[GSiGuy]

You'll have to compare it against a 55-300 or 50-200, to be fair. The 18-55 can't reach out and touch someone the way 135mm does...

[chesebert]

You'll have to compare it against a 55-300 or 50-200, to be fair. The 18-55 can't reach out and touch someone the way 135mm does...

center sharpness/contrast is one of the pluses for this lens. I think you either need to adjust your lens or get a better copy.

[GSiGuy]

That bad huh? Thought the 1st one was ok... i figured the rest is soft bec of LR's noise reduction from iso800... didn't think it was a lens issue... what do you guys reckon? lens or PP?

[Ameiji]

You'll have to compare it against a 55-300 or 50-200, to be fair. The 18-55 can't reach out and touch someone the way 135mm does...

Can't disagree on your point, but I assume that it is a lens of a higher class and thus should deliver better results disregarding focal distance. Maybe I'm asking too much

[Ameiji]

That bad huh? Thought the 1st one was ok... i figured the rest is soft bec of LR's noise reduction from iso800... didn't think it was a lens issue... what do you guys reckon? lens or PP?

It's hard to tell, but second one seems better to me, the necklace and letters on a shirt look sharper than face, maybe a back-focus issue? 1st and 3rd are pretty washy, and 1st also shows noticeable CA.

[jimr-pdx]

Exactly! And if you're using an all-in-one zoom it's going to be even more of a compromise!

We all have our tolerance levels and a unique body-lens combo to judge by; in my case the 18-135 was not a keeper. Mine was a compromised compromise, as it suffered in comparison to the elder 18-200 Sigma. If mine were the only copy with sharpness and fringing issues I'd have sent it in for work, but having heard it wasn't alone I decided its compromises were not the ones I wished to accept. The WR alone is great, the DC drive is great - these things alone can offset other issues for many. It's just not for me, and that's OK.

[Jeff Charles]

Would be so cool if any of you guys in possession of 18-135, posted some portraits made at longer ends.

These were casual snaps at an outdoor concert. The first was at ISO 3200, so that should be taken into account. Both photos are from raw with the K-5, processed in LR4. Sharpening: 40, 0,8, 50. LR auto lens correction. Default LR color noise reduction only.

My opinion: For general photography, the 18-135 is fine. Most of the photos that I take do not need exceptional resolution across the frame.

135mm; ISO 3200; 1/320; f/6.3


100% crop


135mm; ISO 1600; 1/400; f/5.6


100% crop center


100% crop near edge


Jeff

[audiobomber]

If mine were the only copy with sharpness and fringing issues I'd have sent it in for work, but having heard it wasn't alone I decided its compromises were not the ones I wished to accept.

You tried a sub-par 18-135, and so did some others. But you can't seem to accept that you had a bad copy and should not judge all 18-135's based on a poor sample. Mine slightly outperforms my DA L 18-55 and DA 18-250, both of which are considered slightly better than your 18-200.

I went through the same line of thinking as you when I bought a K-5. It could not focus properly under tungsten light and a firmware upgrade didn't help. I returned the camera, because a lot of people had the same trouble, and I wasn't confident that the issue would be resolved. The difference is, I don't jump into every K-5 thread and claim it's a crap design. I had a bad one, not everyone does. If your results don't match the results of the test done in Pentax Forums, blame Pentax for your bad copy, but at least admit that it was a bad copy.

There are quite a few happy owners by now. The idea that we're novices who just don't know good from bad is bullshit. It's a consumer zoom, with IQ right in the middle of all my other consumer zooms. Better than the 18-55 and 18-250, not as good as the 55-300 or 16-45. I would never bother changing the 18-135 to mount another of my consumer zooms. If I need special performance, I mount a prime. I actually don't use any other zoom at this point, just the superzoom and primes and will probably always build my kit this way. For that reason, I intend to replace the 18-135 with the roadmapped DA* extended zoom.

I don't have a lens that would show a better result than this:

[jimr-pdx]

Wow - guess the 'not for me and I'm OK with that' line did not catch your eye. I'm happy for those whose copies are better than mine.
Signing off this post as I'm not providing value.

[GSiGuy]

It's hard to tell, but second one seems better to me, the necklace and letters on a shirt look sharper than face, maybe a back-focus issue? 1st and 3rd are pretty washy, and 1st also shows noticeable CA.

Time to pull out the focus charts...