Upgrading my lenses, which direction?

**ramseybuckeye** · 09-03-2014, 01:41 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Another dyemention

As of now I have a tamron 28-105, a tamron 70-300 and the da 50. Both zooms were less than $70 combined and I bought them just to see how I liked the FL. THE 28-105 is useful but the IQ is not good enough for me to use it more than just snapping some pics. And I do wish it was a tad longer.

[/COLOR]Also I forgot to mention. I'm not thrilled with the size of the 17-50. Especially if I were to use it for street photography. But at the same time, my up front cost would be considerably less since I wouldn't add another lens until I specifically needed it. Whereas the 15, I would need something to supplement that in tents of FL.

---------- Post added 09-03-14 at 09:13 AM ----------

Or, lol sorry, should I just get the 18-135 and call it good? Add another lens like the 15 or a uwa zoom on later when I want something a bit nicer?
Thanks in advance.
Steve

Sorry you got a bad Tamron 28-105, I've had a couple and they were quite sharp, but when I had a chance to get the WR 18-135 on a good deal with my K-30 I was able to shed the Tamron. The 18-135 has turned out to be my most used lens, I've barely used the 35/2.4 since getting the 18-135. The only other duplicated coverage I have was the 55-300 and rarely used it below 300. I do have a Tamron 10-24 and really like it, though I would rather have the 15. You would get a lot more use out of the 18-135 than the 15, as noted in an earlier post the 15 is more of a specialty lens. You might go to Flickr and search by lens, or look at some of the samples in the various lens threads here. See what you like with your type of shooting.

AquaDome · 09-03-2014, 01:50 PM

Sell all your lenses to buy the DA-18-135 & DA-15 Ltd. I recommend the green-stripe (non-HD coating) version for the Limiteds.
The 18-135 does pretty much everything well; definitely an A student.
The DA-15 Ltd is truly gifted, though the newer HD coating diminishes the twinkle-star lens flares which the non-HD version is famous for.

Stickler · 09-03-2014, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by ramseybuckeye

Sorry you got a bad Tamron 28-105, I've had a couple and they were quite sharp, but when I had a chance to get the WR 18-135 on a good deal with my K-30 I was able to shed the Tamron. The 18-135 has turned out to be my most used lens, I've barely used the 35/2.4 since getting the 18-135. The only other duplicated coverage I have was the 55-300 and rarely used it below 300. I do have a Tamron 10-24 and really like it, though I would rather have the 15. You would get a lot more use out of the 18-135 than the 15, as noted in an earlier post the 15 is more of a specialty lens. You might go to Flickr and search by lens, or look at some of the samples in the various lens threads here. See what you like with your type of shooting.

I don' t think the 15 is all that specialty, it's technically UWA, but you can pretty easily crop and get say 21mm WA without too much IQ loss and almost no distortion if the 15 is too wide in the moment, but it's really hard to ever make 18 look like 15...

Tan68 · 09-03-2014, 02:29 PM

Why the older green version of 15 ?
I ran across another similar recommendation and I think it had to do with the aperture blades but didn't have opportunity to ask into it...

Originally posted by AquaDome

...recommend the green-stripe (non-HD coating) version for the Limiteds...

---------- Post added 09-03-14 at 03:43 PM ----------

Sorry, you answered my question in your post :^|
I suspected it might have something to do with the stars.
That is an aspect I like...

Originally posted by AquaDome

...HD coating diminishes the twinkle-star lens flares which the non-HD version is famous for.

OP I also recommend checking into pictures taken with the 15...

Using any wider angle lens is really a style rather than just extra width for field of view. I think so, anyway...

As far as just increasing field of view for a pano or something, I prefer to stitch 21mm. For pano look 2:1 or 2.5:1, I would use the 15mm in landscape or 21 in portrait (about the same vertical view, feet to sky)... Some things aren't easy to stitch and I think I am rambling.. Point is, for just more field of view, there are options like stitching.

However, for using the 15 in an artistic way close to subjects and wide backgrounds or whatever... need the wide angle lens. This is the style way...

Maybe you have a specific use for the 15 in mind.
Perhaps think some more if you just want to cover more real estate, though...

