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

cali92rs · 01-30-2013, 04:05 PM - **2 Likes**

I took the 18-135mm and my Sigma 120-400mm lens to the zoo recently. That made me appreciate the light weight of the 18-135

Elliot · 01-30-2013, 06:24 PM

This is quite a nice and informative thread. I am quite tempted to purchase the lens to go with a K-5 IIs. I have one observation and one question.

The observation is that despite some reviews of the lens that are fairly critical, the lenses do not seem to show up often for sale on the forums, unless with a camera or other unique situation. It suggests that people either return them immediately, or they find them useful and they learn how to shoot with them. Almost every other lens shows up regularly for sale.

The question is whether there is a strong pumping action that seems to blow air into the camera. I read a thread elsewhere suggesting that this lens does that and so risks getting dust into the interior and LCD. I had not read it elsewhere and don't know what to make of the comments without having the lens.

Thanks for any information in that regard.

zantaphia · 01-31-2013, 04:22 AM

Originally posted by cali92rs

I took the 18-135mm and my Sigma 120-400mm lens to the zoo recently. That made me appreciate the light weight of the 18-135

Very nice!

mattb123 · 01-31-2013, 09:37 AM

A few from yesterday. I went skiing with my son's fourth grade class. These kids can really rip! Super fun day.
K-5 & DA 18-135 - a great setup for ski photos!

And one from my porch this morning

MPrince · 01-31-2013, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by kpevav

The question is whether there is a strong pumping action that seems to blow air into the camera. I read a thread elsewhere suggesting that this lens does that and so risks getting dust into the interior and LCD. I had not read it elsewhere and don't know what to make of the comments without having the lens.

Thanks for any information in that regard.

I have used the 18-135 extensively on my K-7, which I bought I think in May of 2010. In all the time I have had the K-7/18-135 combination, I have yet to encounter any dust on the sensor that couldn't be handled by the K-7 dust removal system. I have never used a rocket blower or done a wet clean on the K-7, and the sensor is clean as a whistle.

YMMV, though.

normhead · 01-31-2013, 11:17 AM

Youhave to remember on the 18-135, it's water resistant. The odds of dust being able to penetrate seals that water molecules can't is pretty remote. If you were to get dust it would be really fine. The thing I find with this lens is there's really no excuse to take it off the camera, unless going for a prime. I've taken to leaving it out in the boat when I go canoeing. As long as it's on a water sealed body, I trust I can get it out of the water before it's damaged even if I dumped, at least in still water. That means it's available for quick wildlife shots, whatever I come across.

ruoyun.huang · 02-01-2013, 06:17 AM

very good lens, solid build and good optics but I still think it is a bit over-priced

mattb123 · 02-01-2013, 08:15 AM - **1 Like**

Another nice Colorado sunrise from my porch. One exposure at each end of it's range.
K-5 & DA 18-135

normhead · 02-01-2013, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by ruoyun.huang

very good lens, solid build and good optics but I still think it is a bit over-priced

I've heard this a lot but I don't really understand the logic.

The weather sealing itself is worth a $100-$200. So from an optical perspective alone, any WR lens is overpriced.

Pentax 18-55 WR - $229

Pentax DA 18-135 WR- $599

Pentax DA* 50-135 2.8 $1,199 and DA* 16-50 $1099. Combined $2300 to cover the same range.

The 18-135 is designed to be in between the kit lenses and the DA*s. Even though at some FLs lengths it's better than the 16-50. I've seen them on Prodigal2000 for as low as $400. SO while a person could reasonably conclude it is in some way overpriced. One could equally conclude, that given it's IQ centre and edge in it's low end and centre sharpness through it's whole range, that at $600 with WR it's underpriced. How that plays out is a matter of personal usage. But you don't see many people who use the lens who think it's overpriced. That tends to be the opinion of those who've never had it out in the field taking pictures.

I get really tired of people who don't own the lens bad mouthing it. If you owned it and sold it because it wasn't good enough, that's useful information. Everyone wants to know what you think is better, and what you use now. For me it's exactly what I wanted. WR. A lens I can put on the camera and just leave there. And a lens capable of producing top IQ images. If you think it's too slow for the money, don't even go there. UNless you're thinking Tamron 17-50, 28-75 and 70-200 2.8s which is a fantasitc set of quality zooms for very good prices. But, not WR and you have to buy all three to cover the range of the 18-135, and still pay close to $2000.

mattb123 · 02-01-2013, 09:18 AM

I got mine on a special a while back for about $500 and I think it was well worth it. I'd gladly pay less but this price seemed reasonable.

normhead · 02-01-2013, 09:31 AM

Originally posted by mattb123

I got mine on a special a while back for about $500 and I think it was well worth it. I'd gladly pay less but this price seemed reasonable.

