[Noisychip]

Uhm, I wasn't expecting prime-like performance, but this still is a bit dissappointing ...

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

[dankoBanana]

quite embarrassing

[DaveBlack]

Interesting read. From actual users reports are that it was a good lens with quality somewhere between the kit lens and the DA17-70. I guess the actual testing shows that to be so. Problem seems to be the high cost for average (at best image quality.

[Supernaut]

Ouch!
But I don't see the same lousy results at the near corners when looking at the PF review and test image. In the PF review it also seems to shape up when stopped down a notch, something that the PZ don't indicate for the longer focal lengths.

[Pablom]

I think the biggest issue photozone point out is the high cost of the lens, which is extremely over priced

[Parallax]

This was the part that bothered me:

Just to mention again - we couldn't believe the rather poor performance so we asked the local Pentax service in Hamburg/Germany for an assessment of the situation. Result: the lens is within factory specifications.

Apparently, the poor border and corner resolution at shorter FLs, and the nearly non-existent border and corner resolution the longer FLs is a design feature.
I hope this isn't a trend. It used to be that the single biggest benefit to using a Pentax camera was that you could attach Pentax lenses to it. If this is their new "factory spec" for resolution they have serious problems ahead.

[liukaitc]

unbelievable. the old 18-250 score 2.5 star for optical...this one only 1.5 star...

[JMaher]

I know I am new here but I have been an avid photographer for over 30 years and still shoot with a 5d2 kit as well as more recently the K5. My personal experience with this lens is far different than the reported results. It's a wide ranging zoom and I don't expect prime results but the results I have seen are very acceptable in comparison with similar options from Canon & Nikon. I don't doubt the test results but this may be a case where real life experiences are just as important as test results. I admit I may somewhat biased as the lens is a very well made as well as light and small - all qualities that I appreciate.
Jim

[panoguy]

I think the biggest issue photozone point out is the high cost of the lens, which is extremely over priced

Quite true. The issue is that the "headline features" of the lens are not compelling enough for the price being asked, if this test is indicative of an average example of this lens.

Solid construction, a DC motor and simplified weather sealing are great, but any lens is an optical instrument first, so it should be judged on optical qualities (sharpness, zoom range, max aperture, CA, etc.) above all the rest. Seems like Pentax put these second, at least in the copy that PZ tested.

Won't be getting rid of my zoom-creeping, screw-driven, unsealed DA 18-250 any time soon...

[normhead]

That would be my impression of the lens. maybe I'm clouded by the fact that I bought the DA* 60-250, at the same time, but, in some of my tests the DA 18-135 at 90 mm was badly outperformed by my Tamron 90 and DA*60-250. That I expected, but i was also outperformed by my Sigmma 70-300, that I didn't expect. In the 50 mm range , it was outperformed by the kit lens 18-55. This lens is still with me for one reason. It's a nice focal length, and it is water sealed. Great for putting on the camera and leaving there, until the bad weather or spray conditions pass. I do a lot of canoe camping. This is a lens I can put on my K20 and basically have a waterproof camera for use in the boat. In other words, I can use it where I can't use most of my other lenses. But, it's essentially going to be used for that purpose. The 18-55 is the only lens I own where I would even consider taking that lens off the camera to put the DA 18-135 on, if conditions were normal.


That being said, it's not a bad lens. But I definitely expected more for the price.

[dgaies]

I know I am new here but I have been an avid photographer for over 30 years and still shoot with a 5d2 kit as well as more recently the K5. My personal experience with this lens is far different than the reported results. It's a wide ranging zoom and I don't expect prime results but the results I have seen are very acceptable in comparison with similar options from Canon & Nikon. I don't doubt the test results but this may be a case where real life experiences are just as important as test results. I admit I may somewhat biased as the lens is a very well made as well as light and small - all qualities that I appreciate.
Jim

100% agree. I've had this lens for a couple months and am very happy with it. Perhaps my expectations are lower as I didn't expect it to have stellar "prime-like" IQ, nor did I expect it to outperform my zooms that are heavier and with less range. I won't disagree that the price is a bit high for what is essentially a kit lens, but the build and range of the lens are excellent and I have no second thoughts or regrets about buying this lens.

[MaK5]

unbelievable. the old 18-250 score 2.5 star for optical...this one only 1.5 star...

The 18-250 was tested using 10mp camera. A re-test on K-5 would result lower score.

[WerTicus]

the lens performs... strangely... lots of center res... no edge res... very weird, to an extreme never seen before.

[rawr]

Certainly something weird is happening in those tests between 50mm and 135mm. Edge sharpness falls away much quicker than one would expect.

These results need to be confirmed by lenstip.com, slrgear.com, dxomark.com etc lens tests before anyone can say that the lens really has the issues described by photozone..

[normhead]

Hmmmm.. in photozone test of Pentax lenses the max is 2350. This article is reporting on tests done in another lab, not photozones. Makes it kind of hard to compare to their other lens reviews.