[mattb123]

Looks like the 18-135 works out nicely for landscape. That is the thing with having the 18-55 AL II and doing hiking/landscape. If I don't have that extra length I may miss out on some nice features.

Those are nice pictures.

Thanks, I like it. Not my finest lens but possibly my most versatile.
There is often some fringing in high contrast areas but Lightroom makes that pretty easy to fix.
It's certainly good enough the majority of the time.

[C_Jones]

Thanks, I like it. Not my finest lens but possibly my most versatile.
There is often some fringing in high contrast areas but Lightroom makes that pretty easy to fix.
It's certainly good enough the majority of the time.

If you were to be going on an expedition through the mountain country (ex. Colorado/Utah) and only had one choice, would you prefer the 18-135 WR, or would you prefer another type of zoom, or a certain prime? I am curious because my brother lives in Utah and he has a trailhead right in his community.

[mattb123]

If you were to be going on an expedition through the mountain country (ex. Colorado/Utah) and only had one choice, would you prefer the 18-135 WR, or would you prefer another type of zoom, or a certain prime? I am curious because my brother lives in Utah and he has a trailhead right in his community.

Well that is what I did yesterday and I brought the 18-135 but the expedition was local for me.
If I was traveling to Utah for example I'd probably still take it and maybe add the DA 15 and/or Rokinon 8mm since 18mm can feel tight somewhere like a slot canyon.

I'd also consider the new 16-85 zoom although it is a little bigger and heavier. I like to shoot wide so I'd probably get more use from 16-18 than I get from 85-135.

If it was strictly a photo excursion (like something paid) and I needed WR I'd take two bodies (K-5 or K-S2 & K-3) with a DA* 16-50 on one and the DA* 60-250 on the other. But yesterday I was just out hiking and the 18-135 was a perfect balance of IQ, WR, light weight, and not too big.

[C_Jones]

I appreciate your opinion. I noticed the 16-85 that you mentioned, that sounds like a sort of attractive range. The reviews for that lens on Amazon are excellent. I wonder if that high quality of a lens would be useful for my portrait, landscape, and event needs. Do you think that may be a worthy option per your experience?

[mattb123]

It depends a lot on you, but it could certainly do. Neither are really considered portrait lenses because they are relatively slow but using the long end with the background far enough away could probably produce nice results.
I usually go for a fast(ish) lens with a focal length in the 70-150 range for portraits. My Sears 135/2.8 works well and was a $40 eBay score so depending on how important portraits are and how you like to shoot them either of these could get you by until you find something like my Sears. Other lenses I use for that purpose include the DA 70/2.4 and Tamron 28-75/2.8 but the Sears was the most bang for the buck. It's manual focus but the price was tough to beat. The 70 is the sharpest but that isn't always what you want for a portrait.

[pathdoc]

Great shots, all, but in the end the big thing about this lens is not just the ability to do all that but the ability to go on doing so in the wet. I love my primes, but a greater range of WR focal lengths than just 100mm would be handy sometimes. Have been considering this versus 18-55 + 50-200 or 55-300 as a WR package, but this one will possibly come up tops because it can cover the biggest range from wide without having to switch lenses.

[C_Jones]

It depends a lot on you, but it could certainly do. Neither are really considered portrait lenses because they are relatively slow but using the long end with the background far enough away could probably produce nice results.
I usually go for a fast(ish) lens with a focal length in the 70-150 range for portraits. My Sears 135/2.8 works well and was a $40 eBay score so depending on how important portraits are and how you like to shoot them either of these could get you by until you find something like my Sears. Other lenses I use for that purpose include the DA 70/2.4 and Tamron 28-75/2.8 but the Sears was the most bang for the buck. It's manual focus but the price was tough to beat. The 70 is the sharpest but that isn't always what you want for a portrait.

Thanks Matt. I would be using lighting (flash and/or constant) for indoor or outdoor portraits/groups anyhow. The landscape capability and detail that the 16-85 seems to promise is what I would be interested in if I found it to be more effective than the 18-135. In both cases I would need the wide shooting capability.

I appreciate your opinion, thanks again.

[Scorpio71GR]

In the end it comes down to what you want to use it for and how much you want to spend. The 16-85 is much larger and more expensive than the 18-135. However there is a huge difference between 16mm and 18mm when it comes to landscapes. I discovered that with my 16-50. From everything I have read and heard the 16-85 is sharper than the 18-135 wide open. I have seen 18-135's on sale here in the marketplace for $250. You will not come close to that for a 16-85. I have a Sears 135 2.8 macro as well. I have had it for over 20 years. It is a great portrait lens and tends to give a softer effect. For portraits I use my 50-135, it is the best portrait lens I have.
With all that said I still would not part with my 18-135. It covers all my primary focal ranges, is weather resistant, has silent focus, is light enough to take anywhere, and delivers results I am happy with. I was able to purchase mine from a forum member so it did not break the bank either.
Michael

---------- Post added 09-08-15 at 07:40 PM ----------

On the K -01 @18mm f8


78mm f8 same spot


135mm f10


Michael

[Scorpio71GR]

Print it, Michael, and hang it in his kennel!
He would be proud of it.

Thanks Rod, this is of the few photos I would actually print. I almost threw it out because originally it was not to good. I have trying to challenge my post processing skills more lately.

Michael

---------- Post added 09-08-15 at 10:40 PM ----------

Another of my boy Duke with the 18-135 on the K50, 135mm at f8.


Michael

[C_Jones]

Thanks for the opinions/information Michael.

[StephenHampshire]

[normhead]

Cropped to K-5 size....
K-3, DA 18-135, 400 ISO ƒ6.3, 1/250s

[mtux]

Some bird shots with DA18-135






And one spotted "in the wild" on the side of a river we were passing on a boat

[pathdoc]

Some bird shots with DA18-135

First thing that came to mind on the first one: "He's watching us - Daphne DuMaurier was right!"

---------- Post added 15-09-15 at 08:27 ----------

Another of my boy Duke

The front paws are a little OOF for my liking, but OTOH it does help draw attention to the face and that huge, slobbery tongue; so on the whole a nice shot!

[AlexBW]

Two shots taken with the 18-135 WR during a trip this last weekend.
First shot is of Mount Garibaldi (2675m) and the second of stars over Mount Habrich (1792m).