[normhead]

thought is was DA* WR? main reason is to have a WR in that range for storms etc...not sure if 15mm limited is WR, but I know the DA300 is. Yes the 60-250 is on my list as well, but need a bit longer reach 1st..Have you tried the TC 2x or 1.7 on your 60-250? by chance

I have used the TC, but you have to understand the limitations of any TC. I love the TC for birds on my porch, on long distance shots, they degrade the image quality so much you'd probably be better off with a Bigma. With the Pentax 1.7 TC you're looking at F6.3. You can get a second hand 400-5.6 for a lot less, have the same reach and a much clearer image.

The 18-135 is WR, and the DC lens focussing motor is superb. Long is really a problem for Pentax right now. Frogfish and I went through the DA* 60-250 or DA* 300 F4 thing together a while ago. He got the 300, I got the 60-250. He's since moved on to Nikon equipment. There just isn't that much difference between 250 and 300. If you're not happy with the 250, you're probably not going to be happy with the 300. And the Sigma 500 4.5, is horribly expensive and heavy. The Pentax 560mm 5.6 is just horribly expensive. Pentax still needs a good lens in the 400mm range... and there's nothing on the horizon. I tried the Sigma 120-400 and the IQ was so weak in the long end over distance, I couldn't imagine myself using it, Like my 60-250 with the TC only worse, though, it was very nice for birds that were 10 feet away.

[Hegemon]

Sorry, a little late to the party but here are some 18-135mm pics:


















































It's the only lens I take with me when I go on vacation and I love it! for the other 400+ pictures I took with it (except the NYC November set):

Flickr: The Last Hegemon's Photostream

[cali92rs]

Here is my contribution. I took these last night at SeaWorld.
Lighting at the Shamu show was very challenging. That combined with the lenses small aperture meant that ISO really had to be bumped up (6400 and even 12800), but i think it did an admirable job, especially since i left it wide open.

[audiobomber]

Hegemon and Kenneth, great shots. Well done on all of them.

[Tbone51]

I'm satisfied with what the pentax 18-135 delivers. Versatility for travel is appreciated.

[cali92rs]

Hegemon and Kenneth, great shots. Well done on all of them.

Thank you kindly, its appreciated

If I were to take pictures of a dimly lit event with lots of motion on a regular basis, I would invest in a 70-200mm f2.8. But in a pinch, this one does its job, definitely

[Tbone51]

I'm new, and still trying to learn how to post more than one photo. Thanks for your patience. Suggestions on the art of photography are appreciated.

---

Last edited by Tbone51; 06-17-2016 at 02:22 PM.

[normhead]

Some very cool shots there guys. I guess the thing about coming late to the party is you have a nice collection of very good images.

[Tbone51]

Thanks for your comments

[Hegemon]

thanks guys!

[cali92rs]

I'm new, and still trying to learn how to post more than one photo. Thanks for your patience. Suggestions on the art of photography are appreciated.

You have a great eye...awesome color and good composition. If you you are really new to photography, you have nothing to worry about. Just keep a fresh battery handy and a few spare memory sticks

[Tbone51]

Thanks for the encouragement

[Shanti]

I have used the TC, but you have to understand the limitations of any TC. I love the TC for birds on my porch, on long distance shots, they degrade the image quality so much you'd probably be better off with a Bigma. With the Pentax 1.7 TC you're looking at F6.3. You can get a second hand 400-5.6 for a lot less, have the same reach and a much clearer image.

The 18-135 is WR, and the DC lens focussing motor is superb. Long is really a problem for Pentax right now. Frogfish and I went through the DA* 60-250 or DA* 300 F4 thing together a while ago. He got the 300, I got the 60-250. He's since moved on to Nikon equipment. There just isn't that much difference between 250 and 300. If you're not happy with the 250, you're probably not going to be happy with the 300. And the Sigma 500 4.5, is horribly expensive and heavy. The Pentax 560mm 5.6 is just horribly expensive. Pentax still needs a good lens in the 400mm range... and there's nothing on the horizon. I tried the Sigma 120-400 and the IQ was so weak in the long end over distance, I couldn't imagine myself using it, Like my 60-250 with the TC only worse, though, it was very nice for birds that were 10 feet away.

I know long is a problem,but can't afford a D800/lens combo just now,and like the small size of Pentax,and IQ i have seen,after being let down with Oly(no new 4/3 yet if ever) I'm planning to move to Pentax. Do you think the new TC Pentax may come with next year will have good enough IQ for use with 60-250 or 300 lenses? If I can get 600mm effective FL(35mm) with good IQ, then I am quite happy..

[mattb123]

Nice to have a sealed lens out on the hill. Snow was blowing around a lot today. The skiing was nice!
Looks like it will make a decent starburst at f/13.

[nu12ul]

I absolutely love this lens. For the price, the performance is great.