[stevebrot]

I bought the Sigma 17-70/2.8-4 DC HSM Macro (C) over the DA 18-135 and plan on filling out the kit with a longer zoom at some point. It was a tough decision since the 18-135 is relatively small and light in comparison to the Sigma and has WR. The clincher was the example photos showing the DA's optical weak points. The Sigma has its quirks, but it is generally a very capable lens and I am happy with the purchase.


Steve

[DSims]

Hmm... not sure this will hold up. How many primes are needed to fully cover the 18-135 range and how much would this set cost? If we are talking new lenses, not used, I'm pretty sure this is going to go way over the cost of two DA* zooms covering the same range.

I'm open to be proven wrong, but I just can't get my head around the numbers working out in favor of the primes. And then there is the weight and space issue...

I really like my primes, and I use them more than my zooms. But you're right - cost-wise there's no way this works out. The F/FA135 and FA77 can replace the DA*50-135 if necessary, but trying to replace the DA*16-50 will primes will kill you. Just look at my profile - my mistake was that the DA*16-50 was one of the last lenses I bought, when it should have been one of the first. Out of all the primes I have in the 16-50mm range, I now realize I can live with just the FA*24/2 when necessary.

---------- Post added 05-27-14 at 02:33 PM ----------

I don't have any issue splitting the range up.
As much as I would love to support pentax, I just don't see a large enough of a difference in the 16/17-50mm range over the Sigma and Tamron alternatives.
Is the DA* from Pentax? That would make more sense if it was.
Otherwise, the Pentax version seems wildly overpriced compared to the Tamron and Sigma.

That said, I'm not afraid to spend money on good glass. But not when the competition is offering identical quality for 1/3 the price.
I can get the Sigma/Tamron variants for $450-$550; whereas the Pentax is almost $1300.

Can anyone explain if I'm missing something here? Is there some feature I'm not aware of that makes the Pentax worth so much more?
(Other than the Pentax logo)

The DA*16-50 is definitely overpriced as a new lens (not that this justifies it, but Canon and Nikon do the same thing - Sony's the only one who prices theirs right). You have to buy used, or at least at one of the maybe twice-a-year sales where it goes down to around $900 (IIRC) new. Likewise with the DA*50-135 (although at least the IQ makes the regular price seem a little less offensive).

But if you have to prioritize, you definitely put your money into the DA*50-135 and then compromise by getting a Tamron or Sigma for the 17-50 range. And remember all of these lenses are cheaper used.

[ChristianRock]

DA15 Limited
DA21 Limited
DA35 Limited
DA*55
FA77
FA135

There you go

I'm mostly kidding. If you wanted the 18-135 you want the convenience of a zoom. In which case, you have to pick your compromise... Tamron 17-50 2.8 and Tamron 70-200 2.8 will together cost just over 1000 dollars and would cover a good overall range... that's what I would probably look into, if I wanted zooms, wanted a wide to telephoto range, and wanted a significant step up from the 18-135... and was prepared to pay almost 3x the price of the 18-135. For $2K, there's the DA*16-50 and DA*50-135, as mentioned before. That's the next step. Followed by DA*16-50 and DA*60-250

[Driline]

I have since purchased a DA*50-135 as a companion for my DA*300 on these types of trips.

Interesting you should mention that. I'm currently experimenting with the same combo. Except I'm using the F*300 in place of the DA*300. I think we may have found a winning combination!

---------- Post added 05-27-14 at 05:15 PM ----------

That said, I'm not afraid to spend money on good glass. But not when the competition is offering identical quality for 1/3 the price.
I can get the Sigma/Tamron variants for $450-$550; whereas the Pentax is almost $1300.

Can anyone explain if I'm missing something here? Is there some feature I'm not aware of that makes the Pentax worth so much more?
(Other than the Pentax logo)

I don't think anyone has adequately answered this question for you. I'll try, but bear in mind I do not own a Sigma or Tamron lens. If you look in my signature you will see the lenses I currently own and two of them are both the DA*16-50 and DA*50-135. I've seen plenty of pictures by both Sigma and Tamron. All I can say is the Pentax color reproduction is much better for contrast, and full deep rich color. Just a better looking picture overall. Other's have stated that the Tamron feels cheap, and the Sigma can sometimes produce a more "yellowy" looking picture. So take that for what it's worth.

My absolute best lens is my Prime F* 300. Nothing touches it for color and clarity. It's just an awesome lens. Next in line would be my FA 43 followed by the DA* 50-135. The DA*16-50 is good but not as sharp as the DA * 50-135. But what it lacks in sharpness it more than makes up for in deep rich beautiful color and contrast. Hence the added cost along with WR and quick shift of course.

