16-45 or 18-55+21mm or 18-135

pentaxki · 12-07-2012, 02:17 PM

I just got an Adorama email about a 1-week sale where Bower 14mm can be had for 289. The sale price only shows up via email click-thru I'm afraid.
See if this link works ...
http://click.e.adorama.com/?qs=86964fab1e968792ab1cc964ec20d2d62047bfb76f0b3059be860fe84ed9e462

Last edited by pentaxki; 12-07-2012 at 04:07 PM.

**Just1MoreDave** · 12-07-2012, 02:41 PM

Originally posted by msatlas

I propose option #4:

Save up some more cash, sell the 16-45, pick up an 18-55 WR used for cheap, buy the 15 Limited.

The 15's got low distortion and great flare resistance. It's more expensive than the 21 but gets you a nice wider option.

In the meantime it's not like your current setup's all that bad.

I was going to suggest this. That gives you smaller size and a bit wider than 16mm. You could find a way to carry 15, 35 and 70 together. At the 45mm end, you have a couple of other lenses to cover what the 16-45 used to.

Another way to decide is how much you need WR. If you're missing a lot of shots because the weather is not great, maybe a DA 18-135 would be better. I have the 18-55WR for weather but it's not very rainy here.

rob_k20d · 12-07-2012, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by audiobomber

My opinion on how they compare, ranked from best to worst:

Sharpness: 16-45, 18-135, 18-55
Colour & contrast: 16-45, 18-135, 18-55
Vignetting: 16-45, 18-55, 18-135 (The 18-135 performs poorly here)
Distortion: 16-45, 18-55, 18-135
Bokeh: 18-135 by a mile, 16-45, 18-55
CA: 18-135, 18-55, 16-45
Flare: 16-45, 18-135, 18-55.This was the closest category to call.
Build quality of the 18-135 leaves the others for dead. Mechanically it feels and performs like a pro lens.
Note that CA and distortion are correctable in all Pentax cameras since the K-x.

Aperture speed is also signficant. The 16-45 is one stop faster than the 18-55mm at the long end. The long end of the 18-55 is longer, but that's not a factor because the 16-45 is still sharper when cropped to 55mm. The 18-135 is in between the two, half a stop faster than the 18-55 at 55mm.

You asked about the different 18-55 versions. The original 18-55 is slightly weaker. The three latest versions are optically identical (II, WR, DA L), they differ only in mechanical features.

Audiobomber, thanks. That is very useful. I am very tempted by the 18-135, but if the 18-135 is worse than the 18-55 for vignetting and distortion, that would be a bit of a worry. Thanks a lot for taking the time to put that together.

msatlas and just1moredave: yes, that is, indeed, very tempting.

Pentaxki, I don't know that lens. May have to have a look - though it doesn't look that small.

At the moment, I think it may be a choice between 1 and 4. (Thanks for all the suggestions, everyone.)

normhead · 12-07-2012, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Sharpness: 16-45, 18-135, 18-55

The photozone numbers say different... the 16 is better wide but by 24 the 18-135 is ahead and stays ahead. I odn't know really if it's better than the 16-45, it's just really good.

My theory is have a good walk around zoom to cover as much as you can, fill in the rest with primes. Using the 18-135 and then adding primes would be the way I'd go.You have the 35 and the 70 so you're well on your way. The tested DA 16-45 CA numbers are brutal in the wide end, even by relatively brutal 18-135 and all purpose zoom lens standards. SInce it's correctable but I have no idea how that affects IQ. I really like to see some corrected images. SInce I've never noticeable had CA on my 18-135 it's never been an issue.

I have absolutely no use for the 18-55. We have 3 of them. I use them as "model lenses" on my film bodies. They make them look more like cameras in the display case. We have some great shots taken with them, but the 18-135 is just better.

Anyway I like option 3. That's a great starting combination. You can build on that. If you can keep your 50-200 until you can get something better that would be great just for the long end. It's just it's hard to find anything that's really good after 150 mm for cheap.

The 15 Ltd. to go wider than an 18-135 would be awesome. With 16 mm on your 16-45, I don't know if you'd even need it.