**Another dyemention** · 09-03-2014, 03:44 PM

I guess I was pretty all over the place in my OP. sorry for that. What I meant by it all was this:
The 50 is too tight to be my primary lens but I would eventually like a dedicated portrait lens. And since I rarely use a FL longer than 50, I don't need anything more than the 17-50. And the few situations where I would need longer, I dont have an issue with changing to the 77 or 100. And if finances allowed, the 70-200 would be a perfect telephoto for occasional needs.
As far as the 15. I've seen the pictures it can create. I know it's small, light, and would be great for street photography. Is it something I need? Definitely not. Want? Of course. But I would need something to supplement the lack of length so the 18-135 sounds like a perfect match.
The 17-50 would probably be my best bet. It's the cheapest, very usable, and wouldn't overlap any FL unless I wanted specific primes like a 21. Plus it's 2.8 constant so I would surely benefit from that with my two year old running around and the occasional small concert I shoot. But the most common complaint I've read is it's big and heavy. Which is why I was leaning towards the 15 and the 18-135 combo. Could use the 15 when I want a small lightweight lens and just crop it a bit if needed.

And after thinking about all of this, it popped in my head that maybe the 18-135 would just be an acceptable compromise for everything.
So guess I gotta decide between 17-50 and the 18-135 first. FL or speed.

TedW · 09-03-2014, 03:52 PM

I bought my K-50 last March with the 18-55 and the 55-200 kit lens. I used these in AZ on a trip to the Grand Canyon and was happy. Because I wanted to do some wildlife I picked up a Sigma 70-300. I was pretty happy. The 18-55 is pretty versatile for a walk around.

I also photograph to create photobooks for foster kids while they are at a camp I work at. In the previous two years I borrowed a camera that had the same zoom range as the two kit lens. I found the 18-55 was good but wished I had a little more reach at times and would change to the longer zoom.

This is when I decided to invest in the 18-135 for this years camps. I keep that lens on the whole time and it is a great range and the images were even better. The really quick and quiet focus is a big plus.

I later bought a couple of the old manual lenses and most recently a 15mm limited for a trip to Mt. Rainier.

In hindsight I wish I would have just bought the K-50 body and a18-135. My kit lenses are no more than a back up at this point. Right now, if I could only have one lens, I would keep the 18-135. I suggest you get that and see what part of the zoom you most often use before going further. If you find it doesn't zoom far enough consider a used Sigma or Tamaron 70-300. I got my used copy here for $60 and get some really great photos with it. For less than $200 you can get the dal-L 55-300 which may be a step up further.

It is only when I wished for really high quality that I decided on the 15mm. The 15mm limited is amazing but I could still be happy using the 18mm end of my 18-135 if I didn't have the option of owning it.

Tan68 · 09-03-2014, 04:12 PM

A missed letter makes it hard to know if you would not mind changing to the 77 from the 17-50.. I gather the intention is you would not mind doing this occassionally.

Lens overlap is a good thing to avoid. However, I wouldn't think "oh, I might want the 77 and this makes much of the 18-135 redundant because I can crop"... (just in case this was a thought you might have)

I might think "well the 18-135 does overlap the 77 but the 18-135 is really convenient and when I want the speed of the 77, it is there for me". In other words, the 18-135 doesn't make the 77 pointless, nor does the 77 make the 18-135 redundant... They are just too different in what they offer (speed v. convenience)...

Now, even the 21 could be an addition to the 18-135. Yeah, you only gain a little speed but there are other things that make the 21 a happy lens. The way it makes stars, I think is better. I have pointed it at the sun and had no problems (well, i have seen artifact from sun on wet ice but not bad..). If the 18-135 shares the characteristics great. If not and you happen to like 21mm focal length, the 21 is not redundant for the features it offers. It becomes a plus to the convenience of the zoom...

This is why I think the 18-135 is not a bad idea if you think you would like the convenience. If you do think you would prefer the 17-50, fine and do it for a reason (like constant f/2.8) rather than 'well, my prime might overlap it some'... or you may end up wishing for that extra 51-135mm convenience even if you get a 77...

**Another dyemention** · 09-03-2014, 04:29 PM

Tedw, your review on the 18-135 actually was one of the reviews that made me consider it. You seem quite pleased with it and I feel I would be as well. And tan68, that was supposed to say don't not do t. Sorry everyone. Hard to proof read in my iPhone. Anyhow, if I went the rout of the 18-135, that's all I would buy for now. Unless I wanted specific features of specific lenses like the 21 you mentioned.
It's be the 17-50 and and longer lens. Or the 18-135. Probably would still get a dedicated portrait lens eventually but not as soon as with the 17-50.

