[frogfoot]

If you want premium image quality, go for one of the 16-50 or 17-50 lenses from pentax/sigma/tamron, they're all quite good.

I bought Sigma 17-50 and compared it to my 18-135. To my surprise 18-135 appeared to be sharper across the whole FL range except for 18-20 mm, where Sigma is sharper in the corners. And 18-135 is stronger in contrast, colors rendering and flare resistance.

[DSims]

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.

I was simply referring to IQ, which is what the OP was disappointed in.

[normhead]

Good point. The 18-135 isn't good enough. The 16-50 and 50-135 might be. Or the Tamron 17-50 and 60-250 might be. Or the OP really might not be satisfied without a stable of primes. It's hard to know what to recommend based on the 18-135 isn't good enough. From 5.6 to ƒ8 the 18-135 is pretty darn good. If you need ƒ4 for it to be "good enough" then you need to look at 2.8 options. If 2.8 isn't good enough you need to look at the sub 2 options. From the brief description "the 18-135 isn't good enough", I have no idea where this will or should end up. There are a lot of options to try from there.

For me, the 18-135 is good enough, until I decide to go for broke and get out a prime. That to me is one of the beauty's of the lens. Not as the final best IQ, but as the best option, until I decide I'm going for the best IQ. There's this whole layer of 2.8 zoom lenses that are neither as fast or as good as primes, that cost a lot of money, that I just decided to ignore.

But everybody has to make their own decision.

[DSims]

For me, the 18-135 is good enough, until I decide to go for broke and get out a prime. That to me is one of the beauty's of the lens. Not as the final best IQ, but as the best option, until I decide I'm going for the best IQ. There's this whole layer of 2.8 zoom lenses that are neither as fast or as good as primes, that cost a lot of money, that I just decided to ignore.

But everybody has to make their own decision.

But the difference with the DA*50-135 (and only the DA*50-135, I think) is that when looking at the images taken with it, it never even occurs to me to think "gee, if I'd only taken that photo with a prime it would've been even better!"

My guess is that the OP, like I, also likes to shoot near wide-open - because as you suggested, this is where the differences among lenses really show up.

[bassek]

Another approach would be the Tamron 28-75/2.8 or the Sigma 24-70/2.8 with the DA18-135 or two primes (DA15 or 21 and a 100mm or a 135mm).

Seb

[Nicolas06]

The 18-135 is not great quality, but it also depend of the focal length. Typically it is good between 24 & 50mm range where the only problem is that it is not f/2.8 and the 70-135 range is soso.

I think that the 18-135 is a great value lens. It cover a good range, the IQ is good for transtandard range and a cropped 17-70 shoot to match 135mm will look worse than what the 135mm provide. You just need to understand it's limits. if you use it like a 17-70 with the added opportunity to take a 100-135mm shoot, you find it to be very pleasing.

Still if you don't find it good enough in the short range, don't go for a 17-70, as it is only marginally better, if at all. I looked at the 18-135 of my father and I have myself a 17-70... Really it is not worth to replace the 18-135 with that 17-70 at all.

At least you'll need a 17-50 f/2.8 or maybe 24-70 f/2.8. The IQ may not be that better in all honesty, but the faster apperture sure can be usefull.

For the 70-135 part, your solution is to go for the 50-135. It heavy, bulky and expensive, but, man it is a totatally different world. The pictures are gorgous.

I think that this 50-135 is very good and if you buy it you'll intantely see the difference and will be very pleased. The 17-50 familly is an improvement but if you are not satisfied today with what you have I think it might not be enough. You really need primes.

The good things is we have very good primes in that range plain innexpensives. The DA35 plastic wonder is really a great lens and cost a bargain. The DA50 is a nice addition for portraits, in particular if you didn't buy the 50-135 f/2.8... And for the wide angle, a DA21 used give really good IQ, vibrant colors, good flare resistance for a very affordable price too.

It happen that I started with a 17-70... I then brought a 50-135, then DA35, FA50 and finally a DA21. I don't even get my 17-70 out anymore since I have all my primes. I take the DA21, DA35 & FA50 + the 50-135.

