[WVRICK]

Op/Tech 9001132 18in SLR Rainsleeve for Cameras 9001132

There must be others.

Thanks, another problem solved.

[WVRICK]

I just had my 18-135 out in the rain with the K5 in San Luis Potosi Mexico last Sunday evening. It worked well, and even at night I still got decent shots of the buildings and inside some of the churches. It sees way more use than my Tamron 17-50.

I agree, my 18-135 sees a lot of use.

[tibbitts]

If you're carrying a 70-200, how about the Tamron 17-50? Mind you it doesn't test that much better than an 18-135, there isn't much that tests better than the 18-135, but it is faster. My wife prefers it to the 18-135.

The 17-50 doesn't test much better than the 18-135???

[Kozlok]

I live in Florida, so a WR lens kit is a must. I take mine out in rainstorms, drizzles, tropical storms, sea spray. When it was inside the 30 day return period, I ran it under the sink (on very low pressure). The WR is the real deal. Don't be stupid, but don't worry. The picture in the Pentax ad is not an exaggeration. You can splash it with any quantity of water, as long as the water isn't under pressure. Yes, there have been failures, but those have clearly been defects.

[NKK]

I live in Florida, so a WR lens kit is a must. I take mine out in rainstorms, drizzles, tropical storms, sea spray. When it was inside the 30 day return period, I ran it under the sink (on very low pressure). The WR is the real deal. Don't be stupid, but don't worry. The picture in the Pentax ad is not an exaggeration. You can splash it with any quantity of water, as long as the water isn't under pressure. Yes, there have been failures, but those have clearly been defects.

Agree, no problem in even heavy rain with my K-5 and 18-55 WR either

[WVRICK]

Agree, no problem in even heavy rain with my K-5 and 18-55 WR either

So, it looks like I already have the better lens for a damp vacation unless Pentax comes out with one before I leave. Thanks for the input.

[normhead]

The 17-50 doesn't test much better than the 18-135???

GO to photo zone and have a look. They both test better than any Pentax Prime available in the 20- 40 range, except for the 31 ltd.



DA 18-135


Look at the 18-135 at 24 mm, At 24 mm It has excellent Center and edge sharpness with edge sharpness up near the limits of the test. I've included the 31 ltd, just for comparison. This constant ragging on the supposed weakness of the 18-135 is completely unjustified, in that at about 20-28mm, it's probably better than any Pentax prime available in that focal length, for sharpness. The Tamron 17-50 tends to be better, across it's range, and it's 2.8 constant, so double bonus, fast and sharp.

I haven't tested any of the Pentax primes in that focal length, except the 21 ltd, and won't say the 21 is sharper, but, my guess is it has much smoother bokeh, the rendition just seems to be more pleasing.

Klaus clearly had a poor copy when he tested it's lens, and it's still stellar for a super zoom. You can read a hundred posts trashing this lens, but not one of them uses the tests to justify their position. They all rely on Klaus confusions ( ha ha, I meant conclusions, spell checked again) , which severely punish the lens for poor edge performance at 135mm, on his copy.

Just from the sample posted, my conclusion would be the 31 ltd, arguably the best lens available for the mount is special because of it's handling of OOF areas, and really that, not sharpness is the area where a prime is likely to have an advantage on a zoom. If you have no out of focus areas, either the 18-135 or the Tamron 17-50 is going to give you a sharper image.

Here's a 21 ltd image, smooth and dreamy...


Here's a 18-135 at 28mm


There is a difference in rendition, but it's not about sharpness.

---

Last edited by normhead; 01-18-2014 at 07:50 AM.

[VoiceOfReason]

I am glad that someone finally posted test data and pictures. I get tired of the "zoom with your feet" crowd bashing zooms without actually using some of the good ones. I actually shot a wedding with the 18-135 and a flash (accidentally left the 17-50 at home) and they loved it. The pics were nice and sharp.

[WVRICK]

GO to photo zone and have a look. They both test better than any Pentax Prime available in the 20- 40 range, except for the 31 ltd.



DA 18-135


Look at the 18-135 at 24 mm, At 24 mm It has excellent Center and edge sharpness with edge sharpness up near the limits of the test. I've included the 31 ltd, just for comparison. This constant ragging on the supposed weakness of the 18-135 is completely unjustified, in that at about 20-28mm, it's probably better than any Pentax prime available in that focal length, for sharpness. The Tamron 17-50 tends to be better, across it's range, and it's 2.8 constant, so double bonus, fast and sharp.

I haven't tested any of the Pentax primes in that focal length, except the 21 ltd, and won't say the 21 is sharper, but, my guess is it has much smoother bokeh, the rendition just seems to be more pleasing.

Klaus clearly had a poor copy when he tested it's lens, and it's still stellar for a super zoom. You can read a hundred posts trashing this lens, but not one of them uses the tests to justify their position. They all rely on Klaus confusions ( ha ha, I meant conclusions, spell checked again) , which severely punish the lens for poor edge performance at 135mm, on his copy.

Just from the sample posted, my conclusion would be the 31 ltd, arguably the best lens available for the mount is special because of it's handling of OOF areas, and really that, not sharpness is the area where a prime is likely to have an advantage on a zoom. If you have no out of focus areas, either the 18-135 or the Tamron 17-50 is going to give you a sharper image.

Here's a 21 ltd image, smooth and dreamy...


Here's a 18-135 at 28mm


There is a difference in rendition, but it's not about sharpness.