VoiceOfReason · 09-03-2014, 04:54 PM

Originally posted by Another dyemention

I guess I was pretty all over the place in my OP. sorry for that. What I meant by it all was this:
The 50 is too tight to be my primary lens but I would eventually like a dedicated portrait lens. And since I rarely use a FL longer than 50, I don't need anything more than the 17-50. And the few situations where I would need longer, I dont have an issue with changing to the 77 or 100. And if finances allowed, the 70-200 would be a perfect telephoto for occasional needs.
As far as the 15. I've seen the pictures it can create. I know it's small, light, and would be great for street photography. Is it something I need? Definitely not. Want? Of course. But I would need something to supplement the lack of length so the 18-135 sounds like a perfect match.
The 17-50 would probably be my best bet. It's the cheapest, very usable, and wouldn't overlap any FL unless I wanted specific primes like a 21. Plus it's 2.8 constant so I would surely benefit from that with my two year old running around and the occasional small concert I shoot. But the most common complaint I've read is it's big and heavy. Which is why I was leaning towards the 15 and the 18-135 combo. Could use the 15 when I want a small lightweight lens and just crop it a bit if needed.

And after thinking about all of this, it popped in my head that maybe the 18-135 would just be an acceptable compromise for everything.
So guess I gotta decide between 17-50 and the 18-135 first. FL or speed.

If you're only getting one of them to begin with then the 18-135 is an great walk around lens. If I am hiking it is most likely on my camera. If I go ultra light and just bring a body and one lens it will be the K5 and 18-135. It is small, definitely smaller than the 17-50, and WR so I can have it out in less than optimal conditions.

adurianman · 09-03-2014, 06:53 PM

Originally posted by Another dyemention

Thanks everyone for your advice. I've prettying decided to just go with the 135 for now. It gives me plenty of range, is affordable, and useable enough to not outgrow it. Ya not fast but as was mentioned, I can always get the fast primes I need. I'll also hold on to my 50 1.8 for that reason.

IMHO the 18-135 is not very sharp though, as my old canon 550& with tammy 17-50/2.8 seems to always be sharper at similar aperture despite my K3 having way more pixels (could just be a bad copy though, or incomplete focus adjustment) , but it is indeed very convenient with the zoom range and wr. The 17-50 might be more useful if you're shooting a lot of indoors or evening shots as it is way brighter than 18-135 and way more flexible than 50mm

emalvick · 09-03-2014, 09:24 PM

I have an 18-135 and the Tamron 17-50. I think the Tamron lens is slightly better than the 18-135 in terms of image quality. Size-wise, both lens are similar enough that I don't really think one is an advantage over the other. The 18-135 does give added reach. While I generally find the 18-135 slightly softer than the Tamron lens, I was using it quite a bit more and found that the quality was fairly consistent across its focal lengths.

However, I recently went back to using the Tamron lens because I missed its speed. It wasn't so much that I missed using it at f2.8; the quality there isn't fantastic, it was the missing of getting nice f4 images that I wasn't able to get with the 18-135. That and I rarely shoot above 50mm anyway. I won't stop using the 18-135. I mostly bought it for family gatherings or situations where I basically wanted one lens on my camera and some flexibility. In many situations I actually prefer just carrying the Tarmon and then occasionally using the 55-300 for longer shots.

**mattb123** · 09-03-2014, 09:56 PM

I like the 15 and 18-135 combo in a small bag around town. The zoom is good and the 15 is magic. But I'm no street shooter.
The 15 and 40 make an even smaller kit. The 40 seemed tight to me at first but now I feel like I can really get the photos I like with it.
With the 15 I like to stop down and shoot into the sun for the stars and the 40 I like to shoot into the sun opened up for a dreamy effect. Those two are favorites of mine. I guess I also like shooting into the sun.

mtux · 09-03-2014, 11:51 PM - **1 Like**

Anyone wants to see Tamron 17-50's starbursts?
Here you are:

Having both of 18-135mm and 17-50, my suggestion to OP is that if you have a WR body or want a silent AF get the 18-135mm! Otherwise the Tamron is pretty good to me.
With 18-135 what you loose is f/2.8 and sharpness in far corners at most of aperture settings. But I think people give too much weight to it. and I guess you would never mind it in real world.
With 17-50 what you loose is WR, Silent AF and extra reach.

