18-135mm WR Lens Review

normhead · 03-24-2012, 09:17 AM

You are a piece of work aren't you? Calling someone else's lens a jam jar.

I just checked the mtf numbers for the DA 17-70... you really don't know how to read the numbers do you? The Tamron 17-50 2.8 is fine lens, and I'd go for it myself, but for a walk around lens it's just not long enough. I already have a 21 ltd and an FA 50 1.7, and plan to add a 14 or 15mm and 31 ltd or 35 macro... the DA 18-135 is still the perfect walk around lens and where does that leave the 17-50? In the bag most of the time. You're welcome to your opinion, but you shouldn't think you've necessarily thought this through better than people who are actually using the glass being discussed. Experience is a great teacher.

audiobomber · 03-24-2012, 09:20 AM - **1 Like**

Photozone shows the resolution for the 18-135 as below the DA 18-250, but that does not correspond with what I found with my copies. Here's the brick wall test. I used a tripod with 2s mirror lockup, shot in AF and cross-checked with MF. AF on both lenses is accurate. Sorry about the whacky exposures, clouds were coming and going.
https://picasaweb.google.com/bonhommed/18135Vs18250?authkey=Gv1sRgCNzC5b_4_qXRqQE#
Click on the magnifying glass, then click on + a couple of times for full resolution. Move the viewing window around in the bottom right corner.

Clearly my 18-135 is sharper across the frame than my 18-250 (and also sharper than my DA L 18-55). The 18-135 beats the 18-250 for flare resistance, barrel distortion and colour/contrast. The 18-250 has better vignetting performance and range. Mechanically, they are worlds apart; the Tamron/Pentax 18-250 is a bit of a rattlebox, with noisy AF and serious zoom creep. The 18-135 has less range but quick-shift, WR, superior build, quick and silent focus and rounded aperture blades.

I no longer use the 18-250 (nor the 18-55) because I prefer the IQ and features of the new superzoom. I paid the same for both, which makes the 18-135 the better bargain. I will cast it aside a minute after the new DA* superzoom (16-85?) is available.

audiobomber · 03-24-2012, 09:34 AM

Originally posted by westmill

Obviously ! But at least they work.
I cant see the point in buying a great camera thats capable of producing great pics and then sticking a jam jar on it. But thats just my thoughts and opinion.
For those that are happy with it, thats fair enough.

The grand majority of people who criticize the 18-135 are people who've never used one and base their opinion on the flawed PZ review. Read the Pentax Forums In-Depth review for a much more accurate assessment. A few people have had bad copies, I've seen the photos. My lens is a good one.

The Tamron 17-50 works.... sometimes. I've been reading these boards for several years, and no lens has had more complaints of BF/FF than this Tamron. Not to mention colour/contrast doesn't match up to Pentax lenses, build quality is marginal and the range is too limited, for me.

I have a 16-45 that outperforms my 18-135, but I rarely use it any more. I use a zoom to reduce lens changes. If I want better IQ or specific performance, I remove the 18-135 and mount a prime. The combination of a superzoom and primes suits my needs perfectly, and that's how my kits will be structured from now on.

rtpguy · 03-24-2012, 09:48 AM

Originally posted by westmill

Ive read that reveiw myself. Its got to be the worst reveiw ive ever seen.
If you want Pentax I would go with the 17-70 which is pretty good. Otherwise I would opt for the tamron 17-50 2.8

And meanwhile, there are quotes from those owning the 17-70 that have said the 18-135 gives little or nothing up to the 17-70.

westmill · 03-24-2012, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by rtpguy

And meanwhile, there are quotes from those owning the 17-70 that have said the 18-135 gives little or nothing up to the 17-70.

There are quotes that man never landed on the moon too

Who do we believe

normhead · 03-24-2012, 10:08 AM

How about photozone quotes? , look across 24 mm, the 18-135 makes toast of all the others. For center sharpness it makes toast of all the others almost everywhere, for edge sharpness, in quite a few f-stops it's also equal in edge sharpness. By knowing where the strong points of this lens are, you can unquestionably get a better image out of this lens than any other lens mentioned in this thread. Whether or not you will has nothing to do with the lens. It's all about the shooter.

I hope this will finally put to rest any notion that this guy has a clue what he's talking about 90% of the time.

jimr-pdx · 03-24-2012, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by audiobomber

The grand majority of people who criticize the 18-135 are people who've never used one and base their opinion on the flawed PZ review. Read the Pentax Forums In-Depth review for a much more accurate assessment. A few people have had bad copies, I've seen the photos. My lens is a good one.