I purchased both the DA*16-50 and DA* 50-135 used for about $600 each. I got a free warranty from "Henry's" of Canada for the DA* 16-50 and used it for a new SDM and overall cleaning and calibration. It's just a dream to use and I'm very glad I purchased it. I've had no problems with the DA* 50-135 and if I did, I'd gladly send it in for repair. It's that good......

[rrstuff]

There is also Sigma 18-125. It's very cheap and some people like it. You can get it for a third of a price used ($100, instead of $300) which leaves you enough cash to get a cheap prime like a 50 DA F1.8 or 35mm F2.4.


It tested quite a bit better in photozone test, for example:
http://www.photozone.de/pentax/148-sigma-af-18-125mm-f35-56-dc-pentax-k-revi...report?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/pentax/597-pentax_18135_3556

[Driline]

Oh yea...I used to own the Pentax 18-135 (brand new) and sold it about 2 months later. IMHO it's a tad better than the kit lens but not by much. The IQ was not good enough for me, however the lens was very smooth and a joy to operate and I can see why it might suit others needs, just not mine

[LowVoltage]

A lot of good arguments here for new glass, each with advantages for their respective owners. I'd like to throw in a used option, however: the Tamron SP AF 24-135mm 3.5-5.6 - they're out there, and I've seen one or two for sale here on PF.

I know it's not going to be as wide as the 18-135mm on a DSLR, but it will be at least wide-ish, being equivalent to a FF 36mm at the wide end. (I tend to think contemporary photogs are so used to focal lengths around 18mm they don't consider anything else combined with the best zoom of all, their feet!)

Anyway, the Tamron has good reviews, is a little heavier than the 18-135mm, about the same length, and averages at roughly half the cost of the newer Pentax using the PF lens review as a guide.

[SunValley]

Greetings,

I hate having to switch lens outdors because that means dirt on the sensor almost every time and since camping and hiking with my kids is when I take most of my photos I gave the Tamron SP 24-135 a try and never regreted it. It's always on my K-30. I can't compare with the 18-135 but here's a post on dpreview that does: Lens Comparison: Pentax DA 18-135 and Tamron 24-135: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

It's got decent macro when I need it, good reach to catch the kids playing or for "light" wildlife duty, and 24mm is a bit long for wide angle work but does the job most of the time. I always have my 18-55 WR if I need to catch a rainbow! IQ is really impressive for a 200$ lens. Some flaring, CA very well controlled (but it's not ED obviously), stars in the night sky show up as tiny points even in the corners (at least on APS-C). I get nice 11X14's out of it. AF is fast enough for action shots. Really just a great all around lens!

[kiwi_jono]

Maybe the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 will be a good fit for you (when it finally ships)? Close to prime quality and speed, with a limited (but still useful) zoom range. Don't expect it to be small though.

I guess I had a different experience with the 18-135mm. I got it because I wanted a relatively compact lens with WR that I could throw in my pack and cart around with me for general (unplanned) shots. I was never particularly happy with the IQ from my 18-55 (or even 1st gen 17-70 which was better than my 18-55), so my expectations of the 18-135 were not terribly high. When I actually started using a 18-135 in anger, I was pleasantly surprised and have ended up using more than I expected. Certainly from 18 to about 70 its generally better than my 17-70 is - especially for center IQ. And colour rendition is good (definitely better than the 17-70 IMO). Sure > 70mm does suffer from poor corners or even borders but 135mm is still useful on occasions (as long as your main subject is centered). It could be I just have a good copy but thats my experience anyway.

[normhead]

There simply is nothing else like the 18-135... so, when the weather is good, I take My Sigma 8-16, 21 ltd. 40xs and Sigma 70 macro to cover that range with the DA* 60-250 to cover the long end.

But for going for a walk with one lens, the 18-135 is the way to go. Personally, when I want one lens, I want one lens. Not two lenses, not three lenses - one lens. If it's not one lens, it doesn't meet the criteria.

The 18-35 is the answer to the question to "what lens do I want going to Niagara Falls with my family if I don't want to be slowing everybody down changing lenses." And there is no other answer.

It's not the answer to, "If I'm going to be working on a tripod with a 2 second delay, what lens is going to give me the absolute best image quality/?" Well that's not the DA 18-135. There are many other options.

When you ask these questions, you have to keep in mind what the lenses were designed to do.

[TroutHunterJohn]

There simply is noting else like the 18-135... so, when the weather is good, I take My Sigma 8-16, 21 ltd. 40xs and Sigma 70 macro to cover that range with the DA* 60-250 to cover the long end.

