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

normhead · 02-11-2014, 02:46 PM - **2 Likes**

I haven't been doing much lately, after wrenching my back... so I put together, some of my favourite 18-135 pictures from throughout the year... I've probably posted them some of them before, so maybe it's just a review....

Probably the most versatile high IQ lens ever, and I'm not really sure what's in second place. It really goes everywhere and does everything.

Last edited by normhead; 02-11-2014 at 06:32 PM.

**savoche** · 02-11-2014, 02:51 PM - **2 Likes**

Acacia tree flowers.

Lokusart · 02-11-2014, 03:00 PM

great photos, the 18-135 looks like a lot more than some reviews say.

I have an eye on this lens, waiting for Pentax to release the 17-70 to compare it

normhead · 02-11-2014, 03:28 PM

Between 70-135 it's not much of a comparison, below 70, they both have their strong points. Pretty much depends on how much the wider aperture on the 17-70 is worth to you. Many sites really discount the value of slower lenses so it's hard to get a decent evaluation. If 24 mm is the focal length you're the 18-135 will be beating the 17-70's butt, but not everywhere in it's range. AT 18mm the 17-170 is better, but it's not 3.5 either.

Last edited by normhead; 02-11-2014 at 04:18 PM.

Lokusart · 02-11-2014, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by normhead

Between 70-135 it's not much of a comparison, below 70, they both have their strong points. Pretty much depends on how much the wider aperture on the 17-70 is worth to you. Many sites really discount the value of slower lenses so it's hard to get a decent evaluation. If 24 mm is the focal length you're the 18-135 will be beating the 17-70's butt, but now everywhere in it's range. AT 18mm the 17-170 is better, but it's not 3.5 either.

I use a lot the 18mm on the K-30, the 17-70 lens I was talking about is a f4 lens that supposedly it's going to be released by Pentax/Ricoh, the only problem is no idea when. With 17mm I would be even happier

normhead · 02-11-2014, 06:26 PM

Originally posted by Lokusart

I use a lot the 18mm on the K-30, the 17-70 lens I was talking about is a f4 lens that supposedly it's going to be released by Pentax/Ricoh, the only problem is no idea when. With 17mm I would be even happier

If you use 18mm a lot, there's a good chance you'd enjoy something even shorter than 16 or 17.

Eyewanders · 02-11-2014, 06:27 PM

Completely subjective opinion here... I remember a long time ago considering picking this up for sheer convenience, but the more sample photos i see of it the more i'm happy i did not. there are some true gems in this thread, and a credit to those photogs, but by and large even some really nice compositions seem flat to me and lack much life. Thats just my 2 cents.... It's true it's range is impossible to beat, but I just don't think i'd ever be happy with most of the results, so it's a wash for me at least.

**mgvh** · 02-11-2014, 08:11 PM

Don't get me wrong. I love my 18-135, and it's my primary lens, but the Tamron SP AF 24-135 f3.5-5.6 AD Aspherical (IF) does provide better pics. (HERE is my review of that lens.)
I'm using the DA 18-135 because it's WR, lighter, and wider.
I'm keeping and using the Tamron 24-135 because of its outstanding IQ, excellent photo qualities of sharpness and contrast, and its full-frame capability (should I ever need it!).

normhead · 02-11-2014, 09:34 PM

Originally posted by mgvh

Don't get me wrong. I love my 18-135, and it's my primary lens, but the Tamron SP AF 24-135 f3.5-5.6 AD Aspherical (IF) does provide better pics. (HERE is my review of that lens.)
I'm using the DA 18-135 because it's WR, lighter, and wider.
I'm keeping and using the Tamron 24-135 because of its outstanding IQ, excellent photo qualities of sharpness and contrast, and its full-frame capability (should I ever need it!).

The photo zone numbers tell a different story, as in a completely different story.

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

Tamron AF 24-135mm f/3.5-5.6 SP AD Aspherical (IF) - Review / Lab Test Report - Analysis

The Tamron is a more consistent lens, but only because it's centre resolution is so much worse... no where in it's range does the Tamron approach the Pentax's centre sharpness, and wide angle, the Pentax is better centre and edge. Looking at the photo zone numbers it's hard to believe the Tamron could match the 18-135 anywhere in it's range, except on the edges. Certainly no where near the middle of the frame.

I don't have both lenses, and I can't do a comparison, so I have no idea what's going on, so if you could do a comparison, at 24 mm or a few test images, using both lenses(tripod, 2 sec. delay on the timer, and a target image with a bit of detail) I'd be really interested in seeing if I see what you see.

