DA 18-135 WR, Show us what it can do

Weldon Berger · 01-19-2017, 09:04 PM

Originally posted by mattb123

XC skiing with the dog today.
K-S2 & 18-135

That's such a beautiful shot.

---------- Post added 01-19-17 at 06:20 PM ----------

Originally posted by WPRESTO

I see what those people are doing, but I know it isn't so.

Yeah, it's absurd. The guy in the b/w pic particularly so, but all of them are doing stuff that just isn't feasible and they did it two shows a day on three different islands over five consecutive days. There's other amazing stuff but I didn't want to spam the board with it.

**PKMike** · 01-20-2017, 12:24 PM

I am attached to mine as well. It isn't perfect, (yes there are better optical choices) but then none are. In my opinion it is competent and incredibly versatile and the versatile aspects far outweigh any negatives. It is compact, lightweight, quiet, quick, and covers a lot of focal range. Forgot to mention WR. Nice pics by the way.

**mattb123** · 01-20-2017, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by Weldon Berger

That's such a beautiful shot.[COLOR="Silver"]

Thanks! I'm also happy to report I'll be back in the club once my replacement 18-135 makes it was to me from Japan. I found one like new on eBay for $219 with free shipping and figured that would be a good route to take. I need my ski lens back!

**rayallen** · 01-20-2017, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by mattb123

Thanks! I'm also happy to report I'll be back in the club once my replacement 18-135 makes it was to me from Japan. I found one like new on eBay for $219 with free shipping and figured that would be a good route to take. I need my ski lens back!

That sure is good news. I understand why you wanted another one so quickly. I could not bear to be without mine for any length of time..

**mattb123** · 01-20-2017, 03:52 PM

I was tempted by the 16-85 but I ran some reports on my use of the lens and something like 20% of my shots were over 85mm and that seemed significant enough to want to keep that reach. Also the 16-85 is a lot more expensive and bigger so it wasn't that hard of a decision.
I've been using my DA* 16-50 instead and it's a great lens but bigger, heavier, and I miss the longer FOV for ski shots.

Tatouzou · 01-20-2017, 05:11 PM - **3 Likes**

Originally posted by iheiramo

I too like shooting against the sun with DA 18-135:

And DA 18-135 is very polyvalent, it delivers quite nicely in very different situations:

---------- Post added 01-21-17 at 01:23 AM ----------

Originally posted by Tatouzou

I too like shooting against the sun with DA 18-135:

And DA 18-135 is very polyvalent, it delivers quite nicely in very different situations:

Well, I must be tired because i cannot display the sharing links to my flickr gallery.
Thus I dont know if you can see them.
Will go to bed and check again tomorrow

---------- Post added 01-21-17 at 01:49 AM ----------

new test

---------- Post added 01-21-17 at 01:55 AM ----------

A new DA 18-135 picture to test how it shows:

I think I now got it:

First DA 18-135 afainst the sun:

Then some different scenes showing the polyvalence of the lens:

**PKMike** · 01-20-2017, 09:36 PM

Originally posted by mattb123

XC skiing with the dog today.

Love this pic. IMO superb composition and perfect capture of the moment. Posture of the dog speaks volumes.

**mattb123** · 01-20-2017, 11:20 PM

Originally posted by PKMike

Love this pic. IMO superb composition and perfect capture of the moment. Posture of the dog speaks volumes.

Thank you! She is a very expressive dog and I know this viewpoint already so when I saw the elements of this scene about to converge I was able to be ready in time. It felt pretty lucky too.

**JimJohnson** · 01-21-2017, 06:45 AM

Originally posted by mattb123

I was tempted by the 16-85.

The 16-85 group has its diehard fans also. Over in the K-3 forum I have been looking at uploads from this lens, and either the 16-85 shooters' images are not downsizing well, or frankly the 18-135 has better resolution. Maybe at some point I'll get a chance to borrower the 16-85 for a few test shots on my K-3 along side my 18-135. But until then, I'm not tempted.

**RGlasel** · 01-21-2017, 09:39 AM

Originally posted by JimJohnson

either the 16-85 shooters' images are not downsizing well, or frankly the 18-135 has better resolution

I haven't checked that thread for a while, but every poster has a unique combination of image processing system and decision making process to determine which images to capture and which to post online. If anything, that thread has less diversity in posters and posts than this one, so if a couple of posters end up posting images that end up looking less sharp or contrasty, it will influence your opinion of the lens.

In terms of lens construction, I challenge anyone to consistently pick out the difference between HD and SMC coatings and at common focal lengths, there doesn't appear to be much difference in how the optical elements affect the image. However, pictures at 16mm are noticeably different from 18mm and on APS-C 135mm is a true telephoto focal length while 85mm produces much less telephoto compression of the background. I bought a DA 15 after the 16-85 came out, for less money and no regrets, but I respect other photographers who find the 16-85 more suitable. What drove me nuts were the posters who tried to convince everyone that the 16-85 was superiour to the 18-135 because it was sharper in the corners.