Mine was not the photozone copy, I did not notice sharpness issues because the color fringing was too awful. I so wanted to like this lens, but mine was definitely a bad copy; the Sigma 18-200 bested my 18-135 handily.

Originally posted by audiobomber

If I want better IQ or specific performance, I remove the 18-135 and mount a prime. The combination of a superzoom and primes suits my needs perfectly, and that's how my kits will be structured from now on.

I agree this is a great solution: an 'easy' lens for casual days, great primes when it matters to you. I'm hoping the new roadmap hi-mag zoom lens will be my answer, but we shall see.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Oh my ... now I have a headache. Charts like this just do not reach me, though I know others can distill great knowledge from such. Just not my way to learn.

**luftfluss** · 03-24-2012, 11:10 AM

Originally posted by westmill

Obviously ! But at least they work.
I cant see the point in buying a great camera thats capable of producing great pics and then sticking a jam jar on it. But thats just my thoughts and opinion.
For those that are happy with it, thats fair enough.

If the user has a propensity for shooting in bad weather or dusty environments, the K-5 + DA 18-135 would on on the short list, I think.

As with any equipment, the user should know his/her needs and what equipment best suits them.

Laurentiu Cristofor · 03-24-2012, 11:13 AM

Originally posted by lukelbd

but I can't understand how it has gotten nothing but positive feedback from places like this amazon page when the photozone review suggests that it is demonstrably and noticeably worse than the equivalent Canon and Nikon superzooms, and even worse than the kit lens.

That is happening because when you don't know any better, that is the best you know.

Also, note that photozone has a disclaimer that can be accessed under their scores by pressing the "What does this mean ?" link:

Quote:

Some of you folks may be a bit surprised by the "rather low" ratings in the verdicts here at photozone.de. This isn't really intentional but you're simply experiencing a cultural effect. Photozone.de is located in Germany and locally the word "average" means just that - reads: "average" is in between of better and worse. So this is strictly different compared to the more popular anglo-american style meaning of the word where an "average" is equivalent to about as bad as it gets. Now you may argue that this is confusing but remember that this may be confusing for you but less so for visitors from different countries (thus different cultural backgrounds). We at photozone.de do firmly believe that "feel good" ratings are pointless - it neither helps you to choose nor does it help the manufacturers to get better.

normhead · 03-24-2012, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Oh my ... now I have a headache. Charts like this just do not reach me, though I know others can distill great knowledge from such. Just not my way to learn.

Me either, I just use the lens. The only reason I did this was I've seen so many posts trashing this lens, I was going to trade it in, so off we go to henry's my wife and I to trade it in for something better, and we got to the parking lot, and I said to myself, "I can't do this." And my wife felt the same way. So I just wondered, how bad can it really be.. so after looking at the actual numbers, I thought this lens isn't as bad as advertised. But people keep bringing up these reviews and trashing the lens. Now maybe the guys at photozone just had a bad day, I don't know. I once read a stat that said in 60% of studies the conclusions aren't supported by the data. And the fact is , photozone has given much weaker lenses much stronger reviews than this lens. I don't know why. SO I didn't post this chart to be some kind of definitive analysis. That came with the lens on the camera. If you could pixel peep this image (below), I have it blown up to 23x23 and the little ice huts and skidoos are razor sharp. SO no one is going to tell me this lens isn't good enough for landscape. And while I have found it to be a some what inconsistent performer, we've had our share of disappointments with it. it has also given us some gems. I consider charts like this only useful to get the dimwats to shutup already.

**LaurenOE** · 03-24-2012, 12:43 PM

Even though I am 100% satisfied with my DA18-135WR and use it over my DA18-55 and DA18-250, I think the name "Jam Jar" is going to stick with me! LOL. I have nick names for my lenses, and "Jam Jar" is funny enough to use!

Maybe even call it "Jam Jar Binks"

westmill · 03-24-2012, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by LaurenOE

Even though I am 100% satisfied with my DA18-135WR and use it over my DA18-55 and DA18-250, I think the name "Jam Jar" is going to stick with me! LOL. I have nick names for my lenses, and "Jam Jar" is funny enough to use!

Maybe even call it "Jam Jar Binks"

Glad you like it lol
It wasnt quite meant as it sounded though actualy.
It was just me trying to get a point accross which was
why put a poor performing lens on a good camera.
Its the equivilent to having a £1000 camera and lens and then taking them in to a cheap Dn P lab.
Yes, I can see the advantages too of course, but that is just my opinion lol. I should add..... I was at the time refering to pretty much any lens that doesnt perform rather than the lens in question lol

Glad your happy with it though

**LaurenOE** · 03-24-2012, 01:18 PM

... Oops ...