I'd gladly pay less for any lens I own. After all, how much is the glass, metal and plastic in there really worth? My dream lens would be a 70-200 2.8 lens for $450 but can anyone actually make it for that. I suspect that building a lens like the 18-135 is a series of compromises. They had a price point in mind and they designed something they could produce for that price point. Everyone likes the lens, they don't want the engineers to go back to the drawing board and design the 18-200 and sell it for $350. They want this lens at the 18-200 price.

There are lot's of lenses that cover this range for less money. Just in head to head comparisons using photozone, none of them have the IQ of the 18-135. And defintiely none of them come anywhere near close to the 18-135 in it's sweet spot.

mattb123 · 02-01-2013, 09:42 AM

Wasn't it originally something like $799? I thought it was too expensive when it first came out but now the price has settled it seems more appropriate. But I can be cheap...

audiobomber · 02-01-2013, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by mattb123

Wasn't it originally something like $799? I thought it was too expensive when it first came out but now the price has settled it seems more appropriate. But I can be cheap...

The announced price at DPR was £599.99. I bought the 18-135 early in 2011, for the same for the price as the DA 18-250, just over $500 Canadian. The 18-135 has better IQ and build quality is in another league compared to the older superzoom, so pretty good value IMO.

kiwibird · 02-01-2013, 01:45 PM

I'm glad this lens is finally getting some much overdue respect. I've had it since it pretty much since it first became available, and for 2 years it has served me well.

mattb123 · 02-01-2013, 02:13 PM

Just grabbed this out my office window. It's a great walk around lens when you don't know what you might come across!

01-30-2013, 06:24 PM	#92
Elliot Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: South Carolina Photos: Gallery Posts: 281	This is quite a nice and informative thread. I am quite tempted to purchase the lens to go with a K-5 IIs. I have one observation and one question. The observation is that despite some reviews of the lens that are fairly critical, the lenses do not seem to show up often for sale on the forums, unless with a camera or other unique situation. It suggests that people either return them immediately, or they find them useful and they learn how to shoot with them. Almost every other lens shows up regularly for sale. The question is whether there is a strong pumping action that seems to blow air into the camera. I read a thread elsewhere suggesting that this lens does that and so risks getting dust into the interior and LCD. I had not read it elsewhere and don't know what to make of the comments without having the lens. Thanks for any information in that regard. Last edited by Elliot; 01-30-2013 at 07:09 PM.

02-01-2013, 08:39 AM	#99
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 37,114	Originally posted by ruoyun.huang very good lens, solid build and good optics but I still think it is a bit over-priced I've heard this a lot but I don't really understand the logic. The weather sealing itself is worth a $100-$200. So from an optical perspective alone, any WR lens is overpriced. Pentax 18-55 WR - $229 Pentax DA 18-135 WR- $599 Pentax DA* 50-135 2.8 $1,199 and DA* 16-50 $1099. Combined $2300 to cover the same range. The 18-135 is designed to be in between the kit lenses and the DAs. Even though at some FLs lengths it's better than the 16-50. I've seen them on Prodigal2000 for as low as $400. SO while a person could reasonably conclude it is in some way overpriced. One could equally conclude, that given it's IQ centre and edge in it's low end and centre sharpness through it's whole range, that at $600 with WR it's underpriced. How that plays out is a matter of personal usage. But you don't see many people who use the lens who think it's overpriced. That tends to be the opinion of those who've never had it out in the field taking pictures. I get really tired of people who don't own the lens bad mouthing it. If you owned it and sold it because it wasn't good enough, that's useful information. Everyone wants to know what you think is better, and what you use now. For me it's exactly what I wanted. WR. A lens I can put on the camera and just leave there. And a lens capable of producing top IQ images. If you think it's too slow for the money, don't even go there. UNless you're thinking Tamron 17-50, 28-75 and 70-200 2.8s which is a fantasitc set of quality zooms for very good prices. But, not WR and you have to buy all three to cover the range of the 18-135, and still pay close to $2000. Last edited by normhead; 02-01-2013 at 08:52 AM.*

