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

**Des** · 10-29-2018, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by Oktyabr

I'm not saying it's terrible but my copy of the 18-135 just seems more finicky to fine tuned adjustment than my other glass. Maybe it has something to do with camera firmware and it's internal profile for this lens?

Can you post some examples to show what you mean? Are you referring to focus accuracy or noise or something else?

**Oktyabr** · 10-29-2018, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by Des

Can you post some examples to show what you mean? Are you referring to focus accuracy or noise or something else?

Noise. The ones I posted were the best ones. It's not like it's a terrible lens... it just seems to be very touchy to get the shot (IQ) I want. Basically I don't get as many keepers with it as I do with any of my other glass, shooting the same subject in the same environment. I'll try and dig up one of the ones I was disappointed by and share it here.

**Des** · 10-29-2018, 07:55 PM

I can't see the settings for those images. Can you describe them? Just take the gull and the pelican for example. (They both look a bit underexposed to me. I'm not being critical - they are quite atmospheric.)

**Oktyabr** · 10-30-2018, 04:52 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Des

I can't see the settings for those images. Can you describe them? Just take the gull and the pelican for example. (They both look a bit underexposed to me. I'm not being critical - they are quite atmospheric.)

They are both crops. The seagull was f/14.0 1/50s iso800 @115mm.

The pelican was... Oooops! I just realized I shot THAT one with my M 50mm and put the crop in my 18-135 (the lens I shot most with that day) collection by accident.

I have a terrible habit of getting home, plugging my camera into the PC, moving that day's folder to my hard drive and then immediately picking out the keepers from the chaff and throwing away the rest. Again, the seagull is one of the keepers, with this lens, and doesn't exhibit the noise problem I seem to end up with a lot. Give me a few days; I shoot nearly every day, and this time I'll make a point of not tossing any in the trash heap until I've let you see an example or two.

**Kevin B123** · 10-30-2018, 05:32 AM

Originally posted by RGlasel

Very nicely composed photo!

Thanks!

**Des** · 10-30-2018, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by Oktyabr

They are both crops. The seagull was f/14.0 1/50s iso800 @115mm.

Never mind about the pelican. Here's your issue. There's no advantage in going to f14. You didn't need a huge depth of field, just enough to get the gull in focus. Depending on the distance, somewhere between f5.6 and f8 would probably have been more than enough. That would have given you two or three stops to spend on shutter speed and ISO for the same exposure: something like f6.3, 1/180s, 400 ISO. The other problem with f14, apart from taking up too much of the light "budget", is that resolution falls away due to diffraction after a certain aperture (probably about f8 or f11 with the 18-135 at the long end). It took me a while to learn that lesson. You would get noticeably better resolution at f5.6-f8.

There's also just an inherent problem in getting a lot of subject detail in dull conditions. Even the pelican shot with the M-50 showed that. It sounds unintuitive but I find a bit of fill flash can help a lot in this situation. Even the popup flash if you haven't got anything else to hand. You may need to dial down the output, using either Flash Exposure Compensation or Manual control in the flash menu so it isn't too obvious (depending on the distance to subject), but some subtle flash is worth trying.

(Incidentally, there looks to be a dust spot on the sensor. Might need to get out the blower.)

**Oktyabr** · 10-30-2018, 05:41 PM

Originally posted by Des

Never mind about the pelican. Here's your issue. There's no advantage in going to f14. You didn't need a huge depth of field, just enough to get the gull in focus. Depending on the distance, somewhere between f5.6 and f8 would probably have been more than enough. That would have given you two or three stops to spend on shutter speed and ISO for the same exposure: something like f6.3, 1/180s, 400 ISO. The other problem with f14, apart from taking up too much of the light "budget", is that resolution falls away due to diffraction after a certain aperture (probably about f8 or f11 with the 18-135 at the long end). It took me a while to learn that lesson. You would get noticeably better resolution at f5.6-f8.

There's also just an inherent problem in getting a lot of subject detail in dull conditions. Even the pelican shot with the M-50 showed that. It sounds unintuitive but I find a bit of fill flash can help a lot in this situation. Even the popup flash if you haven't got anything else to hand. You may need to dial down the output, using either Flash Exposure Compensation or Manual control in the flash menu so it isn't too obvious (depending on the distance to subject), but some subtle flash is worth trying.

