[Cerebum]

Try using your 18-135 at specific focal lengths (24, 28, 35, 50, 90, 100 & 135) to see what you like then maybe try a couple of vintage lenses. Manual lenses are really satisfying and you get a lot for your money. A 50mm f2 will only cost you £15 whereas a 100mm f4 macro, scored 98/100 on PF will still only cost £125. I have the takumar version of the 100mm macro and it is astonishing. The other lens I would grab if I was limited to two is a Miranda 24mm f2.8 macro which renders beautifully and is a nice focal length. Mine cost £40. Manual lenses give you the opportunity to dabble with primes without breaking the bank if you want AF, the smc da 35mm f2.4 is great for the money. A bit plasticky but works well for significantly less than £100. Also, the focal length works well

[robgski]

Before you buy any lens, ask yourself what type of photographic style you most prefer. For, if you like being out and about to shoot any subject that comes along, shooting in bad weather, and not stopping to change lenses for every shot, sometimes shooting wide, and sometimes zooming in,the 18-135mm WR is a great choice for a walk around lens.


However, if you are find that most of your shots are wide panoramas, portraits, macros, or telephotos shots of things afar away, get a prime best suited for that style. I prefer primes, but I do appreciate the versatility of the 18-135WR. It and the DA 40mm XS are the only two lenses I had for a six month trip away from home, and only rarely did I wish I'd brought any other lenses.

[normhead]

I've been thinking of a good response all evening, and I got nothing. If I'm put in a corner, i'll just plead that I'm a just a big insensitive guy and ask the court for mercy.

Just bring her chocolates.

---------- Post added 06-06-18 at 11:08 AM ----------

I've been thinking of a good response all evening, and I got nothing. If I'm put in a corner, i'll just plead that I'm a just a big insensitive guy and ask the court for mercy.

Back to the original topics. This is an image I would have taken the 18-135 off the camera and put the 21 ltd on for. But the 18-135 would be good too.

Then 18-135 can give you something special, but I think the 21 would give you something "specialer" for this image. Just my two bits worth.

[UncleVanya]

I am thinking of getting another lens as the 18-135 was my first choice in the kit as I used it extensively on my sp1000 years ago as a walk around lens. I have since purchased a 55-300 but was thinking along the 50mm or 18-55mm, thoughts?

I'm having trouble understanding how you used the 18-135 on an SP1000 years ago. Or am I totally mangling what you tried to say? As for Kit lens, this is a pretty special one. I have sold off my 18-55 and 50-200 lenses that were my original kit with my K100D and only recently grabbed an 18-50 to try it out for times when I want lighter and smaller but the 18-135 seems to win out more often.

If you want to add to what you have and augment it - I don't think the 18-55 is the way to go. I use the 18-135 and 55-300 (Plain DA) together often enough. I like the overlap - it makes swapping lenses less frequent. The DA 50 is a nice addition with more opportunities for low light and shallower depth of field if you like that. You might also consider what you want to get out of a new lens. I suggest a dedicated thread "What lens should I add to my kit" threads are always fun.

[normhead]

"What lens should I add to my kit" threads are always fun.

We just love to help folks spend their money.

[UncleVanya]

We just love to help folks spend their money.

So true. Like window shopping!

[pres589]

Yeah, the 18-55 brings nothing to the party if you already have an 18-135. The 18-135 is a step-up from the 18-55 in every way from an IQ standpoint as well as versatility and fast/quiet AF. It's slightly larger and heavier, costs more, and I would feel much worse if I dropped or otherwise damaged my 18-135 vs. my 18-55. So, yeah, skip that.

[Kevin B123]

Yeah, the 18-55 brings nothing to the party if you already have an 18-135

I have the 18-55 and bought it way after the 18-135. I agree with most of the comments, except that sometimes you just want small, light cheap and versatile and stopped down in good light the 18-55 can do that. I mostly regret leaving the 18-135 at home though.

---------- Post added 06-06-18 at 11:11 AM ----------

Hey, just a thought, but can anyone post a decent image taken at f40? available from 70mm onward.

[Kevin B123]

Here is one gratuitous use of f40, I was experimenting. That's my excuse anyway

[pres589]

I have the 18-55 and bought it way after the 18-135. I agree with most of the comments, except that sometimes you just want small, light cheap and versatile and stopped down in good light the 18-55 can do that. I mostly regret leaving the 18-135 at home though.

---------- Post added 06-06-18 at 11:11 AM ----------

Hey, just a thought, but can anyone post a decent image taken at f40? available from 70mm onward.

Last time I used my 18-55 (it's the first version, which came with my K10D), it was to make a video in my garage. I figured, if I drop the thing or I get grease on the lens, this is the lens to do it with. Ended up going fine.

Might be kind of fun to slap on a film camera that can control the aperture as the 18-55 is supposed to work on full frame from about 24mm onward. Some Lomo CN 800 or something else fast and cheap. But I don't own such a camera body and I've got a better zoom anyway.

[Kevin B123]

Might be kind of fun to slap on a film camera that can control the aperture as the 18-55 is supposed to work on full frame from about 24mm onward

Yeah, done that and it works OK

[Des]

This is an image I would have taken the 18-135 off the camera and put the 21 ltd on for. But the 18-135 would be good too.

That's kind of what I got the DA 20-40 Ltd for. I think of it as the 21 with f2.8 and WR, with 19 other focal lengths thrown in for free. It's very good wide open and excellent at f5.6. But as you have pointed out many times, the 18-135 is itself rather prime-like in the 20s.

[SharkyCA]

I'm having trouble understanding how you used the 18-135 on an SP1000 years ago. Or am I totally mangling what you tried to say? As for Kit lens, this is a pretty special one. I have sold off my 18-55 and 50-200 lenses that were my original kit with my K100D and only recently grabbed an 18-50 to try it out for times when I want lighter and smaller but the 18-135 seems to win out more often.

If you want to add to what you have and augment it - I don't think the 18-55 is the way to go. I use the 18-135 and 55-300 (Plain DA) together often enough. I like the overlap - it makes swapping lenses less frequent. The DA 50 is a nice addition with more opportunities for low light and shallower depth of field if you like that. You might also consider what you want to get out of a new lens. I suggest a dedicated thread "What lens should I add to my kit" threads are always fun.

I may have said the wrong lens as I haven't seen that camera in 10 years as it is in storage (I hope) the lens I refer to is this one.
Asahi Pentax Takumar 135mm 3.5 | Vintage Camera Lenses

One of the reasons I went with the 18-135 was to use it as a walk around lens were my memories of using the 135 on my first Pentax, Thanks!

[normhead]

I may have said the wrong lens as I haven't seen that camera in 10 years as it is in storage (I hope) the lens I refer to is this one.
Asahi Pentax Takumar 135mm 3.5 | Vintage Camera Lenses

One of the reasons I went with the 18-135 was to use it as a walk around lens were my memories of using the 135 on my first Pentax, Thanks!

But but, 135 on APS-c is 200 in FF. You wuz ribbed.

[Des]

Near the charming village of Ross in central Tasmania is a bridge built by convicts from local sandstone. It took 6 years to built, and was opened in 1836 (as the inscription says). It is still in use. K-S2 + DA 18-135. (X-posted from the bridges thread.)













More about the bridge here:
The Mysterious Art of the Ross Bridge | Tasmanian Times
On The Convict Trail: Ross Bridge