ElJamoquio · 03-25-2012, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by normhead

Now maybe the guys at photozone just had a bad day, I don't know. I once read a stat that said in 60% of studies the conclusions aren't supported by the data.

The photozone numbers are given for the 'best' focus for both the center and the edges - they aren't using the same focus for both numbers.

At photozone they indicate that the lens had to be substantially re-focused for best edge focus - i.e. the edge numbers would be much worse if focus at center was done 'perfectly'.

I purchased a 18-135 once, and returned I didn't feel it was better than the kit lens. Perhaps I got a bad copy. I don't know.

ElJamoquio · 03-25-2012, 08:54 AM

My compare/contrast list from another forum:

The 18-135 vs the 18-55WR
Both have WR
Both have Quick shift
18-55 is one-third the cost
18-55 is much smaller
18-55 is much lighter (half the weight)
18-55 focuses closer
18-55 has lower vignetting
18-55 has lower CA
18-55 has better reported corner sharpness wide open (I compared two lenses, couldn't tell the difference)
18-135 has better sharpness everywhere except corner sharpness wide open (again, I couldn't tell the difference)
18-135 focuses quicker
18-135 has 55-135mm available.
18-135 has better bokeh specs (I did not get a chance to test bokeh)
18-135 has better 'ergonomic quality'

I wanted a WR lens - have had two WR bodies (K200D/K-5) and I never had a WR lens to match for taking pics when it's crappy out; and I wanted a 'general' lens just to grab when I'm feeling lazy.

I tried both lenses, it wasn't even a contest. I really wanted to like the 18-135 but I preferred the 'kit' lens.

03-24-2012, 09:20 AM - 1 Like	#17
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Photozone shows the resolution for the 18-135 as below the DA 18-250, but that does not correspond with what I found with my copies. Here's the brick wall test. I used a tripod with 2s mirror lockup, shot in AF and cross-checked with MF. AF on both lenses is accurate. Sorry about the whacky exposures, clouds were coming and going. https://picasaweb.google.com/bonhommed/18135Vs18250?authkey=Gv1sRgCNzC5b_4_qXRqQE# Click on the magnifying glass, then click on + a couple of times for full resolution. Move the viewing window around in the bottom right corner. Clearly my 18-135 is sharper across the frame than my 18-250 (and also sharper than my DA L 18-55). The 18-135 beats the 18-250 for flare resistance, barrel distortion and colour/contrast. The 18-250 has better vignetting performance and range. Mechanically, they are worlds apart; the Tamron/Pentax 18-250 is a bit of a rattlebox, with noisy AF and serious zoom creep. The 18-135 has less range but quick-shift, WR, superior build, quick and silent focus and rounded aperture blades. I no longer use the 18-250 (nor the 18-55) because I prefer the IQ and features of the new superzoom. I paid the same for both, which makes the 18-135 the better bargain. I will cast it aside a minute after the new DA* superzoom (16-85?) is available. Last edited by audiobomber; 03-24-2012 at 09:26 AM.

03-24-2012, 09:34 AM	#18
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by westmill Obviously ! But at least they work. I cant see the point in buying a great camera thats capable of producing great pics and then sticking a jam jar on it. But thats just my thoughts and opinion. For those that are happy with it, thats fair enough. The grand majority of people who criticize the 18-135 are people who've never used one and base their opinion on the flawed PZ review. Read the Pentax Forums In-Depth review for a much more accurate assessment. A few people have had bad copies, I've seen the photos. My lens is a good one. The Tamron 17-50 works.... sometimes. I've been reading these boards for several years, and no lens has had more complaints of BF/FF than this Tamron. Not to mention colour/contrast doesn't match up to Pentax lenses, build quality is marginal and the range is too limited, for me. I have a 16-45 that outperforms my 18-135, but I rarely use it any more. I use a zoom to reduce lens changes. If I want better IQ or specific performance, I remove the 18-135 and mount a prime. The combination of a superzoom and primes suits my needs perfectly, and that's how my kits will be structured from now on. Last edited by audiobomber; 03-24-2012 at 10:08 AM.

03-24-2012, 10:08 AM	#21
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	How about photozone quotes? , look across 24 mm, the 18-135 makes toast of all the others. For center sharpness it makes toast of all the others almost everywhere, for edge sharpness, in quite a few f-stops it's also equal in edge sharpness. By knowing where the strong points of this lens are, you can unquestionably get a better image out of this lens than any other lens mentioned in this thread. Whether or not you will has nothing to do with the lens. It's all about the shooter. I hope this will finally put to rest any notion that this guy has a clue what he's talking about 90% of the time. Last edited by normhead; 03-24-2012 at 10:33 AM.

