[audiobomber]

It sounds to me like you have a poor copy of the 18-135mm. If it's under warranty, I'd send it in. My copy does not have any of the issues you mention. Image quality is right between my 18-55 and 55-300mm, which is as good as it gets on a superzoom.

I'm going to have to retract this statement. I just shot some photos that show poor resolution and CA on the edges. This did not show up for me before, so I have to figure out if my lens has changed, or whether the way I use it camouflaged the border weakness (I rarely use 18mm at wide apertures, and I often center the subject at 135mm).

---

Last edited by audiobomber; 11-20-2013 at 10:31 AM.

[normhead]

No point in me even jumping in here. I'd take my 18-135. If you're thinking 21 ltd instead of 18-135 because of CA and fringing, you're barking up the wrong tree, and most film era lenses are worse. Too bad I can't lend you my copy...your 18-135 sounds horrendous. We've examined lots of images looking for this supposed corner softness and we can't find them. The problem with the CA thing is, the more corrected a lens is for CA , the bigger and heavier it is. LIke twitch, my issue with the 18-135 is how wide it is. I bought the SIgma 8-16, and really, you want corrected for distortion, CA and wide, that's what you should be looking at..but it's aweful heavy to carry for a second lens.

I'm not even going entertain the thought that a prime is as good as zoom for walking around with. I could do a thread with hundreds of images entitled, I wouldn't have got this shot if I hadn't had a zoom on. When I walk with my A-400 for wildlife, I have the K-01 with 21 around my nceck ready to be used at a moments notice. And that for me is the key here. Walking with primes, you're talking about walking with two cameras or lens changes. I can't tell you what you'd like but, I can only tell you what works for me. The reason I don't sweat the edge softness on many trips is I use the 18-135 on wide angle and center sharp images. I use the 60-250 for landscape. But the DA*60-25- is a bitch to carry. But if you really want that edge to edge sharpness, as far as I can tell, that's what you have to do. And I've tried a good number of lighter lenses trying to get out of it.

In my experience trying to do better than an 18-135 can cause you world of frustration. OK the wife has a Sigma 18-250... not as good an IQ as the 18-135, but convenient. I take it when I might see something, but probably not, just so I don't bring 10 lenses driving to the grocery store.

[bdery]

I could do a thread with hundreds of images entitled, I wouldn't have got this shot if I hadn't had a zoom on.

I believe no one said zooms are bad. But some people prefer to shoot with primes, and that's perfectly ok.

[grispie]

could do a thread with hundreds of images entitled, I wouldn't have got this shot if I hadn't had a zoom on

I could do a tread with hundreds of images entitled, I wouldn't have got this shot if I hadn't my DA55 1.4 on (or any other prime)... no offense meant

just so I don't bring 10 lenses driving to the grocery store

but this i 100% agree with

that is why i like to go out with my 16-45 and da70ltd

[normhead]

If you're tying to make the point that primes are as convenient as zooms or give you more flexibility… you're probably just playing semantics.

I can set my 18-135 to 50mm, you can't set your 50 to 18 or 135. The 50 gives you more control of DoF, so a different kind of image is possible. But with a 18-35 1.8 coming, and lot's of 2.8 options, many of those lenses being really sharp, the advantages of fast primes aren't what they used to be.

[southlander]

Don't forget that if it is dusty and you take primes, then you need to change lenses and then your sensor is wide open to the dust intrusion, particularly if it a bit windy. I live in a dry corner of the world and lens changing in open country in our dry summer can be problematic. And the dryness accentuates static attraction. I'd be taking the 18-135 and just keep in mind the limitation of the lens and use say 115+ mm focal length for subjects where you only need centre sharpness. I have read the 135mm end is better at shorter range than longer distances, so play to its strengths, eg using 135's shallow DOF to isolate flowers, lizards etc and use it less for landscape type images where edge to edge sharpness is desired.

[audiobomber]

I believe no one said zooms are bad. But some people prefer to shoot with primes, and that's perfectly ok.

In Northern Ontario, from now until spring, primes are pretty unenticing. Fumbling, frozen fingers and cold metal are not a happy combination. Nor is snow melting on a non-WR lens. For the first half of a waterfall shoot on Saturday, I used all the primes in my bag. It was only -6C, but I was damned glad to put the 18-135 on for the rest of the time. I will not be using prime lenses outside this winter, when it will be really cold.

A sealed zoom would be useful in the severe dust conditions the OP expects to encounter. Maybe the dust-sealed DA*16-50 would suit better than the 18-135 or unsealed primes.