(Incidentally, there looks to be a dust spot on the sensor. Might need to get out the blower.)

Yeah, sorry. I should have been more concise in my description. I was actually out shooting shore birds and attempting to find out if the noise was produced by a specific range of settings, so I was experimenting with f-stop, aperture, etc. when a seagull fairly close to me took that rather unusual pose. I didn't waste any time attempting to dial in more optimum settings; I just took the shot and hoped for the best.

Not dust, a very tiny droplet of ocean air on the UV filter.

**Des** · 10-30-2018, 06:44 PM

Originally posted by Oktyabr

Yeah, sorry. I should have been more concise in my description. I was actually out shooting shore birds and attempting to find out if the noise was produced by a specific range of settings, so I was experimenting with f-stop, aperture, etc. when a seagull fairly close to me took that rather unusual pose. I didn't waste any time attempting to dial in more optimum settings; I just took the shot and hoped for the best.

Not dust, a very tiny droplet of ocean air on the UV filter.

Ah well, that's all good.

**Oktyabr** · 10-30-2018, 07:33 PM - **2 Likes**

A certain tree I had been eyeing for some time lost most of it's glorious leaves before I could make my work schedule and sunshine coincide. I got a leaf though!

**Oktyabr** · 11-01-2018, 08:20 PM - **7 Likes**

Horrible weather conditions but I thought I would snap one quick, on my way in the house after work. Not a great photo by any means but I liked the way the little bit of remaining daylight formed those "balls" in the background.
Fake macro: K70 + 18-135 WR ƒ/5.6 88.0 mm 1/125 iso 400 Flash (on, fired)

ZombieArmy · 11-02-2018, 01:16 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Oktyabr

Horrible weather conditions but I thought I would snap one quick, on my way in the house after work. Not a great photo by any means but I liked the way the little bit of remaining daylight formed those "balls" in the background.
Fake macro: K70 + 18-135 WR ƒ/5.6 88.0 mm 1/125 iso 400 Flash (on, fired)

Spiderwebs are always so mistifying

**Kevin B123** · 11-04-2018, 10:34 AM - **4 Likes**

I keep thinking how much I want a K-1, then take my K-50 & 18-135 kit out and throw up images that just won't be improved by a K-1

. Yeah, since when did that count

.

**Des** · 11-04-2018, 04:25 PM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by Kevin B123

I keep thinking how much I want a K-1, then take my K-50 & 18-135 kit out and throw up images that just won't be improved by a K-1. Yeah, since when did that count.

I feel a bit the same way Kevin. I think there would be a noticeable gain in resolution with say the K-1 and DFA 28-105, but it would significantly lighten your wallet and weigh down your bag! And while the DFA 28-105 seems to be a fine lens, you'd miss the reach of the 18-135.

If I may make a suggestion, a K-70 or a K-P might be a better upgrade from the K-50, to go with your K-3ii. I'm now regretting I didn't buy a K-P when Pentax Australia had them on sale for $A990 a couple of months back, especially as the next flagship model seems to be still some way off.

One thing about staying with APS-C is that there is a wider range of current lenses available, especially at the wide end - e.g. no FF counterpart of the wonderful DA 15 or 20-40, or of the DA 12-24. And there isn't really a FF equivalent of the 18-135 (28-200) or the 16-85 (24-125) in the current lens range. Nor is there a counterpart of the DA 55-300 PLM. And if there were, they'd be bigger, heavier and probably a lot more expensive.

**Des** · 11-04-2018, 05:03 PM - **4 Likes**

Scented paperbark (Melaleuca squarrosa), Wonthaggi Heathland, Victoria. K-S2 + DA 18-135

**Oktyabr** · 11-04-2018, 05:58 PM - **4 Likes**

I took advantage of some surprise sunshine today to get comfortable with this lens and learn how to use it best.

It's not the sharpest or fastest lens in my bag but right now, for the sort of shots I like to take, IF I had to have only one lens permanently attached to my K-70, this one would be it.

10-29-2018, 07:55 PM	#2628
Des Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Victoria Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 6,424	I can't see the settings for those images. Can you describe them? Just take the gull and the pelican for example. (They both look a bit underexposed to me. I'm not being critical - they are quite atmospheric.) Last edited by Des; 10-29-2018 at 10:50 PM.