EarlVonTapia · 12-07-2012, 06:10 PM

I'm not a big fan of the 18-135, but that's because I don't think it's worth its price (optical quality to price ratio) when buying it separately. When it comes in a kit though, it's worth it over any other kit lens combo.

The 18-55 WR is a good, solid, compact, lightweight, inexpensive lens that I think will complement a decent setup of primes. Get that and use the money saved to buy more/better lenses.

audiobomber · 12-07-2012, 11:26 PM

Originally posted by normhead

The photozone numbers say different

The PZ tests are not directly comparable because the 16-45 was tested on a 10mp camera, the 18-135 on 16mp K-5. The extreme borders were not tested on the 16-45. It holds up better across the frame.

rob_k20d · 12-08-2012, 06:09 AM

Originally posted by EarlVonTapia

I'm not a big fan of the 18-135, but that's because I don't think it's worth its price (optical quality to price ratio) when buying it separately. When it comes in a kit though, it's worth it over any other kit lens combo.

The 18-55 WR is a good, solid, compact, lightweight, inexpensive lens that I think will complement a decent setup of primes. Get that and use the money saved to buy more/better lenses.

Yes, thanks for reminding me that I should have got the 18-135 as a kit lens with my K30

Oh well.

normhead · 12-08-2012, 08:44 AM

Quote:

The PZ tests are not directly comparable because the 16-45 was tested on a 10mp camera, the 18-135 on 16mp K-5. The extreme borders were not tested on the 16-45. It holds up better across the frame.

If you check the 31 Ltd, a great lens @ 10 MP, not so good on 16 MP, lenses tested tend to go down. I don't have a 16-45 so I can't post comparable images. But I've uploaded a full size copy of the picture below. Taken at 31 mm it's not the sharpest an 18-135 image can be, that would be @ 24 mm, but I question whether a 16-45 is better than this. given that there's no question the 18-135 is better from 45 to 135, I'm not sure why this is even a discussion. But, if you can post an image that show superiority I'd be appreciative.

Here's a crop from part way up the right border....

The 18-135 not only has excellent centre sharpness, it has excellent border sharpness in this range. These trees are hundreds of feet away. I find it difficult to believe you're going to see a lot of improvement using anything short of a D800 with the famous 14-24.

VoiceOfReason · 12-08-2012, 09:18 AM

I know what you mean normhead! The more I use the 18-135 the more I like it.

normhead · 12-08-2012, 09:24 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by VoiceOfReason

I know what you mean normhead! The more I use the 18-135 the more I like it.

Ya, I bought it because it was better than the kit lens. I certainly didn't expect to get as much as I got. The other thing I think about this lens is, it's resolution is high enough, you aren't going to see any improvement over it using any lens, unless you go to a tripod, making it a perfect walking lens. Hand shake will degrade your images more than this lens will. But it's no slouch on a tripod either.

VoiceOfReason · 12-08-2012, 09:29 AM

I say go with option #3, but add the 14 f/2.8 or 15 f/4, and again, if the 50-200 is WR keep it.

normhead · 12-08-2012, 10:33 AM

Originally posted by VoiceOfReason

I know what you mean normhead! The more I use the 18-135 the more I like it.

Ya, what he said..... we are always so willing to help someone spend thier money.

audiobomber · 12-08-2012, 10:59 AM

Originally posted by normhead

If you check the 31 Ltd, a great lens @ 10 MP, not so good on 16 MP, lenses tested tend to go down. I don't have a 16-45 so I can't post comparable images. But I've uploaded a full size copy of the picture below. Taken at 31 mm it's not the sharpest an 18-135 image can be, that would be @ 24 mm, but I question whether a 16-45 is better than this. given that there's no question the 18-135 is better from 45 to 135, I'm not sure why this is even a discussion. But, if you can post an image that show superiority I'd be appreciative.

I'm not sure what you're looking at. The FA 31mm hits 2600 on the K-5, vs about 2300 on the K10D.

There's no question the 16-45 is wider, the 18-135 is longer. I have a use for both. As I stated, the 18-135 is seeing a lot more use, but I have a DA 15mm which has helped displace the 16-45.