I know the scores are achieved on different sensors and aren't directly comparable, but I've never known them to be that far off and I've used cross camera comparisons lots of times with good results. A couple of hundred lw/ph you can't be definitive, but you can certainly draw conclusions from the graphed ratings. You couldn't break a tie, if the lenses are this far apart, you're pretty safe assuming the one rated up in the excellent part is better than one very good to good.

Paul the Sunman · 02-12-2014, 02:32 AM

I shot a few comparisons today on my K3 with the DA 18-135, the DA 18-55 WR, and the SMC DA 40 Ltd, all at 40mm and both f4.5 and f6.3. The DA 40 Ltd was nicely sharp right across the frame; it was actually difficult to tell centre from edge! This is one of the great strengths of the lens. However, the DA 18-135 was actually sharper at centre than the DA 40 Ltd, and had more "pop", at both apertures, though it was softer on the edges. The DA 18-55 was the softest throughout, as expected.

This contributes to a certain refined "look" from the DA 40 Ltd. The DA 18-135 (at least at this focal length) seems to me to be "showier", less refined but more brash, emphasizing hard edges and bold contrast. The lens best suited depends on the subject and the look you're trying to attain. With both in the bag (actually, the DA 40 spends a lot of time in my jeans pocket), I will choose more carefully in future depending on the look I'm chasing. Overall, I'm very happy with the 18-135. It certainly isn't "flat" as chickentender claimed above.

**savoche** · 02-12-2014, 02:43 AM

I'm impressed with the performance of the 18-135, it being what it is. It's much better than I had expected (or feared), and certainly better than the 18-55 I used previously as the "go anywhere, do everything" lens.

Do my primes perform better? Certainly! For what they do. But some tasks only the 18-135 can do. And some tasks it can't. But it sure is my go-to lens for versatility.

I'm sure a 16-50 and a 50-135 would be wonderful, but then we are talking a lot more size and weight. And money. Not interested.

I'm happy with my 18-135. If other people are not, no problem. That's why we have DSLRs.

Lokusart · 02-12-2014, 04:05 AM

Originally posted by normhead

If you use 18mm a lot, there's a good chance you'd enjoy something even shorter than 16 or 17.

Yes, I think I would. I've been considering the DA* 16-50 too, but I haven't made my decision yet for some opinions about its build quality, weight, and price/value. I don't like to buy thing by impulse now, I learned that lesson

Paul the Sunman · 02-12-2014, 04:22 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Lokusart

Yes, I think I would. I've been considering the DA* 16-50 too, but I haven't made my decision yet for some opinions about its build quality, weight, and price/value. I don't like to buy thing by impulse now, I learned that lesson

The DA 15 Ltd is my favourite lens. A great complement to the 18-135 when you want to go wider. It exudes drama.

Lokusart · 02-12-2014, 05:03 AM

Originally posted by Paul the Sunman

The DA 15 Ltd is my favourite lens. A great complement to the 18-135 when you want to go wider. It exudes drama.

nice, thanks. That's a lens I haven't followed yet

normhead · 02-12-2014, 07:14 AM

Like most I'll take my 18-135 off for a prime, any one of my 7 primes in it's range, it's definitely not about it being the best at everything. It's about it being good enough to hold the fort unit the prime gets on. Many of my images posted above were not posted before, because I took a few images with the 18-135, and then came back with a prime. Some of those prime images are not as good, because the 18-135 was on the camera at the right time. To me it's good enough IQ to use, if the prime images don't work out. And on hikes etc. the only primes I'm like to take will be the 21 ltd and 40xs, because they're light and don't take any space, although it would be great to have a 15 ltd... I bought the Sigma 8-16, which is where I learned my "perfect lens" lesson, in that perfect lenses are really heavy and you don't want to carry them. My Sigma 8-16 and 70 macro, have become my albatrosses. On their own maybe not that heavy, but I always carry either the DA*60-250 or the A-400, or both, added to those, that's a heavy package. Days when I just go with my 18-135 are just a joy, and it's quite often I never take another lens out of the bag even if they take them, and that includes for wildlife.

My one disappointment with it would be, that when I have the A-400 or DA*60-250 on my camera in the holster, or on the tripod, the 18-135 is too heavy to carry on the K-01 around my neck. I usually use either the 21ltd or 40xs for that. It's not bad on it's own where you can carry it in your hand from time to time, but as a second camera around your neck when you're carrying a heavier lens, it's just too heavy.