The DA15/4, DA35/2.8, and DA70/2.4 are what I'm thinking. A nice wide range, equivalent to about 23mm, 53mm, and 105mm. I don't have to have all of them, but right now I'm seriously considering selling my 18-135 and buying one. The question is, which first? I'd rather have one nice, quality prime than a versatile zoom right now.

The most versatile lens of those three for me is clearly the DA 35 macro. Macro range greatly expands the shooting capabilities. I can shoot all day with a normal. I run out of ideas quickly with an ultra-wide. I don't run out of ideas with a short tele, but it is more confining in terms of potential subjects, because of the narrow FOV. 70mm in a typical home is tight.

I considered the DA 35 Limited, but the FA 35mm was a better fit for me, for its extra aperture stop, faster AF and smoother bokeh. Plus I already owned a D FA 100mm macro. The DA 35mm f2.4 is worth a look, especially if it allows you to get a second prime now.

---

Last edited by audiobomber; 11-21-2013 at 06:56 AM.

[grispie]

you're probably just playing semantics.

agreed, i'm playing semantics. not totally fair, I know. But you also know your statement was taking it too short as well.
what I meant, primes are just a different way of shooting and will give different results.
And in a sense, i do agree with you to an extent. that is why i quoted you a second time. primes do take away some flexibility.

And yes, 18-35 1.8 is coming (and other) but it will be at the expense of weight, what i understood the poster wanted to avoid.

the advantages of fast primes aren't what they used to be.

Now, this is interesting. i think pentax is way ahead of some competitors with their small sized ltd primes. as indeed, zooms are getting better and better. IQ alone won't do it anymore. So the advantage needs to ly in a different camp, e.g. weight, size

[normhead]

I see what you're saying. Sometimes in urban areas I just go with the 21 ltd, and in those situations I get images i couldn't get with the 18-135, because I didn't feel like carrying the 18-135. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen from time to time. And a 40XS on a K-01 is a wonderful thing.

[grispie]

Actually i just bought myself a DA15 next to my 16-45. I consider the 16-45 at 16mm qualitative, but it indeed depends in what mood i'm in, what area, how much time i have and how cold it is :-). guess that is something the poster will have to make a decision on.
I also bought a K01, so when travelling i used to put my da70 on that & my 16-45 on my k20d.

That is another area where pentax, with their small sized bodies make a difference with some competitors. you can easily fit two pentax bodies in a bag meant for one Nikon...

[pentax_sam]

Well, from selling various things, I now have $445. I still have the 18-135... But I really do want to get some limiteds. Not sure what to get first though. I'll definitely be buying used.

[bdery]

In Northern Ontario, from now until spring, primes are pretty unenticing. Fumbling, frozen fingers and cold metal are not a happy combination. Nor is snow melting on a non-WR lens. For the first half of a waterfall shoot on Saturday, I used all the primes in my bag. It was only -6C, but I was damned glad to put the 18-135 on for the rest of the time. I will not be using prime lenses outside this winter, when it will be really cold.

I live in Quebec city

I mostly use the 18-55, sometimes the 60-250, when snowshoeing, but when doing creative photography I still fall back on my 21 and 40, sometimes 100. I find that two layers of gloves, a thinner one that I keep all the time and a heavier one that I remove as needed, works perfectly for me.

[normhead]

I live in Quebec city

I mostly use the 18-55, sometimes the 60-250, when snowshoeing, but when doing creative photography I still fall back on my 21 and 40, sometimes 100. I find that two layers of gloves, a thinner one that I keep all the time and a heavier one that I remove as needed, works perfectly for me.

Aren't there some really interesting "old word" parts of Quebec City we should be seeing pictures of? You have a chance to be the first to post K-3 images of them. What are you waiting for… maybe get a Sigma 8-16 first. The 18-55… maybe OK, maybe not.

[grispie]

Well, from selling various things, I now have $445. I still have the 18-135... But I really do want to get some limiteds. Not sure what to get first though. I'll definitely be buying used.

go with the 35mm 2.8. standard focal length and macro

[bdery]

Aren't there some really interesting "old word" parts of Quebec City we should be seeing pictures of? You have a chance to be the first to post K-3 images of them. What are you waiting for… maybe get a Sigma 8-16 first. The 18-55… maybe OK, maybe not.

With a newborn girl and a 2 years old boy at home, photo ops are mainly in my home studio these days. I do have a lof of beautiful pictures of QC in my smugmug site, however. they were shot with the K20D, sorry

I'll actually try to snap some pictures later in December, when time permits. I'll test the K-3 in cold weather then.