shots with the lens.... i suspect theres something
wrong there, either with the lens or something else.

Below is a picture taken at 135mm f/8. The crops certainly confirms the low resolution in the corners. But imo not as bad as the one above!!!



top left


top right


an ordinary normal use snapshot.


an other picture that im very happy of from this lens.


I admit i am kinda biased to my use of the lens. I only use it for day to day snaps on family and friends, when i only want to take the camera with me, when i dont want to have to juggle the primes around.

I always said since i got the lens that i would not recomend it to anyone regarding the price. There are cheaper and better options regarding image quality.

So still, this is the basic topic that people need to ask themselves. Is the other qualities of this lens appealing enough to buy it?

For me, hell yeah! I've got this lens as my only zoom alongside my Ltd trio, with a small tripod and a very small shoulder bag. Its what i wanted from the start. A very small and capable package.

Bottom line is imho. The 18-135 has great value to some and some others not.

[sir_bazz]

Yes Pentax featured the DA18-135mm WR lens designer in an article to its share-holders. Basically it was a very young man; perhaps talented time will tell! The article said the young man consulted more "senior engineers" with questions and advice LOL but they let their best and world class lens designer(s) go!

Fair enough if true but I can't believe they didn't assess a prototype and say "try again", to the young fella......before putting it into production!!

[falconeye]

Fair enough if true but I can't believe they didn't assess a prototype and say "try again", to the young fella......before putting it into production!!

It doesn't seem to be this easy. The Canon 18-135 isn't (much) better really. Sometimes, you have to live with the engineers you got.

Another example where managers should fire themselves before letting senior engineers go ...

[peerSr]

After the friction this has caused in the community I will request a statement from Pentax once again why they think that this is a valid sample.

www.photozone.de/
... final verdict for the time being removed

[pinholecam]

I find the lens pretty good, better than the kit lens. People need to remember that this is "package" lens with many nice feautures to it. If optical qulity is the most important thing. Then dont buy a super zoom.

However i expected a better result from that review, because i find the images that come out pretty good.

Looking at the results though, we can see that the image center quality is very good, and the borders not so good. This is quite common to all super zooms.

Totally agree on this.
Super zooms are there for the purpose of convenience, versatility in one package.
The 18-135mm brings with it small size, light weight, silent and fast AF, very close focus and WR. If they were all round perfect, no one would be using primes.

Having used it. I'd not bat an eye lid recommending it to someone who wants this as a walkabout/travel lens.



Photozone value system does no justice to this lens. It just does not place a weightage/value on size/portability, light weight, silent/ fast AF, very close focus, rounded aperture for bokeh and WR in real usage situations.

[dgaies]

Totally agree on this.
Super zooms are there for the purpose of convenience, versatility in one package.
The 18-135mm brings with it small size, light weight, silent and fast AF, very close focus and WR. If they were all round perfect, no one would be using primes.

Having used it. I'd not bat an eye lid recommending it to someone who wants this as a walkabout/travel lens.

Photozone value system does no justice to this lens. It just does not place a weightage/value on size/portability, light weight, silent/ fast AF, very close focus, rounded aperture for bokeh and WR in real usage situations.

Exactly.

If you want a lens to take shots of test charts, I would not recommend this lens. If you want the top notch optics throughout the range and across the field of view, I would not recommend this lens. If you want the ultimate in terms of the price/performance ratio, I would not recommend this lens.

However, if you want a small, lightweight, WR, fast/silent AF, large range zoom to basically replace the 18-55WR and 50-200WR in a single lens then perhaps this lens is worth taking a look at. If there are times when ultimate IQ isn't the most important factor, and having a single lens that you can get the shot with is, then I would consider this lens. I personally wanted a lens as I described above, bought it, and am very happy with it in this respect. Does it outperform any of my primes or DA* zooms in terms of IQ? No, nor did I expect it to.