The crop looks pretty blurry. I'll post a comparison shot at 24mm later. Did you check the test photos I posted above, showing the wide end?

normhead · 12-08-2012, 11:15 AM

Quote:

There's no question the 16-45 is wider, the 18-135 is longer. I have a use for both. As I stated, the 18-135 is seeing a lot more use, but I have a DA 15mm which has helped displace the 16-45.

I looked at your links, good stuff. I can see how having the 16-45 fits, I opted for the Tammy 17-50 2.8 to fill that spot. It has that same microcontrast that makes the Tammy 90 better than the DA*60-250 @ 90mm. The next lens on the list is the Sigma 8-16. The images ( taken with a 8-16, posted on the forum here are very good. it's got great reviews everywhere. But, I still want the 15 ltd and the 77. (to go with my 21, 35, 50 and 90)

Quote:

The crop looks pretty blurry.

Only @ 1:1. Shooting through a couple hundred of atmosphere, it's actually quite good.

Biro · 12-08-2012, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by normhead

My theory is have a good walk around zoom to cover as much as you can, fill in the rest with primes. Using the 18-135 and then adding primes would be the way I'd go.You have the 35 and the 70 so you're well on your way.

I agree with this completely. Get the 18-135 for maximum flexibility in a package of reasonable size with WR for when you need it. Then begin collecting the primes you know you want. The 18-135, 35 and 70 make for a great kit. If it takes you time to save for and buy the 15 and 21, it won't be the end of the world. I still have the 16-45 myself and I do like it. But I suspect it will be replaced by the 18-135 sometime in 2013.

BTW, after you get the 15 and 21, consider the DA 35 f/2.8 Limited macro. It's a bit slow with auto focus because it's a macro but you'll love the sharpness, resolution and rendering.

12-07-2012, 05:17 PM	#18
rob_k20d Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Leeds Posts: 152 Original Poster	Originally posted by audiobomber My opinion on how they compare, ranked from best to worst: Sharpness: 16-45, 18-135, 18-55 Colour & contrast: 16-45, 18-135, 18-55 Vignetting: 16-45, 18-55, 18-135 (The 18-135 performs poorly here) Distortion: 16-45, 18-55, 18-135 Bokeh: 18-135 by a mile, 16-45, 18-55 CA: 18-135, 18-55, 16-45 Flare: 16-45, 18-135, 18-55.This was the closest category to call. Build quality of the 18-135 leaves the others for dead. Mechanically it feels and performs like a pro lens. Note that CA and distortion are correctable in all Pentax cameras since the K-x. Aperture speed is also signficant. The 16-45 is one stop faster than the 18-55mm at the long end. The long end of the 18-55 is longer, but that's not a factor because the 16-45 is still sharper when cropped to 55mm. The 18-135 is in between the two, half a stop faster than the 18-55 at 55mm. You asked about the different 18-55 versions. The original 18-55 is slightly weaker. The three latest versions are optically identical (II, WR, DA L), they differ only in mechanical features. Audiobomber, thanks. That is very useful. I am very tempted by the 18-135, but if the 18-135 is worse than the 18-55 for vignetting and distortion, that would be a bit of a worry. Thanks a lot for taking the time to put that together. msatlas and just1moredave: yes, that is, indeed, very tempting. Pentaxki, I don't know that lens. May have to have a look - though it doesn't look that small. At the moment, I think it may be a choice between 1 and 4. (Thanks for all the suggestions, everyone.)

12-07-2012, 06:10 PM	#20
EarlVonTapia Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Vancouver Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,207	I'm not a big fan of the 18-135, but that's because I don't think it's worth its price (optical quality to price ratio) when buying it separately. When it comes in a kit though, it's worth it over any other kit lens combo. The 18-55 WR is a good, solid, compact, lightweight, inexpensive lens that I think will complement a decent setup of primes. Get that and use the money saved to buy more/better lenses. Last edited by EarlVonTapia; 12-07-2012 at 06:16 PM.