10-30-2018, 02:42 PM	#2631
Des Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Victoria Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 6,424	Originally posted by Oktyabr They are both crops. The seagull was f/14.0 1/50s iso800 @115mm. Never mind about the pelican. Here's your issue. There's no advantage in going to f14. You didn't need a huge depth of field, just enough to get the gull in focus. Depending on the distance, somewhere between f5.6 and f8 would probably have been more than enough. That would have given you two or three stops to spend on shutter speed and ISO for the same exposure: something like f6.3, 1/180s, 400 ISO. The other problem with f14, apart from taking up too much of the light "budget", is that resolution falls away due to diffraction after a certain aperture (probably about f8 or f11 with the 18-135 at the long end). It took me a while to learn that lesson. You would get noticeably better resolution at f5.6-f8. There's also just an inherent problem in getting a lot of subject detail in dull conditions. Even the pelican shot with the M-50 showed that. It sounds unintuitive but I find a bit of fill flash can help a lot in this situation. Even the popup flash if you haven't got anything else to hand. You may need to dial down the output, using either Flash Exposure Compensation or Manual control in the flash menu so it isn't too obvious (depending on the distance to subject), but some subtle flash is worth trying. (Incidentally, there looks to be a dust spot on the sensor. Might need to get out the blower.) Last edited by Des; 10-30-2018 at 02:59 PM.

11-04-2018, 04:25 PM - 2 Likes	#2638
Des Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Victoria Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 6,424	Originally posted by Kevin B123 I keep thinking how much I want a K-1, then take my K-50 & 18-135 kit out and throw up images that just won't be improved by a K-1. Yeah, since when did that count. I feel a bit the same way Kevin. I think there would be a noticeable gain in resolution with say the K-1 and DFA 28-105, but it would significantly lighten your wallet and weigh down your bag! And while the DFA 28-105 seems to be a fine lens, you'd miss the reach of the 18-135. If I may make a suggestion, a K-70 or a K-P might be a better upgrade from the K-50, to go with your K-3ii. I'm now regretting I didn't buy a K-P when Pentax Australia had them on sale for $A990 a couple of months back, especially as the next flagship model seems to be still some way off. One thing about staying with APS-C is that there is a wider range of current lenses available, especially at the wide end - e.g. no FF counterpart of the wonderful DA 15 or 20-40, or of the DA 12-24. And there isn't really a FF equivalent of the 18-135 (28-200) or the 16-85 (24-125) in the current lens range. Nor is there a counterpart of the DA 55-300 PLM. And if there were, they'd be bigger, heavier and probably a lot more expensive. Last edited by Des; 11-05-2018 at 02:13 AM.

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

10-29-2018, 05:26 PM	#2626
Des Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Victoria Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 6,424	Originally posted by Oktyabr I'm not saying it's terrible but my copy of the 18-135 just seems more finicky to fine tuned adjustment than my other glass. Maybe it has something to do with camera firmware and it's internal profile for this lens? Can you post some examples to show what you mean? Are you referring to focus accuracy or noise or something else?

10-29-2018, 05:49 PM	#2627
Oktyabr Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2018 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 389	Originally posted by Des Can you post some examples to show what you mean? Are you referring to focus accuracy or noise or something else? Noise. The ones I posted were the best ones. It's not like it's a terrible lens... it just seems to be very touchy to get the shot (IQ) I want. Basically I don't get as many keepers with it as I do with any of my other glass, shooting the same subject in the same environment. I'll try and dig up one of the ones I was disappointed by and share it here.

10-30-2018, 04:52 AM - 1 Like	#2629
Oktyabr Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2018 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 389	Originally posted by Des I can't see the settings for those images. Can you describe them? Just take the gull and the pelican for example. (They both look a bit underexposed to me. I'm not being critical - they are quite atmospheric.) They are both crops. The seagull was f/14.0 1/50s iso800 @115mm. The pelican was... Oooops! I just realized I shot THAT one with my M 50mm and put the crop in my 18-135 (the lens I shot most with that day) collection by accident. I have a terrible habit of getting home, plugging my camera into the PC, moving that day's folder to my hard drive and then immediately picking out the keepers from the chaff and throwing away the rest. Again, the seagull is one of the keepers, with this lens, and doesn't exhibit the noise problem I seem to end up with a lot. Give me a few days; I shoot nearly every day, and this time I'll make a point of not tossing any in the trash heap until I've let you see an example or two.

