Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-20-2012, 05:42 PM   #16
Site Supporter
reivax's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: California
Posts: 740
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by DaveHolmes Quote
Given the lenses you listed my suggestion would be to go for the DA*55-1.4 lens as your WR kit...

IQ looks amazing... Great for portraits... WR...

Ticks all boxes.
Is the DA*55 WR? I already have a FA 50 1.4. I don't use it all that much. A lot of the shooting I do is sports.

I think what I really want is a WR so that I can fully take advantage of the camera (when I get it). Right now I"m in between getting an ultra wide zoom. Something in the 10-20 range. I wonder how long the 18-135 would really satisfy me needs.

10-20-2012, 05:56 PM   #17
Site Supporter
loco's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,844
Yes, the DA*55 is weather sealed. Great lens. The 18-135 is awesome, too, but in a zoom walkaround way.
10-20-2012, 06:26 PM   #18
Senior Member
drugal's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Detroit suburbs
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 257
Sorry to take a right turn on this thread, but Norm that second shot is stunning
10-20-2012, 08:13 PM   #19
Site Supporter
ramseybuckeye's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Elida, Ohio
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,622
QuoteOriginally posted by reivax Quote
I'm planning on getting a K-5II in a month or two, but I'm wondering if I should get the kit that comes with the 18-135 WR. My main question, is it worth the extra money? Or is it better to get the 18-55 WR?

I don't need the range, but I also don't own anything that is WR. I probably wouldn't need the WR 99 percent of the time, but it would be nice to have (damn you LBA).

Is the range worth the price?

Is the IQ better on the 18-135 than on the 18-55?

I would definitely want a WR lens so that I could maximize the WR on the camera (the few times I would actually need it) I could see myself using the 18-135 a lot (good walk around lens?) but then what would I do with the Tamron 28-75 (my current walk around)?

How often do those of you that own a 18-135 use it?

Thanks.
I recently bought a K-30 and got the kit with the 18-135, my reasoning being that my only WR lens was the DFA100. I was somewhat on the fence whether to buy it or not because of disappointing reviews back when the lens was introduced. I'm absolutely thrilled with the lens, it has greatly exceeded my expectations, it is sharp at all focal lengths. I seldom used the DA18-55 I had, it was too limiting, I had acquired a Tamron 28-105, which was excellent, more range than the 18-55, though not as wide, but better image quality. The 18-135 has even better IQ than the Tamron with more range both directions, the Tamron has been sold. For myself the lens has been worth the price.

To answer the question of how often I use it, more than any other lens. I took this picture this morning, it is full size so it will load slowly, maybe it will give an idea of sharpness. This is a path in the woods, the top part of the photo is out of the focus depth.:


10-21-2012, 02:47 AM   #20
Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Aylesbury, Bucks
Photos: Albums
Posts: 492
Quick price comparison for 18-135mm lenses:
Canon: 318
Sony: 389
Pentax: 599

There is a Nikon model available which seems to have been discontinued.

The Pentax is a lot more than the competition. Its sole advantage is a certain degree of sealing (since the others also have silent autofocus).

You are having a similar issue with the K-5 that I had. You've got this weather-sealed body so you need a weather-sealed lens, right? Which makes you spend hundreds of pounds / dollars / whatever that you wouldn't otherwise have spent.

I used to own the 18-135 and it's, well, OK. It's certainly convenient. It excels your 18-55 in every way and equals it in close focusing (both have a max 1:4 magnification). It's not exceptional in any way, however, and given the price you'd expect it to be. Its high price contributed to the famous Photozone slating, since the Canon is optically slightly worse.

Is it worth it? No. For my money, our best price-performance option is the Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 HSM.
10-21-2012, 03:41 AM   #21
Site Supporter
loco's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,844
I'd say the 18-135 bokeh is pretty exceptional.
10-21-2012, 05:05 PM   #22
Forum Member
nikigunn's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: The Enchanted Cottage
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 75
I prefer primes but when I go on trips, I take my 18-135, mainly for the WR. In Yosemite this May, I knew a WR lens would come in handy with the waterfalls.



It was really funny to slap that lens on and walk right up to the top of the Bridalveil Fall path while watching the other photographers throw jackets and shirts over their cameras, take a quick shot and run to drier ground while I took my time and bored the friend who was with me.

This lens isn't equal to primes, but it isn't bad. I bought mine used, and I like it better than the 18-55 that came with my old *istDS. Until I got my 43mm limited, the 18-135 tended to be my go to lens. Now, I mainly grab this if I know I'll be restricted in movement or time.
10-22-2012, 04:11 AM   #23
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,352
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
OK ya got me.. that's the trouble with these kinds of statements, if you forget to look at one stinkin lens, it's always the one that makes you look stupid. The Tammy is a little better, but I find visually 200 LW/PH is noticeable, and there isn't that much difference between the Tammy and the 18-135... and with the 18-135, you get 50mm to 135 as well, a lot more focal length.

Thanks for pointing that out, accuracy is always worth more than personal credibility.

BUt I have to also say... to me the most impressive Tammy is the 28-75 IQ wise. I'm not sure I'd like it as a walk around lens. And I'm definitely looking at the Tammy 10-24 and the 28-75 and 70-200 2.8 as a total zoom package as soemthing I'd recommend for a great way to get high quality glass for a very good price...but for one lens, the 18-135 is still it as far as I'm concerned. Why would I carry all those lenses if in 90% of my shots I can achieve excellent results with the 18-135. By the way my problem with the Tammy 17-50 would be that it's not long enough for wild life. We have great moose shots taken with the 18-135. I see the Tammy 17-50 as a lens that has to be part of a package. I see the 18-135 as a lens that I can walk out the door with all by itself, and use it to get the shot I want most of the time.
The 18-135 is my go-to day lens, and the Tammy 17-50/2.8 my go-to night / indoor lens.