12-08-2012, 08:44 AM	#23
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Quote: The PZ tests are not directly comparable because the 16-45 was tested on a 10mp camera, the 18-135 on 16mp K-5. The extreme borders were not tested on the 16-45. It holds up better across the frame. If you check the 31 Ltd, a great lens @ 10 MP, not so good on 16 MP, lenses tested tend to go down. I don't have a 16-45 so I can't post comparable images. But I've uploaded a full size copy of the picture below. Taken at 31 mm it's not the sharpest an 18-135 image can be, that would be @ 24 mm, but I question whether a 16-45 is better than this. given that there's no question the 18-135 is better from 45 to 135, I'm not sure why this is even a discussion. But, if you can post an image that show superiority I'd be appreciative. Here's a crop from part way up the right border.... The 18-135 not only has excellent centre sharpness, it has excellent border sharpness in this range. These trees are hundreds of feet away. I find it difficult to believe you're going to see a lot of improvement using anything short of a D800 with the famous 14-24. Last edited by normhead; 12-08-2012 at 09:21 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
K30 18-55 or 18-135 kit lens??	PaulJRJ	Visitors' Center	24	04-29-2013 07:18 AM
16-45 or 18-135	Ira	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	20	03-27-2011 09:48 PM
For Sale - Sold: Trade my 16-45, 55-300, 18-55wr for 18-135 (US/CAN)	jimr-pdx	Sold Items	6	02-05-2011 06:13 PM
DA 16-45 or 18-55 WR	fulcrumx29	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	08-18-2009 08:27 AM
K20D with 16-45 or 18-55 II ?	TwoLegged	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	11	01-28-2009 10:47 AM

12-07-2012, 02:17 PM	#16
pentaxki Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2012 Posts: 31	I just got an Adorama email about a 1-week sale where Bower 14mm can be had for 289. The sale price only shows up via email click-thru I'm afraid. See if this link works ... http://click.e.adorama.com/?qs=86964fab1e968792ab1cc964ec20d2d62047bfb76f0b3059be860fe84ed9e462 Last edited by pentaxki; 12-07-2012 at 04:07 PM.

12-07-2012, 02:41 PM	#17
Just1MoreDave Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Aurora, CO Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,340	Originally posted by msatlas I propose option #4: Save up some more cash, sell the 16-45, pick up an 18-55 WR used for cheap, buy the 15 Limited. The 15's got low distortion and great flare resistance. It's more expensive than the 21 but gets you a nice wider option. In the meantime it's not like your current setup's all that bad. I was going to suggest this. That gives you smaller size and a bit wider than 16mm. You could find a way to carry 15, 35 and 70 together. At the 45mm end, you have a couple of other lenses to cover what the 16-45 used to. Another way to decide is how much you need WR. If you're missing a lot of shots because the weather is not great, maybe a DA 18-135 would be better. I have the 18-55WR for weather but it's not very rainy here.

12-07-2012, 05:59 PM	#19
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Quote: Sharpness: 16-45, 18-135, 18-55 The photozone numbers say different... the 16 is better wide but by 24 the 18-135 is ahead and stays ahead. I odn't know really if it's better than the 16-45, it's just really good. My theory is have a good walk around zoom to cover as much as you can, fill in the rest with primes. Using the 18-135 and then adding primes would be the way I'd go.You have the 35 and the 70 so you're well on your way. The tested DA 16-45 CA numbers are brutal in the wide end, even by relatively brutal 18-135 and all purpose zoom lens standards. SInce it's correctable but I have no idea how that affects IQ. I really like to see some corrected images. SInce I've never noticeable had CA on my 18-135 it's never been an issue. I have absolutely no use for the 18-55. We have 3 of them. I use them as "model lenses" on my film bodies. They make them look more like cameras in the display case. We have some great shots taken with them, but the 18-135 is just better. Anyway I like option 3. That's a great starting combination. You can build on that. If you can keep your 50-200 until you can get something better that would be great just for the long end. It's just it's hard to find anything that's really good after 150 mm for cheap. The 15 Ltd. to go wider than an 18-135 would be awesome. With 16 mm on your 16-45, I don't know if you'd even need it.

12-07-2012, 11:26 PM	#21
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by normhead The photozone numbers say different The PZ tests are not directly comparable because the 16-45 was tested on a 10mp camera, the 18-135 on 16mp K-5. The extreme borders were not tested on the 16-45. It holds up better across the frame.