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

02-11-2014, 02:46 PM - 2 Likes	#436
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	I haven't been doing much lately, after wrenching my back... so I put together, some of my favourite 18-135 pictures from throughout the year... I've probably posted them some of them before, so maybe it's just a review.... Probably the most versatile high IQ lens ever, and I'm not really sure what's in second place. It really goes everywhere and does everything. Last edited by normhead; 02-11-2014 at 06:32 PM.

02-11-2014, 02:51 PM - 2 Likes	#437
savoche Master of the obvious Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Lowlands of Norway Posts: 18,311	Acacia tree flowers.

02-11-2014, 03:00 PM	#438
Lokusart Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: Algarve Posts: 173	great photos, the 18-135 looks like a lot more than some reviews say. I have an eye on this lens, waiting for Pentax to release the 17-70 to compare it

02-11-2014, 03:28 PM	#439
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Between 70-135 it's not much of a comparison, below 70, they both have their strong points. Pretty much depends on how much the wider aperture on the 17-70 is worth to you. Many sites really discount the value of slower lenses so it's hard to get a decent evaluation. If 24 mm is the focal length you're the 18-135 will be beating the 17-70's butt, but not everywhere in it's range. AT 18mm the 17-170 is better, but it's not 3.5 either. Last edited by normhead; 02-11-2014 at 04:18 PM.

02-11-2014, 03:56 PM	#440
Lokusart Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: Algarve Posts: 173	Originally posted by normhead Between 70-135 it's not much of a comparison, below 70, they both have their strong points. Pretty much depends on how much the wider aperture on the 17-70 is worth to you. Many sites really discount the value of slower lenses so it's hard to get a decent evaluation. If 24 mm is the focal length you're the 18-135 will be beating the 17-70's butt, but now everywhere in it's range. AT 18mm the 17-170 is better, but it's not 3.5 either. I use a lot the 18mm on the K-30, the 17-70 lens I was talking about is a f4 lens that supposedly it's going to be released by Pentax/Ricoh, the only problem is no idea when. With 17mm I would be even happier

02-11-2014, 06:26 PM	#441
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by Lokusart I use a lot the 18mm on the K-30, the 17-70 lens I was talking about is a f4 lens that supposedly it's going to be released by Pentax/Ricoh, the only problem is no idea when. With 17mm I would be even happier If you use 18mm a lot, there's a good chance you'd enjoy something even shorter than 16 or 17.

02-11-2014, 06:27 PM	#442
Eyewanders Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Land of the Salish Sea Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,343	Completely subjective opinion here... I remember a long time ago considering picking this up for sheer convenience, but the more sample photos i see of it the more i'm happy i did not. there are some true gems in this thread, and a credit to those photogs, but by and large even some really nice compositions seem flat to me and lack much life. Thats just my 2 cents.... It's true it's range is impossible to beat, but I just don't think i'd ever be happy with most of the results, so it's a wash for me at least.

02-11-2014, 08:11 PM	#443
mgvh Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: MD Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,029	Don't get me wrong. I love my 18-135, and it's my primary lens, but the Tamron SP AF 24-135 f3.5-5.6 AD Aspherical (IF) does provide better pics. (HERE is my review of that lens.) I'm using the DA 18-135 because it's WR, lighter, and wider. I'm keeping and using the Tamron 24-135 because of its outstanding IQ, excellent photo qualities of sharpness and contrast, and its full-frame capability (should I ever need it!).

02-11-2014, 09:34 PM	#444
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by mgvh Don't get me wrong. I love my 18-135, and it's my primary lens, but the Tamron SP AF 24-135 f3.5-5.6 AD Aspherical (IF) does provide better pics. (HERE is my review of that lens.) I'm using the DA 18-135 because it's WR, lighter, and wider. I'm keeping and using the Tamron 24-135 because of its outstanding IQ, excellent photo qualities of sharpness and contrast, and its full-frame capability (should I ever need it!). The photo zone numbers tell a different story, as in a completely different story. Pentax SMC-DA 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 ED AL [IF] WR - Review / Lens Test - Analysis Tamron AF 24-135mm f/3.5-5.6 SP AD Aspherical (IF) - Review / Lab Test Report - Analysis The Tamron is a more consistent lens, but only because it's centre resolution is so much worse... no where in it's range does the Tamron approach the Pentax's centre sharpness, and wide angle, the Pentax is better centre and edge. Looking at the photo zone numbers it's hard to believe the Tamron could match the 18-135 anywhere in it's range, except on the edges. Certainly no where near the middle of the frame. I don't have both lenses, and I can't do a comparison, so I have no idea what's going on, so if you could do a comparison, at 24 mm or a few test images, using both lenses(tripod, 2 sec. delay on the timer, and a target image with a bit of detail) I'd be really interested in seeing if I see what you see. I know the scores are achieved on different sensors and aren't directly comparable, but I've never known them to be that far off and I've used cross camera comparisons lots of times with good results. A couple of hundred lw/ph you can't be definitive, but you can certainly draw conclusions from the graphed ratings. You couldn't break a tie, if the lenses are this far apart, you're pretty safe assuming the one rated up in the excellent part is better than one very good to good.