AquaDome · 09-04-2014, 08:35 AM

When it comes to image quality comparisons vs. perceived usefulness of a focal length, you are pitting one side of your brain against the other.
The DA 18-135 takes great pictures all day long. It covers the useful focal lengths and has WR. The only complaint I have ever had with it is minor zoom-creep when wearing it with the hood. [Left brain sees practicality]
That being said, the DA* 50-135 DOES take better pictures and doesn't creep, but then you would definitely need the DA-15 Limited to cover the wide end with equally beautiful pics. [Right brain sees pretty pictures]

I took my sister to Disneyland. I brought my K-50 with DA 18-135 for a small package that does everything and is WR. [Left brain]
I also put my new DA-15 Ltd in a pocket, just to try it out. The DA 18-135 ended up in my pocket all day while the DA-15 Ltd took all the pictures. [Right brain]

**Another dyemention** · 09-04-2014, 08:47 AM

I can keep going in circles trying to decide on the "best" lens but what I've come to realize is none of those lenses will be a mistake nor will any single one do everything I need or want. No matter which direction I go, I'll need and want to buy more lenses. I don't think either the 17-50 or the 18-135 could or should replace each other when it comes to their strengths and I don't think one would be better than the other generally speaking. So when I have the funds, I'll buy whichever I feel like buying that day and start building a quality kit off that lens.

---------- Post added 09-04-14 at 08:56 AM ----------

Or better yet, I'll just buy both of them as someone mentioned. They both have completely different strengths and compromises. And I'd use both of them for different situations.

But I'm still buying that 15 ltd lol
Thanks everyone.

09-03-2014, 03:44 PM	#20
Another dyemention Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2014 Posts: 432 Original Poster	I guess I was pretty all over the place in my OP. sorry for that. What I meant by it all was this: The 50 is too tight to be my primary lens but I would eventually like a dedicated portrait lens. And since I rarely use a FL longer than 50, I don't need anything more than the 17-50. And the few situations where I would need longer, I dont have an issue with changing to the 77 or 100. And if finances allowed, the 70-200 would be a perfect telephoto for occasional needs. As far as the 15. I've seen the pictures it can create. I know it's small, light, and would be great for street photography. Is it something I need? Definitely not. Want? Of course. But I would need something to supplement the lack of length so the 18-135 sounds like a perfect match. The 17-50 would probably be my best bet. It's the cheapest, very usable, and wouldn't overlap any FL unless I wanted specific primes like a 21. Plus it's 2.8 constant so I would surely benefit from that with my two year old running around and the occasional small concert I shoot. But the most common complaint I've read is it's big and heavy. Which is why I was leaning towards the 15 and the 18-135 combo. Could use the 15 when I want a small lightweight lens and just crop it a bit if needed. And after thinking about all of this, it popped in my head that maybe the 18-135 would just be an acceptable compromise for everything. So guess I gotta decide between 17-50 and the 18-135 first. FL or speed. Last edited by Another dyemention; 09-03-2014 at 04:19 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Which direction? Auto or manual	Another dyemention	Pentax K-30 & K-50	16	05-06-2014 04:32 PM
Questions about upgrading to Legacy Lenses	Styx1284	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	22	02-03-2014 09:37 AM
Upgrading from kit, so many options, which is right for me? 135mm 200mm?	SlyClockWerkz	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	15	08-21-2013 04:02 PM
What lenses have same focus turning direction?	striker_	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	03-02-2013 02:37 AM
What direction to go with my lenses? What's next?	jtkratzer	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	21	11-04-2012 07:19 PM

