Replacing the 18-135 WR?

**seventysixersfan** · 03-29-2013, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by JayX2A

The 17-70 is no quicker than the 18-135? Would not see that as an upgrade?

It is a faster zoom lens across the overlapping range.

Compare (these are approximations)

Sigma 17-70
f/2.8 from 17-23mm
f/3.2 from 24-27mm
f/3.5 from 28-49mm
f/4.0 from 50-70mm

Pentax DA 18-135
f/3.5 from 18-20mm
f/4.0 from 21-29mm
f/4.5 from 30-69mm
f/5.6 from 70-135mm

Last edited by seventysixersfan; 03-29-2013 at 02:29 PM.

JayX2A · 04-03-2013, 12:59 AM

Still think I want a constant f2.8 lens, whether it be a Sigma or Tamron.

My friend has the 24-70 HSM and its a bit of a beast! Guess that's the trade off for HSM and f2.8.

AlexeySe · 04-03-2013, 01:27 AM

Originally posted by JayX2A

Still think I want a constant f2.8 lens, whether it be a Sigma or Tamron.

My friend has the 24-70 HSM and its a bit of a beast! Guess that's the trade off for HSM and f2.8.

Heh, when I bought my Tamron I sincerely believed that f2.8 is absoletly nessesary. But in fact I use 2.8 very-very rarely, just for fun or for tests. I this focus range it is useless, may be only on wide angle in rooms at low light or for evening lanscapes. For portraits I prefer F3.5-4.5.

JayX2A · 04-03-2013, 01:29 AM

I was thinking it may be useful for sports, especially indoors as do some equestrian photography.

AlexeySe · 04-03-2013, 01:59 AM

Originally posted by JayX2A

I was thinking it may be useful for sports, especially indoors as do some equestrian photography.

For sports?!!

May be only for chess

Just for example: you shot at F2.8/70mm from distance of 10 m - then depth of field will be only 1,3 m. If I know anything about horse - it is a few larger

And if horse moves it is very high probability that horse will out of focus. If you plan shot from longer distance then you need another focus range.

JayX2A · 04-03-2013, 02:08 AM

I was using the 30mm siggy for equestrian photos last weekend and it worked quite well! Just want more range.

The Tamron 28-75 seems a cheaper option than the Sigma.

Tonto · 04-03-2013, 02:20 AM

Another vote for the Tamron 28-75 im pretty sure the screw drive would be more tolerant of getting wet as well.
As for the upcoming 16-85 bring it on! Should be weather resistant as it is a DA* so a Pentax version of Sonys 16-80

Cuchulainn · 04-03-2013, 03:55 AM

I went the opposite way - I sold the Tamron 17-50 to fund the 18-135mm. The Tamron is a great lens, but I've got primes that more than match it for sharpness and speed, and had no WR lenses. Since getting the 18-135 I've used it far more than I thought I would. It's just a very nice, well performing lens. It also has a lovely build quality. I've no qualms about leaving it on the camera and swapping it for a prime as needed.

kswong_00 · 04-03-2013, 04:41 AM

+1 on tamron 28-75. It's really useful for me taking pictures of my one year old boy running around the house. It's great for taking wedding event too.

David L · 04-03-2013, 05:36 AM

Originally posted by JayX2A

I have yet to use the 18-135 WR extensivly, but I think I want something faster.

Was considering the 24-70 f2.8 as do not go wide very often. I am also considering the 70-200 f2.8 at a later date.

Any other fast zooms I should look in to?

I've gone through this process...I bought my K5 with DA 18-135, then three months later bought Tamron 28-75. I have to say the 18-135 is much sharper than the Tammy in the centre; however the Tammy is faster, less vignetting and more creamy which is good for indoor and people shots. So now I use 18-135 for outdoor and Tammy for indoor. But I'm still waiting for my idea zoom lens for ~20-70 FL. The new Sigma 17-70 doesn't sound great according to the reviews for Canon mount...so I can only hope the Pentax 16-85? or whatever appearing in the near future would fulfill my wish...

normhead · 04-03-2013, 06:10 AM

I spend a lot of time outdoors, so the 18-135 is a no brainer, and I can see wanting 2.8 in low light, but mostly for better autofocus.

