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

**pepperberry farm** · 06-23-2018, 06:25 AM - **5 Likes**

awhile back, I posted that I was considering replacing the 18-135 with another walk-around lens.....

I still don't see the need to replace it when it takes shots like this.... I just needed to buy two primes and shut the hell up about it....

**rayallen** · 06-23-2018, 03:16 PM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by pepperberry farm

I was considering replacing the 18-135 with another walk-around lens.....

I still don't see the need to replace it when it takes shots like this....

I was about to say "Go wash your mouth out"...but then you redeemed yourself. It was a close call though.

**pepperberry farm** · 06-23-2018, 04:26 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by rayallen

I was about to say "Go wash your mouth out"...but then you redeemed yourself. It was a close call though.

it was just my LBA talking - like I said, I bought two primes and left this one alone...

magmotif · 06-23-2018, 07:08 PM - **2 Likes**

Gotta scratch that itch...

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

SharkyCA · 06-23-2018, 08:22 PM - **3 Likes**

Still find the 18-135 my most used walk around!

**Kevin B123** · 06-24-2018, 02:02 AM - **4 Likes**

One of the reasons this lens is so useful is the long end. Play to it's strengths (f7.1 to f11) and it's a rewarding lens.

**robgski** · 06-27-2018, 05:56 PM - **4 Likes**

It likes adventure [IMG]

[/IMG]

madbrain · 06-29-2018, 01:14 AM - **5 Likes**

I didn't take many pictures with the DA 18-135WR when I had it. Usually stuck with superzoom that had more tele - 18-250 .

I shot this one last November in Nha Trang, Vietnam . K-30, ISO 6400, 1/15, f/3.5, 18 mm .

**Kevin B123** · 06-29-2018, 06:34 AM - **1 Like**

The lens does Bokeh too. Little PP on this one. Show it a sunny day and it's good.

**Kevin B123** · 06-29-2018, 06:49 AM - **3 Likes**

And these are the houses of Bucklers Hard.

**Kevin B123** · 06-29-2018, 02:37 PM - **2 Likes**

I keep thinking, I should get a 'better' lens.
But I like the 135mm end too much to consider the 16-85, even though I do use 18mm more than I thought I would and could use 16mm.
Here are some at 135mm, and the last one is a massive crop, near 100%. I like it and would miss this.
Maybe I'm talking myself into a DA* 50-135.

.

**UncleVanya** · 06-29-2018, 02:47 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Kevin B123

I keep thinking, I should get a 'better' lens.
But I like the 135mm end too much to consider the 16-85, even though I do use 18mm more than I thought I would and could use 16mm.
Here are some at 135mm, and the last one is a massive crop, near 100%. I like it and would miss this.
Maybe I'm talking myself into a DA* 50-135.

.

The horse shot is particularly appealing.

The 50-135 is a fantastic lens. It is however very limited by comparison to the 18-135 on the wide end. Essentially it's a short tele to medium tele - no normal, no wide. I often carry it in the following setup:

K-3, DA15, DA 20-40, DA 50-135, HD DA 1.4x converter. This gives me 15 - 189 f/4 or f/2.8 over most of the range.

But the 18-135 is a nice 1 lens option to cover a lot of the same range.

Another combo I sometimes use with the 50-135 includes the DA* 16-50 but I don't love the 16-50 as much as i wish I did. The lens is large and flares shooting into the sun and doesn't suit my wide angle to normal shooting pattern enough to justify to the size most of the time unless I need the speed.

Lastly there are times I carry the 20-40, 50-135 as a duo but that's only when I don't expect to need very wide angle results. My main film carry lens was the 35-135 so you can see this has a niche that is not too far off being equivalent to 35-200 roughly.

**Des** · 06-29-2018, 03:46 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Kevin B123

Maybe I'm talking myself into a DA* 50-135.

If you don't really need f2.8, the DA*60-250 might be more suitable Kevin. It gets very good reviews as a landscape lens. Or a cheaper and lighter option would be to replace your screw-driven 55-300 with the PLM version. I have both the DA-L and the PLM 55-300, and I think the PLM is significantly better than the old model up to the 200s, even if there is no real gain at 300mm. Some of the difference might be attributable to the HD coatings (which your model has) but the PLM renders a lot better and doesn't need stopping down as much.

**rayallen** · 06-29-2018, 04:21 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Kevin B123

I keep thinking, I should get a 'better' lens.
But I like the 135mm end too much to consider the 16-85, even though I do use 18mm more than I thought I would and could use 16mm.
Here are some at 135mm, and the last one is a massive crop, near 100%. I like it and would miss this.
Maybe I'm talking myself into a DA* 50-135.

.

And people say that the 18-135 is no good at 135. Well, you have just proven them wrong. I never believed them anyway based on what my lens produces..

**UncleVanya** · 06-29-2018, 04:26 PM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by Des

If you don't really need f2.8, the DA*60-250 might be more suitable Kevin. It gets very good reviews as a landscape lens. Or a cheaper and lighter option would be to replace your screw-driven 55-300 with the PLM version. I have both the DA-L and the PLM 55-300, and I think the PLM is significantly better than the old model up to the 200s, even if there is no real gain at 300mm. Some of the difference might be attributable to the HD coatings (which your model has) but the PLM renders a lot better and doesn't need stopping down as much.

I own both the DA* 50-135 and the DA* 60-250 and I concur that the 60-250 could be a great option but it is significantly heavier and since the comparison is the 50-135 I think the 50-135 plus TC is a better choice for a lot of people. Also the 60-250 is SDM and cannot be converted to screw drive which may put some off - though reports of failure are rare with this lens. Personally each of them has a different purpose for me. I take the 50-135 when I am thinking portraits and general short - medium telephoto. I take the 60-250 when I need more reach and the weight is less of a concern. I only have the DA 55-300 and haven't had the pleasure of the 55-300 PLM. I have compared the 60-250 with the HD 1.4x TC on it to the 55-300 and found the 60-250 even with TC to be superior but again that's against the DA version non-HD non-WR non-PLM.