09-03-2014, 01:41 PM - 1 Like	#16
ramseybuckeye Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Hampstead, NC Photos: Gallery Posts: 17,292	Originally posted by Another dyemention As of now I have a tamron 28-105, a tamron 70-300 and the da 50. Both zooms were less than $70 combined and I bought them just to see how I liked the FL. THE 28-105 is useful but the IQ is not good enough for me to use it more than just snapping some pics. And I do wish it was a tad longer. [/COLOR]Also I forgot to mention. I'm not thrilled with the size of the 17-50. Especially if I were to use it for street photography. But at the same time, my up front cost would be considerably less since I wouldn't add another lens until I specifically needed it. Whereas the 15, I would need something to supplement that in tents of FL. ---------- Post added 09-03-14 at 09:13 AM ---------- Or, lol sorry, should I just get the 18-135 and call it good? Add another lens like the 15 or a uwa zoom on later when I want something a bit nicer? Thanks in advance. Steve Sorry you got a bad Tamron 28-105, I've had a couple and they were quite sharp, but when I had a chance to get the WR 18-135 on a good deal with my K-30 I was able to shed the Tamron. The 18-135 has turned out to be my most used lens, I've barely used the 35/2.4 since getting the 18-135. The only other duplicated coverage I have was the 55-300 and rarely used it below 300. I do have a Tamron 10-24 and really like it, though I would rather have the 15. You would get a lot more use out of the 18-135 than the 15, as noted in an earlier post the 15 is more of a specialty lens. You might go to Flickr and search by lens, or look at some of the samples in the various lens threads here. See what you like with your type of shooting.

09-03-2014, 01:50 PM	#17
AquaDome Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: New Carlisle, IN Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,475	Sell all your lenses to buy the DA-18-135 & DA-15 Ltd. I recommend the green-stripe (non-HD coating) version for the Limiteds. The 18-135 does pretty much everything well; definitely an A student. The DA-15 Ltd is truly gifted, though the newer HD coating diminishes the twinkle-star lens flares which the non-HD version is famous for.

09-03-2014, 01:51 PM	#18
Stickler Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Midwest Posts: 98	Originally posted by ramseybuckeye Sorry you got a bad Tamron 28-105, I've had a couple and they were quite sharp, but when I had a chance to get the WR 18-135 on a good deal with my K-30 I was able to shed the Tamron. The 18-135 has turned out to be my most used lens, I've barely used the 35/2.4 since getting the 18-135. The only other duplicated coverage I have was the 55-300 and rarely used it below 300. I do have a Tamron 10-24 and really like it, though I would rather have the 15. You would get a lot more use out of the 18-135 than the 15, as noted in an earlier post the 15 is more of a specialty lens. You might go to Flickr and search by lens, or look at some of the samples in the various lens threads here. See what you like with your type of shooting. I don' t think the 15 is all that specialty, it's technically UWA, but you can pretty easily crop and get say 21mm WA without too much IQ loss and almost no distortion if the 15 is too wide in the moment, but it's really hard to ever make 18 look like 15...

09-03-2014, 02:29 PM	#19
Tan68 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Photos: Albums Posts: 501	Why the older green version of 15 ? I ran across another similar recommendation and I think it had to do with the aperture blades but didn't have opportunity to ask into it... Originally posted by AquaDome ...recommend the green-stripe (non-HD coating) version for the Limiteds... ---------- Post added 09-03-14 at 03:43 PM ---------- Sorry, you answered my question in your post :^\| I suspected it might have something to do with the stars. That is an aspect I like... Originally posted by AquaDome ...HD coating diminishes the twinkle-star lens flares which the non-HD version is famous for. OP I also recommend checking into pictures taken with the 15... Using any wider angle lens is really a style rather than just extra width for field of view. I think so, anyway... As far as just increasing field of view for a pano or something, I prefer to stitch 21mm. For pano look 2:1 or 2.5:1, I would use the 15mm in landscape or 21 in portrait (about the same vertical view, feet to sky)... Some things aren't easy to stitch and I think I am rambling.. Point is, for just more field of view, there are options like stitching. However, for using the 15 in an artistic way close to subjects and wide backgrounds or whatever... need the wide angle lens. This is the style way... Maybe you have a specific use for the 15 in mind. Perhaps think some more if you just want to cover more real estate, though...

09-03-2014, 03:52 PM	#21
TedW Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2014 Posts: 241	I bought my K-50 last March with the 18-55 and the 55-200 kit lens. I used these in AZ on a trip to the Grand Canyon and was happy. Because I wanted to do some wildlife I picked up a Sigma 70-300. I was pretty happy. The 18-55 is pretty versatile for a walk around. I also photograph to create photobooks for foster kids while they are at a camp I work at. In the previous two years I borrowed a camera that had the same zoom range as the two kit lens. I found the 18-55 was good but wished I had a little more reach at times and would change to the longer zoom. This is when I decided to invest in the 18-135 for this years camps. I keep that lens on the whole time and it is a great range and the images were even better. The really quick and quiet focus is a big plus. I later bought a couple of the old manual lenses and most recently a 15mm limited for a trip to Mt. Rainier. In hindsight I wish I would have just bought the K-50 body and a18-135. My kit lenses are no more than a back up at this point. Right now, if I could only have one lens, I would keep the 18-135. I suggest you get that and see what part of the zoom you most often use before going further. If you find it doesn't zoom far enough consider a used Sigma or Tamaron 70-300. I got my used copy here for $60 and get some really great photos with it. For less than $200 you can get the dal-L 55-300 which may be a step up further. It is only when I wished for really high quality that I decided on the 15mm. The 15mm limited is amazing but I could still be happy using the 18mm end of my 18-135 if I didn't have the option of owning it.