02-12-2014, 02:32 AM	#445
Paul the Sunman Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Melbourne Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,843	I shot a few comparisons today on my K3 with the DA 18-135, the DA 18-55 WR, and the SMC DA 40 Ltd, all at 40mm and both f4.5 and f6.3. The DA 40 Ltd was nicely sharp right across the frame; it was actually difficult to tell centre from edge! This is one of the great strengths of the lens. However, the DA 18-135 was actually sharper at centre than the DA 40 Ltd, and had more "pop", at both apertures, though it was softer on the edges. The DA 18-55 was the softest throughout, as expected. This contributes to a certain refined "look" from the DA 40 Ltd. The DA 18-135 (at least at this focal length) seems to me to be "showier", less refined but more brash, emphasizing hard edges and bold contrast. The lens best suited depends on the subject and the look you're trying to attain. With both in the bag (actually, the DA 40 spends a lot of time in my jeans pocket), I will choose more carefully in future depending on the look I'm chasing. Overall, I'm very happy with the 18-135. It certainly isn't "flat" as chickentender claimed above.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-12-2014, 02:43 AM	#446
savoche Master of the obvious Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Lowlands of Norway Posts: 18,311	I'm impressed with the performance of the 18-135, it being what it is. It's much better than I had expected (or feared), and certainly better than the 18-55 I used previously as the "go anywhere, do everything" lens. Do my primes perform better? Certainly! For what they do. But some tasks only the 18-135 can do. And some tasks it can't. But it sure is my go-to lens for versatility. I'm sure a 16-50 and a 50-135 would be wonderful, but then we are talking a lot more size and weight. And money. Not interested. I'm happy with my 18-135. If other people are not, no problem. That's why we have DSLRs.

02-12-2014, 04:05 AM	#447
Lokusart Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: Algarve Posts: 173	Originally posted by normhead If you use 18mm a lot, there's a good chance you'd enjoy something even shorter than 16 or 17. Yes, I think I would. I've been considering the DA* 16-50 too, but I haven't made my decision yet for some opinions about its build quality, weight, and price/value. I don't like to buy thing by impulse now, I learned that lesson

02-12-2014, 04:22 AM - 1 Like	#448
Paul the Sunman Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Melbourne Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,843	Originally posted by Lokusart Yes, I think I would. I've been considering the DA* 16-50 too, but I haven't made my decision yet for some opinions about its build quality, weight, and price/value. I don't like to buy thing by impulse now, I learned that lesson The DA 15 Ltd is my favourite lens. A great complement to the 18-135 when you want to go wider. It exudes drama.

02-12-2014, 05:03 AM	#449
Lokusart Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: Algarve Posts: 173	Originally posted by Paul the Sunman The DA 15 Ltd is my favourite lens. A great complement to the 18-135 when you want to go wider. It exudes drama. nice, thanks. That's a lens I haven't followed yet

02-12-2014, 07:14 AM	#450
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Like most I'll take my 18-135 off for a prime, any one of my 7 primes in it's range, it's definitely not about it being the best at everything. It's about it being good enough to hold the fort unit the prime gets on. Many of my images posted above were not posted before, because I took a few images with the 18-135, and then came back with a prime. Some of those prime images are not as good, because the 18-135 was on the camera at the right time. To me it's good enough IQ to use, if the prime images don't work out. And on hikes etc. the only primes I'm like to take will be the 21 ltd and 40xs, because they're light and don't take any space, although it would be great to have a 15 ltd... I bought the Sigma 8-16, which is where I learned my "perfect lens" lesson, in that perfect lenses are really heavy and you don't want to carry them. My Sigma 8-16 and 70 macro, have become my albatrosses. On their own maybe not that heavy, but I always carry either the DA60-250 or the A-400, or both, added to those, that's a heavy package. Days when I just go with my 18-135 are just a joy, and it's quite often I never take another lens out of the bag even if they take them, and that includes for wildlife. My one disappointment with it would be, that when I have the A-400 or DA60-250 on my camera in the holster, or on the tripod, the 18-135 is too heavy to carry on the K-01 around my neck. I usually use either the 21ltd or 40xs for that. It's not bad on it's own where you can carry it in your hand from time to time, but as a second camera around your neck when you're carrying a heavier lens, it's just too heavy.