02-01-2013, 01:45 PM	#104
kiwibird Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: New York City Photos: Gallery Posts: 43	I'm glad this lens is finally getting some much overdue respect. I've had it since it pretty much since it first became available, and for 2 years it has served me well. Attached Images

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

01-30-2013, 04:05 PM - 2 Likes	#91
cali92rs Veteran Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Long Beach, CA Posts: 3,354	I took the 18-135mm and my Sigma 120-400mm lens to the zoo recently. That made me appreciate the light weight of the 18-135

01-31-2013, 04:22 AM	#93
zantaphia Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Skövde, Skaraborg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 505	Originally posted by cali92rs I took the 18-135mm and my Sigma 120-400mm lens to the zoo recently. That made me appreciate the light weight of the 18-135 Very nice!

01-31-2013, 09:37 AM	#94
mattb123 Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Colorado High Country Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,863	A few from yesterday. I went skiing with my son's fourth grade class. These kids can really rip! Super fun day. K-5 & DA 18-135 - a great setup for ski photos! And one from my porch this morning

01-31-2013, 11:05 AM	#95
MPrince Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: WV Posts: 1,495	Originally posted by kpevav The question is whether there is a strong pumping action that seems to blow air into the camera. I read a thread elsewhere suggesting that this lens does that and so risks getting dust into the interior and LCD. I had not read it elsewhere and don't know what to make of the comments without having the lens. Thanks for any information in that regard. I have used the 18-135 extensively on my K-7, which I bought I think in May of 2010. In all the time I have had the K-7/18-135 combination, I have yet to encounter any dust on the sensor that couldn't be handled by the K-7 dust removal system. I have never used a rocket blower or done a wet clean on the K-7, and the sensor is clean as a whistle. YMMV, though.

01-31-2013, 11:17 AM	#96
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 37,114	Youhave to remember on the 18-135, it's water resistant. The odds of dust being able to penetrate seals that water molecules can't is pretty remote. If you were to get dust it would be really fine. The thing I find with this lens is there's really no excuse to take it off the camera, unless going for a prime. I've taken to leaving it out in the boat when I go canoeing. As long as it's on a water sealed body, I trust I can get it out of the water before it's damaged even if I dumped, at least in still water. That means it's available for quick wildlife shots, whatever I come across.

02-01-2013, 06:17 AM	#97
ruoyun.huang Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 64	very good lens, solid build and good optics but I still think it is a bit over-priced

02-01-2013, 08:15 AM - 1 Like	#98
mattb123 Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Colorado High Country Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,863	Another nice Colorado sunrise from my porch. One exposure at each end of it's range. K-5 & DA 18-135

02-01-2013, 09:18 AM	#100
mattb123 Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Colorado High Country Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,863	I got mine on a special a while back for about $500 and I think it was well worth it. I'd gladly pay less but this price seemed reasonable.

02-01-2013, 09:31 AM	#101
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 37,114	Originally posted by mattb123 I got mine on a special a while back for about $500 and I think it was well worth it. I'd gladly pay less but this price seemed reasonable. I'd gladly pay less for any lens I own. After all, how much is the glass, metal and plastic in there really worth? My dream lens would be a 70-200 2.8 lens for $450 but can anyone actually make it for that. I suspect that building a lens like the 18-135 is a series of compromises. They had a price point in mind and they designed something they could produce for that price point. Everyone likes the lens, they don't want the engineers to go back to the drawing board and design the 18-200 and sell it for $350. They want this lens at the 18-200 price. There are lot's of lenses that cover this range for less money. Just in head to head comparisons using photozone, none of them have the IQ of the 18-135. And defintiely none of them come anywhere near close to the 18-135 in it's sweet spot.

02-01-2013, 09:42 AM	#102
mattb123 Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Colorado High Country Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,863	Wasn't it originally something like $799? I thought it was too expensive when it first came out but now the price has settled it seems more appropriate. But I can be cheap...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-01-2013, 10:45 AM	#103
audiobomber Pentaxian Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,802	Originally posted by mattb123 Wasn't it originally something like $799? I thought it was too expensive when it first came out but now the price has settled it seems more appropriate. But I can be cheap... The announced price at DPR was £599.99. I bought the 18-135 early in 2011, for the same for the price as the DA 18-250, just over $500 Canadian. The 18-135 has better IQ and build quality is in another league compared to the older superzoom, so pretty good value IMO.

02-01-2013, 02:13 PM	#105
mattb123 Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Colorado High Country Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,863	Just grabbed this out my office window. It's a great walk around lens when you don't know what you might come across!