09-03-2014, 04:12 PM	#22
Tan68 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Photos: Albums Posts: 501	A missed letter makes it hard to know if you would not mind changing to the 77 from the 17-50.. I gather the intention is you would not mind doing this occassionally. Lens overlap is a good thing to avoid. However, I wouldn't think "oh, I might want the 77 and this makes much of the 18-135 redundant because I can crop"... (just in case this was a thought you might have) I might think "well the 18-135 does overlap the 77 but the 18-135 is really convenient and when I want the speed of the 77, it is there for me". In other words, the 18-135 doesn't make the 77 pointless, nor does the 77 make the 18-135 redundant... They are just too different in what they offer (speed v. convenience)... Now, even the 21 could be an addition to the 18-135. Yeah, you only gain a little speed but there are other things that make the 21 a happy lens. The way it makes stars, I think is better. I have pointed it at the sun and had no problems (well, i have seen artifact from sun on wet ice but not bad..). If the 18-135 shares the characteristics great. If not and you happen to like 21mm focal length, the 21 is not redundant for the features it offers. It becomes a plus to the convenience of the zoom... This is why I think the 18-135 is not a bad idea if you think you would like the convenience. If you do think you would prefer the 17-50, fine and do it for a reason (like constant f/2.8) rather than 'well, my prime might overlap it some'... or you may end up wishing for that extra 51-135mm convenience even if you get a 77...

09-03-2014, 04:29 PM	#23
Another dyemention Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2014 Posts: 432 Original Poster	Tedw, your review on the 18-135 actually was one of the reviews that made me consider it. You seem quite pleased with it and I feel I would be as well. And tan68, that was supposed to say don't not do t. Sorry everyone. Hard to proof read in my iPhone. Anyhow, if I went the rout of the 18-135, that's all I would buy for now. Unless I wanted specific features of specific lenses like the 21 you mentioned. It's be the 17-50 and and longer lens. Or the 18-135. Probably would still get a dedicated portrait lens eventually but not as soon as with the 17-50.

09-03-2014, 04:54 PM	#24
VoiceOfReason Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Mishawaka IN area Photos: Albums Posts: 6,124	Originally posted by Another dyemention I guess I was pretty all over the place in my OP. sorry for that. What I meant by it all was this: The 50 is too tight to be my primary lens but I would eventually like a dedicated portrait lens. And since I rarely use a FL longer than 50, I don't need anything more than the 17-50. And the few situations where I would need longer, I dont have an issue with changing to the 77 or 100. And if finances allowed, the 70-200 would be a perfect telephoto for occasional needs. As far as the 15. I've seen the pictures it can create. I know it's small, light, and would be great for street photography. Is it something I need? Definitely not. Want? Of course. But I would need something to supplement the lack of length so the 18-135 sounds like a perfect match. The 17-50 would probably be my best bet. It's the cheapest, very usable, and wouldn't overlap any FL unless I wanted specific primes like a 21. Plus it's 2.8 constant so I would surely benefit from that with my two year old running around and the occasional small concert I shoot. But the most common complaint I've read is it's big and heavy. Which is why I was leaning towards the 15 and the 18-135 combo. Could use the 15 when I want a small lightweight lens and just crop it a bit if needed. And after thinking about all of this, it popped in my head that maybe the 18-135 would just be an acceptable compromise for everything. So guess I gotta decide between 17-50 and the 18-135 first. FL or speed. If you're only getting one of them to begin with then the 18-135 is an great walk around lens. If I am hiking it is most likely on my camera. If I go ultra light and just bring a body and one lens it will be the K5 and 18-135. It is small, definitely smaller than the 17-50, and WR so I can have it out in less than optimal conditions.