03-25-2012, 08:54 AM	#30
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	My compare/contrast list from another forum: The 18-135 vs the 18-55WR Both have WR Both have Quick shift 18-55 is one-third the cost 18-55 is much smaller 18-55 is much lighter (half the weight) 18-55 focuses closer 18-55 has lower vignetting 18-55 has lower CA 18-55 has better reported corner sharpness wide open (I compared two lenses, couldn't tell the difference) 18-135 has better sharpness everywhere except corner sharpness wide open (again, I couldn't tell the difference) 18-135 focuses quicker 18-135 has 55-135mm available. 18-135 has better bokeh specs (I did not get a chance to test bokeh) 18-135 has better 'ergonomic quality' I wanted a WR lens - have had two WR bodies (K200D/K-5) and I never had a WR lens to match for taking pics when it's crappy out; and I wanted a 'general' lens just to grab when I'm feeling lazy. I tried both lenses, it wasn't even a contest. I really wanted to like the 18-135 but I preferred the 'kit' lens.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Review of the SMC Pentax-DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 ED AL [IF] DC WR	pinholecam	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	17	10-26-2011 01:08 AM
ephotozine review of DA 18-135mm WR	seventysixersfan	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	05-27-2011 12:34 PM
German DA 18-135mm Review	macTak	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	11	01-04-2011 05:33 AM
DA 18-135mm Full-Length REVIEW	Adam	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	78	12-07-2010 06:31 AM
Tokina (ie, Pentax) 50~135mm /f2.8 lens review at Watch Impress	Katsura	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	12-19-2006 06:38 PM

03-24-2012, 09:17 AM	#16
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	You are a piece of work aren't you? Calling someone else's lens a jam jar. I just checked the mtf numbers for the DA 17-70... you really don't know how to read the numbers do you? The Tamron 17-50 2.8 is fine lens, and I'd go for it myself, but for a walk around lens it's just not long enough. I already have a 21 ltd and an FA 50 1.7, and plan to add a 14 or 15mm and 31 ltd or 35 macro... the DA 18-135 is still the perfect walk around lens and where does that leave the 17-50? In the bag most of the time. You're welcome to your opinion, but you shouldn't think you've necessarily thought this through better than people who are actually using the glass being discussed. Experience is a great teacher.

03-24-2012, 09:48 AM	#19
rtpguy Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: NC Posts: 206	Originally posted by westmill Ive read that reveiw myself. Its got to be the worst reveiw ive ever seen. If you want Pentax I would go with the 17-70 which is pretty good. Otherwise I would opt for the tamron 17-50 2.8 And meanwhile, there are quotes from those owning the 17-70 that have said the 18-135 gives little or nothing up to the 17-70.

03-24-2012, 10:06 AM	#20
westmill Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Stoke on Trent Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,146	Originally posted by rtpguy And meanwhile, there are quotes from those owning the 17-70 that have said the 18-135 gives little or nothing up to the 17-70. There are quotes that man never landed on the moon too Who do we believe

03-24-2012, 10:57 AM	#22
jimr-pdx Pentaxian Join Date: May 2010 Location: now 1 hour north of PDX Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,897	Originally posted by audiobomber The grand majority of people who criticize the 18-135 are people who've never used one and base their opinion on the flawed PZ review. Read the Pentax Forums In-Depth review for a much more accurate assessment. A few people have had bad copies, I've seen the photos. My lens is a good one. Mine was not the photozone copy, I did not notice sharpness issues because the color fringing was too awful. I so wanted to like this lens, but mine was definitely a bad copy; the Sigma 18-200 bested my 18-135 handily. Originally posted by audiobomber If I want better IQ or specific performance, I remove the 18-135 and mount a prime. The combination of a superzoom and primes suits my needs perfectly, and that's how my kits will be structured from now on. I agree this is a great solution: an 'easy' lens for casual days, great primes when it matters to you. I'm hoping the new roadmap hi-mag zoom lens will be my answer, but we shall see. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Oh my ... now I have a headache. Charts like this just do not reach me, though I know others can distill great knowledge from such. Just not my way to learn.

03-24-2012, 11:10 AM	#23
luftfluss Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,619	Originally posted by westmill Obviously ! But at least they work. I cant see the point in buying a great camera thats capable of producing great pics and then sticking a jam jar on it. But thats just my thoughts and opinion. For those that are happy with it, thats fair enough. If the user has a propensity for shooting in bad weather or dusty environments, the K-5 + DA 18-135 would on on the short list, I think. As with any equipment, the user should know his/her needs and what equipment best suits them.