06-27-2018, 05:56 PM - 4 Likes	#2452
robgski Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: Shenandoah Valley, Virginia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,817	It likes adventure [IMG][/IMG]

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

06-23-2018, 06:25 AM - 5 Likes	#2446
pepperberry farm amateur dirt farmer Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: probably out in a field somewhere... Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 41,766	awhile back, I posted that I was considering replacing the 18-135 with another walk-around lens..... I still don't see the need to replace it when it takes shots like this.... I just needed to buy two primes and shut the hell up about it....

06-23-2018, 03:16 PM - 2 Likes	#2447
rayallen Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Forresters Beach, NSW, Australia. Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,014	Originally posted by pepperberry farm I was considering replacing the 18-135 with another walk-around lens..... I still don't see the need to replace it when it takes shots like this.... I was about to say "Go wash your mouth out"...but then you redeemed yourself. It was a close call though.

06-23-2018, 04:26 PM - 1 Like	#2448
pepperberry farm amateur dirt farmer Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: probably out in a field somewhere... Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 41,766	Originally posted by rayallen I was about to say "Go wash your mouth out"...but then you redeemed yourself. It was a close call though. it was just my LBA talking - like I said, I bought two primes and left this one alone...

06-29-2018, 01:14 AM - 5 Likes	#2453
madbrain Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 1,341	I didn't take many pictures with the DA 18-135WR when I had it. Usually stuck with superzoom that had more tele - 18-250 . I shot this one last November in Nha Trang, Vietnam . K-30, ISO 6400, 1/15, f/3.5, 18 mm .

06-29-2018, 02:47 PM - 1 Like	#2457
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,452	Originally posted by Kevin B123 I keep thinking, I should get a 'better' lens. But I like the 135mm end too much to consider the 16-85, even though I do use 18mm more than I thought I would and could use 16mm. Here are some at 135mm, and the last one is a massive crop, near 100%. I like it and would miss this. Maybe I'm talking myself into a DA* 50-135. . The horse shot is particularly appealing. The 50-135 is a fantastic lens. It is however very limited by comparison to the 18-135 on the wide end. Essentially it's a short tele to medium tele - no normal, no wide. I often carry it in the following setup: K-3, DA15, DA 20-40, DA 50-135, HD DA 1.4x converter. This gives me 15 - 189 f/4 or f/2.8 over most of the range. But the 18-135 is a nice 1 lens option to cover a lot of the same range. Another combo I sometimes use with the 50-135 includes the DA* 16-50 but I don't love the 16-50 as much as i wish I did. The lens is large and flares shooting into the sun and doesn't suit my wide angle to normal shooting pattern enough to justify to the size most of the time unless I need the speed. Lastly there are times I carry the 20-40, 50-135 as a duo but that's only when I don't expect to need very wide angle results. My main film carry lens was the 35-135 so you can see this has a niche that is not too far off being equivalent to 35-200 roughly.

06-29-2018, 03:46 PM - 1 Like	#2458
Des Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Victoria Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 6,423	Originally posted by Kevin B123 Maybe I'm talking myself into a DA* 50-135. If you don't really need f2.8, the DA*60-250 might be more suitable Kevin. It gets very good reviews as a landscape lens. Or a cheaper and lighter option would be to replace your screw-driven 55-300 with the PLM version. I have both the DA-L and the PLM 55-300, and I think the PLM is significantly better than the old model up to the 200s, even if there is no real gain at 300mm. Some of the difference might be attributable to the HD coatings (which your model has) but the PLM renders a lot better and doesn't need stopping down as much.

06-29-2018, 04:21 PM - 1 Like	#2459
rayallen Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Forresters Beach, NSW, Australia. Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,014	Originally posted by Kevin B123 I keep thinking, I should get a 'better' lens. But I like the 135mm end too much to consider the 16-85, even though I do use 18mm more than I thought I would and could use 16mm. Here are some at 135mm, and the last one is a massive crop, near 100%. I like it and would miss this. Maybe I'm talking myself into a DA* 50-135. . And people say that the 18-135 is no good at 135. Well, you have just proven them wrong. I never believed them anyway based on what my lens produces..

06-29-2018, 04:26 PM - 2 Likes	#2460
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,452	Originally posted by Des If you don't really need f2.8, the DA60-250 might be more suitable Kevin. It gets very good reviews as a landscape lens. Or a cheaper and lighter option would be to replace your screw-driven 55-300 with the PLM version. I have both the DA-L and the PLM 55-300, and I think the PLM is significantly better than the old model up to the 200s, even if there is no real gain at 300mm. Some of the difference might be attributable to the HD coatings (which your model has) but the PLM renders a lot better and doesn't need stopping down as much. I own both the DA 50-135 and the DA* 60-250 and I concur that the 60-250 could be a great option but it is significantly heavier and since the comparison is the 50-135 I think the 50-135 plus TC is a better choice for a lot of people. Also the 60-250 is SDM and cannot be converted to screw drive which may put some off - though reports of failure are rare with this lens. Personally each of them has a different purpose for me. I take the 50-135 when I am thinking portraits and general short - medium telephoto. I take the 60-250 when I need more reach and the weight is less of a concern. I only have the DA 55-300 and haven't had the pleasure of the 55-300 PLM. I have compared the 60-250 with the HD 1.4x TC on it to the 55-300 and found the 60-250 even with TC to be superior but again that's against the DA version non-HD non-WR non-PLM.