It just really does what I need, I change lens many times, but don't feel any problem. The IQ is really great. I don't see the need of a 17-50 or whatever anymore. I just ask myself if I could replace the 50-135 with a DFA100 macro to decrease the weight in my bag, but not ready yet. I'am happy.

[theraven871]

Good point. The 18-135 isn't good enough. The 16-50 and 50-135 might be. Or the Tamron 17-50 and 60-250 might be. Or the OP really might not be satisfied without a stable of primes. It's hard to know what to recommend based on the 18-135 isn't good enough. From 5.6 to ƒ8 the 18-135 is pretty darn good. If you need ƒ4 for it to be "good enough" then you need to look at 2.8 options. If 2.8 isn't good enough you need to look at the sub 2 options. From the brief description "the 18-135 isn't good enough", I have no idea where this will or should end up. There are a lot of options to try from there.

For me, the 18-135 is good enough, until I decide to go for broke and get out a prime. That to me is one of the beauty's of the lens. Not as the final best IQ, but as the best option, until I decide I'm going for the best IQ. There's this whole layer of 2.8 zoom lenses that are neither as fast or as good as primes, that cost a lot of money, that I just decided to ignore.

But everybody has to make their own decision.

You make some very good points and have been able to articulate them well. I completely understand your philosophy here and it makes sense.
My vague comment of "not good enough" was based on a day of shooting indoors and outdoors with the lens.
It didn't provide consistent performance. It does have a "sweet spot" like other lenses do. But even in its sweet spot, it didn't provide consistent results.
Image quality was either incredibly sharp, or too soft. This occurred standing in the same position, using the same settings (I shoot full manual) and from the same composition.
Maybe I just got a bad lens??

---------- Post added 05-29-14 at 07:59 AM ----------

But the difference with the DA*50-135 (and only the DA*50-135, I think) is that when looking at the images taken with it, it never even occurs to me to think "gee, if I'd only taken that photo with a prime it would've been even better!"
My guess is that the OP, like I, also likes to shoot near wide-open - because as you suggested, this is where the differences among lenses really show up.

Exactly.
There is nothing more frustrating to me then being forced to a maximum aperture of 5.6.
I want lenses that give me more creative and artistic control.

That said I do own a sigma 70-300mm (APO DG MACRO) that has a range of F4 - F5.6 that I am completely happy with.

I'm not as concerned with the entire 18-135 range. I have multiple lenses over 50mm that I'm happy with. I was only hoping there was a GOOD alternative to the 18-135mm.
If not, then I don't have a problem breaking up the focal range. I already have the top end of that range covered.
What I don't have, is a good lens somewhere in the 15-50mm range.

As embarrassing as it is, I've never purchased anything in this range.
I'm debating if I want to try the 35mm F2.4 (Its SO cheap), but I'm wondering if I would be happier with the quality with a GOOD 17-50mm Lens.

[normhead]

You make some very good points and have been able to articulate them well. I completely understand your philosophy here and it makes sense.
My vague comment of "not good enough" was based on a day of shooting indoors and outdoors with the lens.
It didn't provide consistent performance. It does have a "sweet spot" like other lenses do. But even in its sweet spot, it didn't provide consistent results.
Image quality was either incredibly sharp, or too soft. This occurred standing in the same position, using the same settings (I shoot full manual) and from the same composition.
Maybe I just got a bad lens??

That's been an observation of mine recently with all lenses. I'm not really clear on what's going on, but I'm not liking it. I suspect it's that I changed the AF settings to shutter release priority from focus priority to increase my frame rate in burst mode for my Hummingbirds. It means the the shutter goes whether the subject is in focus or not, and it definitely affects you keeper rate, in all lenses. I don't know if your issue was similar.

If you get one sharp image, you should be able to get 95% of them sharp.

But the difference with the DA*50-135 (and only the DA*50-135, I think) is that when looking at the images taken with it, it never even occurs to me to think "gee, if I'd only taken that photo with a prime it would've been even better!"

The only real comparison here we did was DA*60-250 against a Tamron 90, the images were very close to identical, but the Tamron had slightly better micorcontrast, so would I change lenses if we were in the 90mmm with the DA* ? Maybe if I had enough time, but probably not. I suspect your experience with the DA* 50-135. The DA* 16-150 however, from what I've seen, there are many better options at many different focal lengths.