To answer the OP's question, in my opinion the 18-135 is very much worthwhile, especially with the reduced price when part of a kit. If I could only take one lens on holiday, the 18-135 would be it.

10-22-2012, 05:59 AM   #24
Senior Member




Join Date: Mar 2012
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 165
I would get 18-135 Kit than 18-55 kit. 18-135 is better with WR, i can tell u now after choosing 18-55 kit myself...regretting...
10-26-2012, 11:54 PM   #25
Senior Member
Into The Lens's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Between clever and stupid
Photos: Albums
Posts: 216
I recently bought a K-5 that came with an 18-135mm. It satisfies my needs but I shoot in bars and clubs a lot were the light is low and colored. Not the ideal lens but it can be pretty sharp. Here is a shot I took at a show with this lens in very low light.



http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8465/8084668720_099323e6cd_b.jpg


Ben

Last edited by Into The Lens; 10-30-2012 at 11:18 AM.
10-27-2012, 01:43 AM   #26
Pentaxian
StephenHampshire's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Winchester
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,312
QuoteOriginally posted by top-quark Quote
Quick price comparison for 18-135mm lenses:
Canon: 318
Sony: 389
Pentax: 599

There is a Nikon model available which seems to have been discontinued.

The Pentax is a lot more than the competition. Its sole advantage is a certain degree of sealing (since the others also have silent autofocus).

You are having a similar issue with the K-5 that I had. You've got this weather-sealed body so you need a weather-sealed lens, right? Which makes you spend hundreds of pounds / dollars / whatever that you wouldn't otherwise have spent.

I used to own the 18-135 and it's, well, OK. It's certainly convenient. It excels your 18-55 in every way and equals it in close focusing (both have a max 1:4 magnification). It's not exceptional in any way, however, and given the price you'd expect it to be. Its high price contributed to the famous Photozone slating, since the Canon is optically slightly worse.

Is it worth it? No. For my money, our best price-performance option is the Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 HSM.
599? I paid 349 for mine from SRS, a well respected Pentax dealer, but it was an unboxed olne split from a kit. This puts it near to the price of the old Tamron 18-250 and definitely worth the money. I agree that I wouldn't pay nearly double the price I did!
10-28-2012, 11:45 AM   #27
Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Aylesbury, Bucks
Photos: Albums
Posts: 492
Yeah, I've taken advantage of a number of special offers from SRS myself. Price comparisons were from Warehouse Express, which I generally find to be quite competitive.
10-28-2012, 01:00 PM   #28
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Brighton, United Kingdom
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 311
Got a good deal on my 8-16mm UWA from SRS and their service was excellent

Anyway 18-135mm - very happy with mine:


10-29-2012, 12:24 PM   #29
Veteran Member
DaveHolmes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 1,501
QuoteOriginally posted by reivax Quote
Is the DA*55 WR? I already have a FA 50 1.4. I don't use it all that much. A lot of the shooting I do is sports.
Then I'd consider spending some reall cash on a fast WR zoom with similar reach... DA*50-135 or DA*60-250 would be better options for sports and both are WR (as are all DA* lenses)
10-29-2012, 01:41 PM   #30
Senior Member
Mr_Canuck's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 293
If you're looking for a one-lens solution I would totally go with the 18-135. I'd agree with others about the 24-70 sweet spot. But I've also gotten really nice shots out to 20 and up to around 115. Actually I have some decent ones at 18. And good close ups at 130. Going out to the long end, I think they designed it as a close-up lens because it has fairly good bokeh and the clarity in the corners isn't as critical. But it's lousy at a distance for anything over 115. Avoid that altogether, and crop.

So I'd say you were getting a good 20-110 zoom a really good 24-70 zoom, and the rest is gravy. Beyond the all-consuming-sharpness discussion, the lens has beautiful colours, good contrast, good flare response but can suffer from some CA. That said, it's no deal-breaker. Finally, it's most beneficial quality is build and mechanics. It's small, it's short, it's light for what it is, and it's well made and has super-great, fast, quiet autofocus. This is not a manual focus lens, nor do I expect it to be, but you do have quick-shift if you need it.

I've got a 4-prime setup of 15/21/50/100 (previously had 35 and 70). If I want to work with primes, that's my kit. But having a one-lens solution to grab and go, you are hard pressed to find a better travel, hiking, get whatever shot kind of lens as the 18-135. I keep thinking should I part with it, and a little voice says hang on to it. 62mm is also a nice, affordable (for filters) filter size, though unique in Pentax land.

You could pair this with a 35 or 50 prime and have a lot of shooting situations covered except for a long telephoto.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
k-mount, pentax, pentax 18-135 wr, pentax lens, range, slr lens, tamron, wr
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A Request for Pentax: DA 135-400 WR Biro Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 3 02-11-2012 04:54 PM
IQ for 150-500, 50-500, 120-400 Sigma's? saladin Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10 07-30-2011 04:57 PM
SIGMA 135-400 or 170-500? bonovox Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 12 10-21-2007 06:26 PM
Sigma 135-400 or 170-500 GLThorne Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 2 02-23-2007 12:51 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:51 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top