---------- Post added 01-21-17 at 11:35 AM ----------

Another dark, dreary January day here, thought I would post a picture from last summer taken at 135mm. This is a crop with roughly half of the original pixels. It was taken at ISO 1600 in P mode, I inadvertently changed the ISO from automatic to fixed the previous day and never noticed it until I tried to change the aperture in hyper mode and didn't get the shutter speed I expected. In my film days, the camera wouldn't have saved my bacon if I made a mistake like that.

**DW58** · 01-23-2017, 10:20 AM - **1 Like**

Heavy crops on both. Have not had this lens on my new K-3 much at all. Trying to figure out the sweet spot with this combo. It's actually sunny today so will be back at it.

Edit: After a few tests it looks like fine tuning AF by +2 is where I want to be.

**DW58** · 01-23-2017, 09:10 PM - **1 Like**

Ran away from responsibilities while the sun was shining today. Didn't get past the gate though.

GeneV · 01-24-2017, 07:04 AM - **1 Like**

Just having a versatile rig around your neck gives you so many opportunities. As others noted, it does very well into the sun.

Tatouzou · 01-24-2017, 04:02 PM

Originally posted by DW58

Ran away from responsibilities while the sun was shining today. Didn't get past the gate though.

It has been my most used lens since I got it 2 years ago.
IMO the sweet spot is f6.3/f8 between 20 and 70. This lens is very sharp in the center from 18 to 80. But you need to stop it down to get sharp edges. There is field curvature at 18.
At the long end, the lens remains sharp in the center (useful for portraits, where it has a nice bokeh, and for wildlife, as you can crop) but the edges are soft until f10-f11.

**RGlasel** · 01-24-2017, 04:43 PM

Originally posted by Tatouzou

There is field curvature at 18

I don't know of any 18mm lens for an APS-C sized image circle with a flat focal plane. Two things make this less of a problem, one, the depth of field at 18mm is greater than at longer focal lengths and two, field curvature is a closer match to how we perceive a wider scene. A flat focal plane for wide panoramic viewpoints looks as distorted as Greenland on a Mercator projection map.

01-20-2017, 12:24 PM	#1802
PKMike Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2013 Location: Idaho Posts: 628	I am attached to mine as well. It isn't perfect, (yes there are better optical choices) but then none are. In my opinion it is competent and incredibly versatile and the versatile aspects far outweigh any negatives. It is compact, lightweight, quiet, quick, and covers a lot of focal range. Forgot to mention WR. Nice pics by the way. Last edited by PKMike; 01-20-2017 at 09:27 PM.

01-20-2017, 05:11 PM - 3 Likes	#1806
Tatouzou Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 175	Originally posted by iheiramo I too like shooting against the sun with DA 18-135: And DA 18-135 is very polyvalent, it delivers quite nicely in very different situations: ---------- Post added 01-21-17 at 01:23 AM ---------- Originally posted by Tatouzou I too like shooting against the sun with DA 18-135: And DA 18-135 is very polyvalent, it delivers quite nicely in very different situations: Well, I must be tired because i cannot display the sharing links to my flickr gallery. Thus I dont know if you can see them. Will go to bed and check again tomorrow ---------- Post added 01-21-17 at 01:49 AM ---------- new test ---------- Post added 01-21-17 at 01:55 AM ---------- A new DA 18-135 picture to test how it shows: I think I now got it: First DA 18-135 afainst the sun: Then some different scenes showing the polyvalence of the lens: Last edited by Tatouzou; 01-20-2017 at 06:13 PM. Reason: checking links to my flickr gallery

01-21-2017, 09:39 AM	#1810
RGlasel Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: Saskatoon Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,228	Originally posted by JimJohnson either the 16-85 shooters' images are not downsizing well, or frankly the 18-135 has better resolution I haven't checked that thread for a while, but every poster has a unique combination of image processing system and decision making process to determine which images to capture and which to post online. If anything, that thread has less diversity in posters and posts than this one, so if a couple of posters end up posting images that end up looking less sharp or contrasty, it will influence your opinion of the lens. In terms of lens construction, I challenge anyone to consistently pick out the difference between HD and SMC coatings and at common focal lengths, there doesn't appear to be much difference in how the optical elements affect the image. However, pictures at 16mm are noticeably different from 18mm and on APS-C 135mm is a true telephoto focal length while 85mm produces much less telephoto compression of the background. I bought a DA 15 after the 16-85 came out, for less money and no regrets, but I respect other photographers who find the 16-85 more suitable. What drove me nuts were the posters who tried to convince everyone that the 16-85 was superiour to the 18-135 because it was sharper in the corners. ---------- Post added 01-21-17 at 11:35 AM ---------- Another dark, dreary January day here, thought I would post a picture from last summer taken at 135mm. This is a crop with roughly half of the original pixels. It was taken at ISO 1600 in P mode, I inadvertently changed the ISO from automatic to fixed the previous day and never noticed it until I tried to change the aperture in hyper mode and didn't get the shutter speed I expected. In my film days, the camera wouldn't have saved my bacon if I made a mistake like that. Last edited by RGlasel; 01-21-2017 at 10:46 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
XR Rikenon 135/2.8 OR Carl Zeiss Jena 135/3.5 (zebra)	adicaciula	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	02-20-2012 02:29 AM
Takumar 135 2.5 vs Super Tak 135 3.5, both bayonet mount, which is better?	chongmic	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	04-09-2011 11:55 PM