03-24-2012, 11:13 AM	#24
Laurentiu Cristofor Banned Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: WA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,055	Originally posted by lukelbd but I can't understand how it has gotten nothing but positive feedback from places like this amazon page when the photozone review suggests that it is demonstrably and noticeably worse than the equivalent Canon and Nikon superzooms, and even worse than the kit lens. That is happening because when you don't know any better, that is the best you know. Also, note that photozone has a disclaimer that can be accessed under their scores by pressing the "What does this mean ?" link: Quote: Some of you folks may be a bit surprised by the "rather low" ratings in the verdicts here at photozone.de. This isn't really intentional but you're simply experiencing a cultural effect. Photozone.de is located in Germany and locally the word "average" means just that - reads: "average" is in between of better and worse. So this is strictly different compared to the more popular anglo-american style meaning of the word where an "average" is equivalent to about as bad as it gets. Now you may argue that this is confusing but remember that this may be confusing for you but less so for visitors from different countries (thus different cultural backgrounds). We at photozone.de do firmly believe that "feel good" ratings are pointless - it neither helps you to choose nor does it help the manufacturers to get better.

03-24-2012, 11:21 AM	#25
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Quote: Oh my ... now I have a headache. Charts like this just do not reach me, though I know others can distill great knowledge from such. Just not my way to learn. Me either, I just use the lens. The only reason I did this was I've seen so many posts trashing this lens, I was going to trade it in, so off we go to henry's my wife and I to trade it in for something better, and we got to the parking lot, and I said to myself, "I can't do this." And my wife felt the same way. So I just wondered, how bad can it really be.. so after looking at the actual numbers, I thought this lens isn't as bad as advertised. But people keep bringing up these reviews and trashing the lens. Now maybe the guys at photozone just had a bad day, I don't know. I once read a stat that said in 60% of studies the conclusions aren't supported by the data. And the fact is , photozone has given much weaker lenses much stronger reviews than this lens. I don't know why. SO I didn't post this chart to be some kind of definitive analysis. That came with the lens on the camera. If you could pixel peep this image (below), I have it blown up to 23x23 and the little ice huts and skidoos are razor sharp. SO no one is going to tell me this lens isn't good enough for landscape. And while I have found it to be a some what inconsistent performer, we've had our share of disappointments with it. it has also given us some gems. I consider charts like this only useful to get the dimwats to shutup already.

03-24-2012, 12:43 PM	#26
LaurenOE Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Back in Florida, but worldwide gigs! Photos: Albums Posts: 3,690	Even though I am 100% satisfied with my DA18-135WR and use it over my DA18-55 and DA18-250, I think the name "Jam Jar" is going to stick with me! LOL. I have nick names for my lenses, and "Jam Jar" is funny enough to use! Maybe even call it "Jam Jar Binks"

03-24-2012, 01:04 PM	#27
westmill Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Stoke on Trent Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,146	Originally posted by LaurenOE Even though I am 100% satisfied with my DA18-135WR and use it over my DA18-55 and DA18-250, I think the name "Jam Jar" is going to stick with me! LOL. I have nick names for my lenses, and "Jam Jar" is funny enough to use! Maybe even call it "Jam Jar Binks" Glad you like it lol It wasnt quite meant as it sounded though actualy. It was just me trying to get a point accross which was why put a poor performing lens on a good camera. Its the equivilent to having a £1000 camera and lens and then taking them in to a cheap Dn P lab. Yes, I can see the advantages too of course, but that is just my opinion lol. I should add..... I was at the time refering to pretty much any lens that doesnt perform rather than the lens in question lol Glad your happy with it though

03-24-2012, 01:18 PM	#28
LaurenOE Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Back in Florida, but worldwide gigs! Photos: Albums Posts: 3,690	... Oops ...

03-25-2012, 08:47 AM	#29
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	Originally posted by normhead Now maybe the guys at photozone just had a bad day, I don't know. I once read a stat that said in 60% of studies the conclusions aren't supported by the data. The photozone numbers are given for the 'best' focus for both the center and the edges - they aren't using the same focus for both numbers. At photozone they indicate that the lens had to be substantially re-focused for best edge focus - i.e. the edge numbers would be much worse if focus at center was done 'perfectly'. I purchased a 18-135 once, and returned I didn't feel it was better than the kit lens. Perhaps I got a bad copy. I don't know.