But for going for a walk with one lens, the 18-135 is the way to go. Personally, when I want one lens, I want one lens. Not two lenses, not three lenses - one lens. If it's not one lens, it doesn't meet the criteria.

The 18-35 is the answer to the question to "what lens do I want going to Niagara Falls with my family if I don't want to be slowing everybody down changing lenses." And there is no other answer.

It's not the answer to, "If I'm going to be working on a tripod with a 2 second delay, what lens is going to give me the absolute best image quality/?" Well that's not the DA 18-135. There are many other options.

When you ask these questions, you have to keep in mind what the lenses were designed to do.

Don't forget the 20-40mm limited zoom. I bought it because my 16-50 wasn't sharp enough in the corners and the 20-40 is way smaller.

I'm quite happy. My line-up now is 10-17 fisheye, 20-40 limited, 50-135, and 300. Seems good for my need to balance the convenience of zoom with the obsession with high IQ.

[Driline]

My line-up now is 10-17 fisheye, 20-40 limited, 50-135, and 300

Good line up. What 300 do you own?

[TroutHunterJohn]

DA* 300. Also added the 1.4 TC, which extends the 300 and the 50-135. Maybe I'm done buying lenses and need to start shooting for a while?

[normhead]

There is also Sigma 18-125. It's very cheap and some people like it. You can get it for a third of a price used ($100, instead of $300) which leaves you enough cash to get a cheap prime like a 50 DA F1.8 or 35mm F2.4.


It tested quite a bit better in photozone test, for example:
Sigma AF 18-125mm f/3.5-5.6 DC (Pentax K) - Review / Lab Test Report - Analysis
Pentax SMC-DA 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 ED AL [IF] WR - Review / Lens Test

I read the same tests... it depends on how you count. The 18-135 test in the excellent range for centre sharpness in 14 of the 18 fields tested. The Sigma 18-125 tests excellent in 5 of 14. The Sigma trades centre sharpness for edge sharpness.

Funny how two people can look at the same charts and come to such different conclusions.
No where in it's range does the Sigma 18-125 approach, the DA 18-135 @ 24 millimetres, where it is both centre sharp and edge sharp.
With all due respect, it's cheaper because it's a much inferior lens.

But I suspect it's even worse than that, because I'm convinced Photozone got a bad copy.

I also own a Sigma 18-250... for IQ the 18-135 leaves it in the dust. But, if you think you might see birds, or wildlife at a distance, you might want the 18-250.....

As I always say.. if you think the 18-135 sucks... look at the photo zone chart for 24mm and show me a lens that does better. Of the 12 bars 8 of them are excellent or very near excellent. You are simply not going to find another lens with this range like it. In fact it's very close @24 mm to the tested Tamron17-50 which as far as I know is the best rated lens for Pentax at that focal length.

The lens might be too slow for you. But I get tired of this endless parade of comments about it lacking IQ. Stop parroting the baloney and start coming up with some numbers to back up your claims. Or some pictures, or something...

I'm not going to say everyone likes the lens. It's a lens that requires some discipline. You must use it to it's strengths and not ask it to do things it won't do. My wife doesn't like it, she doesn't get the results I do with it. It's like any other lens, over time you figure it out. But lets not be saying it's the lens, not the photographer. Lot's of us have figured it out.



@36 mm, sharp edge to edge, great colour and rendition. If you can't get a good picture with the lens there's something wrong. Either you got a bad copy or you just never looked to see how you should be using it.

[bdery]

Does anyone really make a great ~18-135 lens for any DSLR?

Define "great". The 18-135 is compact, light, has fast and silent AF, is WR, covers a wide range and gives you good IQ.

If you want great IQ specifically you will not tick all the other boxes.

For instance as others have mentionned, you can cover the same range with the 16-50 and 50-135. You get faster lenses, better IQ, but more money spent and a larger kit.

If WR is not important, you could build a three primes lineup (say, 21-40-100 macro/15-50-100 macro or something along those lines). You'd loose the convenience of just one lens, you'd loose WR except at 100mm, you'd improve the IQ and the aperture.

You could preserve the WR factor while improving IQ bu using the 20-40 and 100 macro together. Still more oney spent (there's a trend here )

You could go with a compromise and get the Sigma 17-70, plus either the 50-135 or 1/2 primes (again, the 100 macro comes to mind). The Sigma is relatively cheap, has better IQ than the 18-135, is faster, but again you don't have a one-stop-shop and you loose WR.

the 18-135 is excellent at what it does, but it cannot do everything.