01-19-2017, 09:04 PM	#1801
Weldon Berger Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: Oahu, Hawaii Posts: 199	Originally posted by mattb123 XC skiing with the dog today. K-S2 & 18-135 That's such a beautiful shot. ---------- Post added 01-19-17 at 06:20 PM ---------- Originally posted by WPRESTO I see what those people are doing, but I know it isn't so. Yeah, it's absurd. The guy in the b/w pic particularly so, but all of them are doing stuff that just isn't feasible and they did it two shows a day on three different islands over five consecutive days. There's other amazing stuff but I didn't want to spam the board with it.

01-20-2017, 02:28 PM	#1803
mattb123 Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Colorado High Country Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,872	Originally posted by Weldon Berger That's such a beautiful shot.[COLOR="Silver"] Thanks! I'm also happy to report I'll be back in the club once my replacement 18-135 makes it was to me from Japan. I found one like new on eBay for $219 with free shipping and figured that would be a good route to take. I need my ski lens back!

01-20-2017, 03:10 PM	#1804
rayallen Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Forresters Beach, NSW, Australia. Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,014	Originally posted by mattb123 Thanks! I'm also happy to report I'll be back in the club once my replacement 18-135 makes it was to me from Japan. I found one like new on eBay for $219 with free shipping and figured that would be a good route to take. I need my ski lens back! That sure is good news. I understand why you wanted another one so quickly. I could not bear to be without mine for any length of time..

01-20-2017, 03:52 PM	#1805
mattb123 Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Colorado High Country Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,872	I was tempted by the 16-85 but I ran some reports on my use of the lens and something like 20% of my shots were over 85mm and that seemed significant enough to want to keep that reach. Also the 16-85 is a lot more expensive and bigger so it wasn't that hard of a decision. I've been using my DA* 16-50 instead and it's a great lens but bigger, heavier, and I miss the longer FOV for ski shots.

01-20-2017, 09:36 PM	#1807
PKMike Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2013 Location: Idaho Posts: 628	Originally posted by mattb123 XC skiing with the dog today. Love this pic. IMO superb composition and perfect capture of the moment. Posture of the dog speaks volumes.

01-20-2017, 11:20 PM	#1808
mattb123 Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Colorado High Country Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,872	Originally posted by PKMike Love this pic. IMO superb composition and perfect capture of the moment. Posture of the dog speaks volumes. Thank you! She is a very expressive dog and I know this viewpoint already so when I saw the elements of this scene about to converge I was able to be ready in time. It felt pretty lucky too.

01-21-2017, 06:45 AM	#1809
JimJohnson Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Summer:Lake Superior - Michigan Winter:Texas Hill Country Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,772	Originally posted by mattb123 I was tempted by the 16-85. The 16-85 group has its diehard fans also. Over in the K-3 forum I have been looking at uploads from this lens, and either the 16-85 shooters' images are not downsizing well, or frankly the 18-135 has better resolution. Maybe at some point I'll get a chance to borrower the 16-85 for a few test shots on my K-3 along side my 18-135. But until then, I'm not tempted.

01-24-2017, 04:02 PM	#1814
Tatouzou Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 175	Originally posted by DW58 Ran away from responsibilities while the sun was shining today. Didn't get past the gate though. It has been my most used lens since I got it 2 years ago. IMO the sweet spot is f6.3/f8 between 20 and 70. This lens is very sharp in the center from 18 to 80. But you need to stop it down to get sharp edges. There is field curvature at 18. At the long end, the lens remains sharp in the center (useful for portraits, where it has a nice bokeh, and for wildlife, as you can crop) but the edges are soft until f10-f11.

01-24-2017, 04:43 PM	#1815
RGlasel Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: Saskatoon Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,228	Originally posted by Tatouzou There is field curvature at 18 I don't know of any 18mm lens for an APS-C sized image circle with a flat focal plane. Two things make this less of a problem, one, the depth of field at 18mm is greater than at longer focal lengths and two, field curvature is a closer match to how we perceive a wider scene. A flat focal plane for wide panoramic viewpoints looks as distorted as Greenland on a Mercator projection map.