09-03-2014, 06:53 PM	#25
adurianman New Member Join Date: Jun 2014 Posts: 6	Originally posted by Another dyemention Thanks everyone for your advice. I've prettying decided to just go with the 135 for now. It gives me plenty of range, is affordable, and useable enough to not outgrow it. Ya not fast but as was mentioned, I can always get the fast primes I need. I'll also hold on to my 50 1.8 for that reason. IMHO the 18-135 is not very sharp though, as my old canon 550& with tammy 17-50/2.8 seems to always be sharper at similar aperture despite my K3 having way more pixels (could just be a bad copy though, or incomplete focus adjustment) , but it is indeed very convenient with the zoom range and wr. The 17-50 might be more useful if you're shooting a lot of indoors or evening shots as it is way brighter than 18-135 and way more flexible than 50mm

09-03-2014, 09:24 PM	#26
emalvick Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Davis, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,642	I have an 18-135 and the Tamron 17-50. I think the Tamron lens is slightly better than the 18-135 in terms of image quality. Size-wise, both lens are similar enough that I don't really think one is an advantage over the other. The 18-135 does give added reach. While I generally find the 18-135 slightly softer than the Tamron lens, I was using it quite a bit more and found that the quality was fairly consistent across its focal lengths. However, I recently went back to using the Tamron lens because I missed its speed. It wasn't so much that I missed using it at f2.8; the quality there isn't fantastic, it was the missing of getting nice f4 images that I wasn't able to get with the 18-135. That and I rarely shoot above 50mm anyway. I won't stop using the 18-135. I mostly bought it for family gatherings or situations where I basically wanted one lens on my camera and some flexibility. In many situations I actually prefer just carrying the Tarmon and then occasionally using the 55-300 for longer shots.

09-03-2014, 09:56 PM	#27
mattb123 Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Colorado High Country Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,872	I like the 15 and 18-135 combo in a small bag around town. The zoom is good and the 15 is magic. But I'm no street shooter. The 15 and 40 make an even smaller kit. The 40 seemed tight to me at first but now I feel like I can really get the photos I like with it. With the 15 I like to stop down and shoot into the sun for the stars and the 40 I like to shoot into the sun opened up for a dreamy effect. Those two are favorites of mine. I guess I also like shooting into the sun.

09-03-2014, 11:51 PM - 1 Like	#28
mtux Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Location: the Netherlands Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,444	Anyone wants to see Tamron 17-50's starbursts? Here you are: Having both of 18-135mm and 17-50, my suggestion to OP is that if you have a WR body or want a silent AF get the 18-135mm! Otherwise the Tamron is pretty good to me. With 18-135 what you loose is f/2.8 and sharpness in far corners at most of aperture settings. But I think people give too much weight to it. and I guess you would never mind it in real world. With 17-50 what you loose is WR, Silent AF and extra reach.

09-04-2014, 08:35 AM	#29
AquaDome Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: New Carlisle, IN Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,475	When it comes to image quality comparisons vs. perceived usefulness of a focal length, you are pitting one side of your brain against the other. The DA 18-135 takes great pictures all day long. It covers the useful focal lengths and has WR. The only complaint I have ever had with it is minor zoom-creep when wearing it with the hood. [Left brain sees practicality] That being said, the DA* 50-135 DOES take better pictures and doesn't creep, but then you would definitely need the DA-15 Limited to cover the wide end with equally beautiful pics. [Right brain sees pretty pictures] I took my sister to Disneyland. I brought my K-50 with DA 18-135 for a small package that does everything and is WR. [Left brain] I also put my new DA-15 Ltd in a pocket, just to try it out. The DA 18-135 ended up in my pocket all day while the DA-15 Ltd took all the pictures. [Right brain]

09-04-2014, 08:47 AM	#30
Another dyemention Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2014 Posts: 432 Original Poster	I can keep going in circles trying to decide on the "best" lens but what I've come to realize is none of those lenses will be a mistake nor will any single one do everything I need or want. No matter which direction I go, I'll need and want to buy more lenses. I don't think either the 17-50 or the 18-135 could or should replace each other when it comes to their strengths and I don't think one would be better than the other generally speaking. So when I have the funds, I'll buy whichever I feel like buying that day and start building a quality kit off that lens. ---------- Post added 09-04-14 at 08:56 AM ---------- Or better yet, I'll just buy both of them as someone mentioned. They both have completely different strengths and compromises. And I'd use both of them for different situations. But I'm still buying that 15 ltd lol Thanks everyone.