We shoot with both the Sigma 70 2.8 and Tamron 90 macro 2.8 and the Tamron 17-50 2.8 and despite what the narrow DoF guys may tell you, it's very rare in a 5 shot comparison that the 2.8 shot is the best shot, in fact if I was to generalize, shots taken at wide aperture are for the most part unusable in general terms. I know all the guys craving 1.4 will jump in and declare me insane, but I just take lots of images at different speeds and F-stops and choose the best images. If the 2.8 image is the best image, I use it, but as i said, it's rarely the best image as long as you can get a decent exposure without it.

More light for the auto-focus system is a completely different issue. If you're shooting in low light conditions, 2.8 is a wonderful thing. Shooting in the early morning with an F4 lens I've had trouble achieving a focus lock. But that was shooting into darkness that even the naked eye had trouble with. As a general rule, 2.8 zooms, are just too heavy to be carry around lenses. If you're a pro, and you're getting paid for it, that's not an issue, you have to be willing to suffer a little. The rest of the time, you don't want heavy lenses ruining your life.

JayX2A · 04-03-2013, 09:02 AM

The tamron is 105g heavier than the 18-135 so not a big deal for me.

Although the Sigma is 480g heavier so I can see your point on that particular lens!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pentax 18-135 WR - Is it worth the $400-500?	reivax	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	43	03-24-2013 10:10 AM
K5 II - 18-135 WR or 15-55 & 50-200 WR	JayX2A	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	5	02-11-2013 08:11 AM
18-55 vs 18-135 WR-ness	Giklab	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	3	04-19-2012 10:56 AM
Better low-light performance: Tamron 18-250 or Pentax 18-135 WR	wedge	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	19	09-06-2011 02:14 PM
WR lenses (not the 18-135)	kyteflyer	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	16	03-27-2011 07:38 PM

03-29-2013, 02:18 PM	#16
seventysixersfan Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Alexandria, VA Posts: 2,054	Originally posted by JayX2A The 17-70 is no quicker than the 18-135? Would not see that as an upgrade? It is a faster zoom lens across the overlapping range. Compare (these are approximations) Sigma 17-70 f/2.8 from 17-23mm f/3.2 from 24-27mm f/3.5 from 28-49mm f/4.0 from 50-70mm Pentax DA 18-135 f/3.5 from 18-20mm f/4.0 from 21-29mm f/4.5 from 30-69mm f/5.6 from 70-135mm Last edited by seventysixersfan; 03-29-2013 at 02:29 PM.

04-03-2013, 12:59 AM	#17
JayX2A Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 120 Original Poster	Still think I want a constant f2.8 lens, whether it be a Sigma or Tamron. My friend has the 24-70 HSM and its a bit of a beast! Guess that's the trade off for HSM and f2.8.

04-03-2013, 01:27 AM	#18
AlexeySe New Member Join Date: Feb 2013 Posts: 4	Originally posted by JayX2A Still think I want a constant f2.8 lens, whether it be a Sigma or Tamron. My friend has the 24-70 HSM and its a bit of a beast! Guess that's the trade off for HSM and f2.8. Heh, when I bought my Tamron I sincerely believed that f2.8 is absoletly nessesary. But in fact I use 2.8 very-very rarely, just for fun or for tests. I this focus range it is useless, may be only on wide angle in rooms at low light or for evening lanscapes. For portraits I prefer F3.5-4.5.

04-03-2013, 01:29 AM	#19
JayX2A Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 120 Original Poster	I was thinking it may be useful for sports, especially indoors as do some equestrian photography.