10-30-2018, 05:32 AM	#2630
Kevin B123 Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2016 Location: Hampshire Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,187	Originally posted by RGlasel Very nicely composed photo! Thanks!

10-30-2018, 05:41 PM	#2632
Oktyabr Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2018 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 389	Originally posted by Des Never mind about the pelican. Here's your issue. There's no advantage in going to f14. You didn't need a huge depth of field, just enough to get the gull in focus. Depending on the distance, somewhere between f5.6 and f8 would probably have been more than enough. That would have given you two or three stops to spend on shutter speed and ISO for the same exposure: something like f6.3, 1/180s, 400 ISO. The other problem with f14, apart from taking up too much of the light "budget", is that resolution falls away due to diffraction after a certain aperture (probably about f8 or f11 with the 18-135 at the long end). It took me a while to learn that lesson. You would get noticeably better resolution at f5.6-f8. There's also just an inherent problem in getting a lot of subject detail in dull conditions. Even the pelican shot with the M-50 showed that. It sounds unintuitive but I find a bit of fill flash can help a lot in this situation. Even the popup flash if you haven't got anything else to hand. You may need to dial down the output, using either Flash Exposure Compensation or Manual control in the flash menu so it isn't too obvious (depending on the distance to subject), but some subtle flash is worth trying. (Incidentally, there looks to be a dust spot on the sensor. Might need to get out the blower.) Yeah, sorry. I should have been more concise in my description. I was actually out shooting shore birds and attempting to find out if the noise was produced by a specific range of settings, so I was experimenting with f-stop, aperture, etc. when a seagull fairly close to me took that rather unusual pose. I didn't waste any time attempting to dial in more optimum settings; I just took the shot and hoped for the best. Not dust, a very tiny droplet of ocean air on the UV filter.

10-30-2018, 06:44 PM	#2633
Des Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Victoria Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 6,424	Originally posted by Oktyabr Yeah, sorry. I should have been more concise in my description. I was actually out shooting shore birds and attempting to find out if the noise was produced by a specific range of settings, so I was experimenting with f-stop, aperture, etc. when a seagull fairly close to me took that rather unusual pose. I didn't waste any time attempting to dial in more optimum settings; I just took the shot and hoped for the best. Not dust, a very tiny droplet of ocean air on the UV filter. Ah well, that's all good.

10-30-2018, 07:33 PM - 2 Likes	#2634
Oktyabr Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2018 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 389	A certain tree I had been eyeing for some time lost most of it's glorious leaves before I could make my work schedule and sunshine coincide. I got a leaf though!

11-01-2018, 08:20 PM - 7 Likes	#2635
Oktyabr Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2018 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 389	Horrible weather conditions but I thought I would snap one quick, on my way in the house after work. Not a great photo by any means but I liked the way the little bit of remaining daylight formed those "balls" in the background. Fake macro: K70 + 18-135 WR ƒ/5.6 88.0 mm 1/125 iso 400 Flash (on, fired)

11-02-2018, 01:16 AM - 1 Like	#2636
ZombieArmy Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2014 Location: Florida Posts: 3,210	Originally posted by Oktyabr Horrible weather conditions but I thought I would snap one quick, on my way in the house after work. Not a great photo by any means but I liked the way the little bit of remaining daylight formed those "balls" in the background. Fake macro: K70 + 18-135 WR ƒ/5.6 88.0 mm 1/125 iso 400 Flash (on, fired) Spiderwebs are always so mistifying

11-04-2018, 05:03 PM - 4 Likes	#2639
Des Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Victoria Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 6,424	Scented paperbark (Melaleuca squarrosa), Wonthaggi Heathland, Victoria. K-S2 + DA 18-135

11-04-2018, 05:58 PM - 4 Likes	#2640
Oktyabr Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2018 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 389	I took advantage of some surprise sunshine today to get comfortable with this lens and learn how to use it best. It's not the sharpest or fastest lens in my bag but right now, for the sort of shots I like to take, IF I had to have only one lens permanently attached to my K-70, this one would be it.