But I'd certainly argue everyone should own either the DA* 50-135 or DA* 60-250, based on shooting style. Those two lenses are awesome.

As embarrassing as it is, I've never purchased anything in this range.
I'm debating if I want to try the 35mm F2.4 (Its SO cheap), but I'm wondering if I would be happier with the quality with a GOOD 17-50mm Lens.

I use my 21 ltd. way more than I use my 35...
My wife uses the Tamron 17-50 ƒ2.8. It's an awesome lens for not that much money.... there are times when her images so much outshine my 18-135 I feel like throwing it in the river. The 18-135 seems to be able to equal it from time to time, but when you nail one with the Tamron, you're not going to be able to match it with the 18-135, it's just too narrow a range for me most of the time.

For her shooting style, she uses the tamron 17-50 and Tamron 90 macro, where I would use the 18-135, and she gets excellent results with that combo.

By the way, your Sigma 70-300 if it's like mine is excellent from 60- to 150mm. After that it drops off considerably. In out tests at 90mm, it was just a tad behind the DA* 60-250 and Tamron 90 macro, to the point that I still find it some what disturbing how close it was. A lens that cheap has no right to be that good.

[lesmore49]

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.

Exactly.

I have the 18-135 and I use it to fulfill these kind of photographic needs that Normhead details.

On Saturday I'm going to a family get together at a local restaurant. I don't want to take my K-5, K10D and K-m with my 21mm , 40mm and 70 mm Limited primes...and of course also take my 12-24....for the really big, group shots.

I want to keep it small, I want to keep it simple.

One lens (18-135), one body (K-5), one flash....my 360.

I have a whole arsenal of lenses (victim of LBA )....but for this type of photography....my 18-135 is near perfect.

I find the 18-135 does a very good job at a number of tasks. I also subscribe to the old Irish saying..."Different horses for different courses.

[Rondec]

To me, there are different ranges of lenses out there -- consumer zooms, upper end zooms and primes. The 18-135 is a consumer super zoom. I shot my brother's copy and was pleasantly surprised with the quality -- particularly with lens corrections enabled. But it certainly won't measure up to the DA * zooms, or to f2.8 zooms from other makers. I shoot with the DA *16-50 and 50-135 and am pleased with the results. Particularly if you are shooting with a couple of cameras, you can cover the same range with faster, sharper lenses. The 50-135 in particular is a sweet lens, but the 16-50 is no slouch either...


(16-50 shot)



(50-135 shot).

[theraven871]

That's been an observation of mine recently with all lenses. I'm not really clear on what's going on, but I'm not liking it. I suspect it's that I changed the AF settings to shutter release priority from focus priority to increase my frame rate in burst mode for my Hummingbirds. It means the the shutter goes whether the subject is in focus or not, and it definitely affects you keeper rate, in all lenses. I don't know if your issue was similar.

If you get one sharp image, you should be able to get 95% of them sharp.

The only real comparison here we did was DA*60-250 against a Tamron 90, the images were very close to identical, but the Tamron had slightly better micorcontrast, so would I change lenses if we were in the 90mmm with the DA* ? Maybe if I had enough time, but probably not. I suspect your experience with the DA* 50-135. The DA* 16-150 however, from what I've seen, there are many better options at many different focal lengths.

But I'd certainly argue everyone should own either the DA* 50-135 or DA* 60-250, based on shooting style. Those two lenses are awesome.

I use my 21 ltd. way more than I use my 35...
My wife uses the Tamron 17-50 ƒ2.8. It's an awesome lens for not that much money.... there are times when her images so much outshine my 18-135 I feel like throwing it in the river. The 18-135 seems to be able to equal it from time to time, but when you nail one with the Tamron, you're not going to be able to match it with the 18-135, it's just too narrow a range for me most of the time.

For her shooting style, she uses the tamron 17-50 and Tamron 90 macro, where I would use the 18-135, and she gets excellent results with that combo.

By the way, your Sigma 70-300 if it's like mine is excellent from 60- to 150mm. After that it drops off considerably. In out tests at 90mm, it was just a tad behind the DA* 60-250 and Tamron 90 macro, to the point that I still find it some what disturbing how close it was. A lens that cheap has no right to be that good.