12-08-2012, 06:09 AM	#22
rob_k20d Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Leeds Posts: 152 Original Poster	Originally posted by EarlVonTapia I'm not a big fan of the 18-135, but that's because I don't think it's worth its price (optical quality to price ratio) when buying it separately. When it comes in a kit though, it's worth it over any other kit lens combo. The 18-55 WR is a good, solid, compact, lightweight, inexpensive lens that I think will complement a decent setup of primes. Get that and use the money saved to buy more/better lenses. Yes, thanks for reminding me that I should have got the 18-135 as a kit lens with my K30 Oh well.

12-08-2012, 09:18 AM	#24
VoiceOfReason Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Mishawaka IN area Photos: Albums Posts: 6,124	I know what you mean normhead! The more I use the 18-135 the more I like it.

12-08-2012, 09:24 AM - 1 Like	#25
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by VoiceOfReason I know what you mean normhead! The more I use the 18-135 the more I like it. Ya, I bought it because it was better than the kit lens. I certainly didn't expect to get as much as I got. The other thing I think about this lens is, it's resolution is high enough, you aren't going to see any improvement over it using any lens, unless you go to a tripod, making it a perfect walking lens. Hand shake will degrade your images more than this lens will. But it's no slouch on a tripod either.

12-08-2012, 09:29 AM	#26
VoiceOfReason Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Mishawaka IN area Photos: Albums Posts: 6,124	I say go with option #3, but add the 14 f/2.8 or 15 f/4, and again, if the 50-200 is WR keep it.

12-08-2012, 10:33 AM	#27
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by VoiceOfReason I know what you mean normhead! The more I use the 18-135 the more I like it. Ya, what he said..... we are always so willing to help someone spend thier money.

12-08-2012, 10:59 AM	#28
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by normhead If you check the 31 Ltd, a great lens @ 10 MP, not so good on 16 MP, lenses tested tend to go down. I don't have a 16-45 so I can't post comparable images. But I've uploaded a full size copy of the picture below. Taken at 31 mm it's not the sharpest an 18-135 image can be, that would be @ 24 mm, but I question whether a 16-45 is better than this. given that there's no question the 18-135 is better from 45 to 135, I'm not sure why this is even a discussion. But, if you can post an image that show superiority I'd be appreciative. I'm not sure what you're looking at. The FA 31mm hits 2600 on the K-5, vs about 2300 on the K10D. There's no question the 16-45 is wider, the 18-135 is longer. I have a use for both. As I stated, the 18-135 is seeing a lot more use, but I have a DA 15mm which has helped displace the 16-45. The crop looks pretty blurry. I'll post a comparison shot at 24mm later. Did you check the test photos I posted above, showing the wide end?

12-08-2012, 11:15 AM	#29
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Quote: There's no question the 16-45 is wider, the 18-135 is longer. I have a use for both. As I stated, the 18-135 is seeing a lot more use, but I have a DA 15mm which has helped displace the 16-45. I looked at your links, good stuff. I can see how having the 16-45 fits, I opted for the Tammy 17-50 2.8 to fill that spot. It has that same microcontrast that makes the Tammy 90 better than the DA*60-250 @ 90mm. The next lens on the list is the Sigma 8-16. The images ( taken with a 8-16, posted on the forum here are very good. it's got great reviews everywhere. But, I still want the 15 ltd and the 77. (to go with my 21, 35, 50 and 90) Quote: The crop looks pretty blurry. Only @ 1:1. Shooting through a couple hundred of atmosphere, it's actually quite good.

12-08-2012, 11:45 AM	#30
Biro Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 1,200	Originally posted by normhead My theory is have a good walk around zoom to cover as much as you can, fill in the rest with primes. Using the 18-135 and then adding primes would be the way I'd go.You have the 35 and the 70 so you're well on your way. I agree with this completely. Get the 18-135 for maximum flexibility in a package of reasonable size with WR for when you need it. Then begin collecting the primes you know you want. The 18-135, 35 and 70 make for a great kit. If it takes you time to save for and buy the 15 and 21, it won't be the end of the world. I still have the 16-45 myself and I do like it. But I suspect it will be replaced by the 18-135 sometime in 2013. BTW, after you get the 15 and 21, consider the DA 35 f/2.8 Limited macro. It's a bit slow with auto focus because it's a macro but you'll love the sharpness, resolution and rendering.