04-03-2013, 01:59 AM	#20
AlexeySe New Member Join Date: Feb 2013 Posts: 4	Originally posted by JayX2A I was thinking it may be useful for sports, especially indoors as do some equestrian photography. For sports?!! May be only for chess Just for example: you shot at F2.8/70mm from distance of 10 m - then depth of field will be only 1,3 m. If I know anything about horse - it is a few larger And if horse moves it is very high probability that horse will out of focus. If you plan shot from longer distance then you need another focus range.

04-03-2013, 02:08 AM	#21
JayX2A Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 120 Original Poster	I was using the 30mm siggy for equestrian photos last weekend and it worked quite well! Just want more range. The Tamron 28-75 seems a cheaper option than the Sigma.

04-03-2013, 02:20 AM	#22
Tonto Inactive Account Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Wellington Posts: 969	Another vote for the Tamron 28-75 im pretty sure the screw drive would be more tolerant of getting wet as well. As for the upcoming 16-85 bring it on! Should be weather resistant as it is a DA* so a Pentax version of Sonys 16-80

04-03-2013, 03:55 AM	#23
Cuchulainn Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 153	I went the opposite way - I sold the Tamron 17-50 to fund the 18-135mm. The Tamron is a great lens, but I've got primes that more than match it for sharpness and speed, and had no WR lenses. Since getting the 18-135 I've used it far more than I thought I would. It's just a very nice, well performing lens. It also has a lovely build quality. I've no qualms about leaving it on the camera and swapping it for a prime as needed.

04-03-2013, 04:41 AM	#24
kswong_00 Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 63	+1 on tamron 28-75. It's really useful for me taking pictures of my one year old boy running around the house. It's great for taking wedding event too.

04-03-2013, 05:36 AM	#25
David L Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Melbourne Photos: Gallery Posts: 95	Originally posted by JayX2A I have yet to use the 18-135 WR extensivly, but I think I want something faster. Was considering the 24-70 f2.8 as do not go wide very often. I am also considering the 70-200 f2.8 at a later date. Any other fast zooms I should look in to? I've gone through this process...I bought my K5 with DA 18-135, then three months later bought Tamron 28-75. I have to say the 18-135 is much sharper than the Tammy in the centre; however the Tammy is faster, less vignetting and more creamy which is good for indoor and people shots. So now I use 18-135 for outdoor and Tammy for indoor. But I'm still waiting for my idea zoom lens for ~20-70 FL. The new Sigma 17-70 doesn't sound great according to the reviews for Canon mount...so I can only hope the Pentax 16-85? or whatever appearing in the near future would fulfill my wish...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-03-2013, 06:10 AM	#26
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,450	I spend a lot of time outdoors, so the 18-135 is a no brainer, and I can see wanting 2.8 in low light, but mostly for better autofocus. We shoot with both the Sigma 70 2.8 and Tamron 90 macro 2.8 and the Tamron 17-50 2.8 and despite what the narrow DoF guys may tell you, it's very rare in a 5 shot comparison that the 2.8 shot is the best shot, in fact if I was to generalize, shots taken at wide aperture are for the most part unusable in general terms. I know all the guys craving 1.4 will jump in and declare me insane, but I just take lots of images at different speeds and F-stops and choose the best images. If the 2.8 image is the best image, I use it, but as i said, it's rarely the best image as long as you can get a decent exposure without it. More light for the auto-focus system is a completely different issue. If you're shooting in low light conditions, 2.8 is a wonderful thing. Shooting in the early morning with an F4 lens I've had trouble achieving a focus lock. But that was shooting into darkness that even the naked eye had trouble with. As a general rule, 2.8 zooms, are just too heavy to be carry around lenses. If you're a pro, and you're getting paid for it, that's not an issue, you have to be willing to suffer a little. The rest of the time, you don't want heavy lenses ruining your life.

04-03-2013, 09:02 AM	#27
JayX2A Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 120 Original Poster	The tamron is 105g heavier than the 18-135 so not a big deal for me. Although the Sigma is 480g heavier so I can see your point on that particular lens!