I agree, this is a steal of a lens.
Mine seems to perform a bit better than others in that it stays very sharp until about 220mm.
However, even at 300mm the minor softness doesn't really become that much of a problem.

I appreciate your comments about the Tamron 17-50mm. I also appreciate knowing that you find the 21mm more useful than the 35mm F2.4.
What are your issues with the 35mm? Is it not sharp? Or is the 21mm focal range more useful for you?

---------- Post added 05-29-14 at 10:27 AM ----------

To me, there are different ranges of lenses out there -- consumer zooms, upper end zooms and primes. The 18-135 is a consumer super zoom. I shot my brother's copy and was pleasantly surprised with the quality -- particularly with lens corrections enabled. But it certainly won't measure up to the DA * zooms, or to f2.8 zooms from other makers. I shoot with the DA *16-50 and 50-135 and am pleased with the results. Particularly if you are shooting with a couple of cameras, you can cover the same range with faster, sharper lenses. The 50-135 in particular is a sweet lens, but the 16-50 is no slouch either...


(16-50 shot)



(50-135 shot).

That's an impressive shot with the 16-50! That's very much what I'm looking for. But the Pentax 16-50mm seems a bit overpriced compared to the off-brand variants.
Looking at the 18-135 image you posted, was that cropped? If not, I wasn't aware it has such a close focusing range.
Your 18-135 lens is definitely better than the one I tested. Perhaps the one I used had slight focusing issues because it was NOT that sharp.
But if there were focusing issues with it, they were subtle enough to make me think it was a lens and not an AF issue.

[lesmore49]

I have had the Pentax 18-135 for about a month now. I've got Limited primes, an assortment of Pentax zooms...also a Sigma zoom. I've Mamiya-Sekor medium format lenses, my old Elmar Leitz 50 for my screwmount Leica RF, Zeiss, Canon, etc.

I like to think I've got fair standards after being an avid photographer for more than 45 years. Some of those years, way back....I earned part of my keep, through my talents...good, bad or indifferent...through photography.

I find that the Pentax 18-135 seems to get a lot of criticism and I don't know why.

In the short time I've had the 18-135, I've found it to be a very good lens. No complaints.

Maybe I've just not used it enough. But so far, so good.

[Rondec]

I agree, this is a steal of a lens.


That's an impressive shot with the 16-50! That's very much what I'm looking for. But the Pentax 16-50mm seems a bit overpriced compared to the off-brand variants.
Looking at the 18-135 image you posted, was that cropped? If not, I wasn't aware it has such a close focusing range.
Your 18-135 lens is definitely better than the one I tested. Perhaps the one I used had slight focusing issues because it was NOT that sharp.
But if there were focusing issues with it, they were subtle enough to make me think it was a lens and not an AF issue.

Sorry, the second shot was a DA *50-135 f2.8 shot. It does focus pretty close and has really nice bokeh.

I think the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 is really nice. Maybe not quite as nice colors, but if you don't need weather sealing, I would probably go with that.

[theraven871]

Sorry, the second shot was a DA *50-135 f2.8 shot. It does focus pretty close and has really nice bokeh.

I think the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 is really nice. Maybe not quite as nice colors, but if you don't need weather sealing, I would probably go with that.

That's a shame. For a moment you got me excited to try out another 18-135 on the belief that I got a bad one.
Regardless, that photo with the 50-135 came out fantastic. Very sharp lens.

[northcoastgreg]

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.

I've seen plenty of pictures from these lenses as well, and am surprised that some people prefer the Tamron because it's allegedly a bit sharper. The pictures seem to tell a different story.

I could never bring myself to purchase the DA* 16-50 because of the price, the SDM horror and, honestly, I don't need f2.8 in a standard zoom lens. But if I had on hand the sufficient funds, I would have gladly payed the large premium for the color rendition and the WR for the 16-50. Lacking the sufficient funds, I Instead bought a used DA 17-70, which I'm inclined to assume is the second best option for standard APS-C zoom lenses in the K-mount, especially for those who don't require f2.8.