I am so happy I waited for lots of input instead of spending money without a good reason. It is easy to trash something with words but the real proof is the photos and I have to say I have been happy with my 18-135 but after reading so much verbal trashing I was convinced I could have even better. The pics don't give me justification to spend the money, they give me justification for becoming more in tune with my lens and becoming a better photographer with the tools I have. I do thin my purchase of the Tamron 70-200 was a smart move for the faster lens and the longer reach for wild life. Thanks everyone.

[tibbitts]

Klaus clearly had a poor copy when he tested it's lens, and it's still stellar for a super zoom. You can read a hundred posts trashing this lens, but not one of them uses the tests to justify their position. They all rely on Klaus confusions ( ha ha, I meant conclusions, spell checked again) , which severely punish the lens for poor edge performance at 135mm, on his copy.

But that's the exact issue I have with the 55-300. If I could combine the best of each of the 5 I've tested at each focal length, I'd have an awesome lens. But nobody's going to carry 5 55-300s with little labels on them to use this one or that one at a certain focal length and focusing distance.

I don't have an 18-135, so I don't have any personal opinion on it. But the impression I've gotten from reading many posts here is that it's an ok zoom, but not outstanding, and my impression is that people are making that judgement based on their own (generally non-scientific) tests. The WR feature is certainly nice, although I've used my non-NR lenses in as bad weather as I want to be out in and not had an issue (non-WR bodies, not so much.)

Ultimately you can only test the lens you have, and not everybody is going to try a dozen copies before they find a "good" one. So unfortunately we have to add consistency to the usual qualities we look for: sharpness, contrast, bokeh, etc. Maybe as the most important quality, actually. I don't accept that that should be necessary, but it seems to be.

[normhead]

I don't have an 18-135, so I don't have any personal opinion on it. But the impression I've gotten from reading many posts here is that it's an ok zoom, but not outstanding, and my impression is that people are making that judgement based on their own (generally non-scientific) tests.

Often, I have no complaints with user results, my wife finds it a difficult lens to use. You have to use it to it's strengths. She's happier with the Tarmon 17-50 because it does everything it does well. I know if I've crept up into the 70mm range for landscape, I should probably change to my Sigma 70 macro, or DA*60-250, where as if I'm shooting a bird or an animal in the centre of the frame, I can shoot right to 135mm with excellent results. I've learned at what FL I'm not going to like the results, and take care not to shoot in that range. More than many other lenses the 18-135 is a lens you need to learn to shoot with and shoot to it's strengths. But it has strengths to shoot to. A lot of super zooms don't.

[tibbitts]

Often, I have no complaints with user results, my wife finds it a difficult lens to use. You have to use it to it's strengths. She's happier with the Tarmon 17-50 because it does everything it does well. I know if I've crept up into the 70mm range for landscape, I should probably change to my Sigma 70 macro, or DA*60-250, where as if I'm shooting a bird or an animal in the centre of the frame, I can shoot right to 135mm with excellent results. I've learned at what FL I'm not going to like the results, and take care not to shoot in that range. More than many other lenses the 18-135 is a lens you need to learn to shoot with and shoot to it's strengths. But it has strengths to shoot to. A lot of super zooms don't.

I think that it's acceptable to have to learn the limitations of a lens if it's a designed-in limitation. An excellent example is the Tamron 17-50mm at 17mm. If you shoot a flat surface (not that common a practical application) at anything close to wide open you probably won't be happy because of focus field curvature. AFAIK that's true of every Tamron 17-50mm ever made.

But to me it's different to have to learn that you can't shoot on copy of lens at 70-100mm, because one edge will be blurry, while on another copy of that same mode a different edge will be blurry at 20-40mm, and on another one corner will be blurry at 50-80mm.

[normhead]

You need to read the lensrental.com article on lens variations and sample deviation. You aren't going to be a happy camper. This sample variation is not a function of the 18-135, this is a function of every lens made by every manufacturers. If you're assuming you can buy some other lens that is better in terms of sample variation, you'd probably be making a big mistake.

[tibbitts]

You need to read the lensrental.com article on lens variations and sample deviation. You aren't going to be a happy camper. This sample variation is not a function of the 18-135, this is a function of every lens made by every manufacturers. If you're assuming you can buy some other lens that is better in terms of sample variation, you'd probably be making a big mistake.

I'm definitely not a happy camper, but nobody else should be either. Over on the Nikon forums for example, there were posts about customers sending in their very high-end lenses for servicing immediately after buying a D800, because all of a sudden they saw problems they'd never seen before. Not so much a general lack of resolution, but inconsistency across the frame. If the manufactures want us to constantly upgrade to ever-more-higher-resolution bodies, they're going to have to up their game in the lens QC department. For a half-century or so, we were pretty much stuck with the same maximum resolution capability from film. Now we get more resolution every year or two. Lens designs, coatings, etc. have, to some extent, kept up - or at least improved. Implementations, seemingly not as much.

[normhead]

I'm definitely not a happy camper, but nobody else should be either. Over on the Nikon forums for example, there were posts about customers sending in their very high-end lenses for servicing immediately after buying a D800, because all of a sudden they saw problems they'd never seen before. Not so much a general lack of resolution, but inconsistency across the frame. If the manufactures want us to constantly upgrade to ever-more-higher-resolution bodies, they're going to have to up their game in the lens QC department. For a half-century or so, we were pretty much stuck with the same maximum resolution capability from film. Now we get more resolution every year or two. Lens designs, coatings, etc. have, to some extent, kept up - or at least improved. Implementations, seemingly not as much.

Just their statement that most warranty centres don't even have the equipment to test for de-centering forget about fix it is enough to make me sick.