[savoche]

I chose the 18-135. Mine is quite good from 20-135. I use it mainly for its versatility, excellent travel zoom. For anything special I will use a prime if I can, but the 18-135 covers everything from wide to medium tele as well as close up.

It can do a decent job of portraits at the long end, but it's too slow for a very shallow depth of field. But so is the 20-40, really.

The 50 will be nice for portraits. And you can even add a 35 and stay within the price range of the 20-40.

That said, the 20-40 is probably better than the 18-135 in the range it covers.

[lytrytyr]

I want to get K3 and I am torn apart. Its either the kit with 18-135 and 50 as my prime lens or the 20-40 limited (which will be 576 if bought with the K3) and that make it in my price range($1250 for two lens or $1370 with the limited) Any one own the both lenses (18-135 and 20-40) ? Which choice is better?

Quick answer: It's BMW versus Hyundai!

More specifically,
the choice depends on your priorities,
and on what you want from your photographs.

If you have a keen eye,
and require the level of rendering and other qualities
which a good copy of the DA 20-40 produces,
then you would probably not be satisfied with less.

On the other hand,
if convenience and versatility are priorities,
and you're ready to sacrifice image qualities
like edge resolution at longer focal lengths,
then the DA 18-135 would make more sense.

That lens can also produce saleable images,
but they sometimes have a "picture postcard" look,
which is not to my particular personal taste. YMMV.

[Primes4ever]

I had the 18-135 for quite a while and found it to be a decent lens. I found that it was weaker at the long end and I was not happy personally with the results given what I could produce with my primes. As a result when the 20-40 Limited came out last year, I ordered it since I was going on a trip to Mexico. I had also acquired my DA*60-250 and with those 2 lenses (plus DA15) covered my needs.

The 20-40 produces excellent photos in the range I shoot most often. It is weather sealed and so light that I can take the best long telephoto that I own. I sold the 18-135 and have never regretted it. The 20-40 now is my most used lens and even the 31 gets less use.

I guess it comes down to what you like. I personally would rather miss the shot most times than compromise the quality I expect. In reality, that rarely happens since I usually have an idea what I am going to shoot and have the appropriate lens mounted. Frequently out hiking and when weight is a consideration, I have the 20-40 on the camera, and the 15, 70 and DFA 100wr in the bag. Most of the time the 70 does not get used but it is small.

[AquaDome]

the 18-135 is supossed to be a very bad lens, so better forget about it.

What do you mean "supposed to be a very bad lens"?
The DA*50-135 gives better IQ at twice the size, 4x the price and 20% less focal-range. But better is superlative to good.
The DA18-135 is, at the very least, a good lens. More versatile and better IQ than the kit zooms, plus WR and a do-it-all focal range.

[DeadJohn]

I mostly shoot portrait and landscapes.

I would definitely pick the 18-135 plus 50 over just the 20-40.

For landscapes, the 18-135 is sharp enough when stopped down, which is how most landscapes are done. The 18-135 is a much more versatile zoom than the 20-40. The 20-40, however, is sharper and smaller.

For portraits, the DA 50 f1.8 is far superior to the 20-40. Better focal length for portraits, very sharp, wider aperture to get some of the thin depth of field effects preferred by many portrait shooters. The DA 50 also gives you a good lens for low light.

[normhead]

I had the 18-135 for quite a while and found it to be a decent lens. I found that it was weaker at the long end and I was not happy personally with the results given what I could produce with my primes. As a result when the 20-40 Limited came out last year, I ordered it since I was going on a trip to Mexico. I had also acquired my DA*60-250 and with those 2 lenses (plus DA15) covered my needs.

The 20-40 produces excellent photos in the range I shoot most often. It is weather sealed and so light that I can take the best long telephoto that I own. I sold the 18-135 and have never regretted it. The 20-40 now is my most used lens and even the 31 gets less use.

I guess it comes down to what you like. I personally would rather miss the shot most times than compromise the quality I expect. In reality, that rarely happens since I usually have an idea what I am going to shoot and have the appropriate lens mounted. Frequently out hiking and when weight is a consideration, I have the 20-40 on the camera, and the 15, 70 and DFA 100wr in the bag. Most of the time the 70 does not get used but it is small.

The 20-40 produces excellent photos in the range I shoot most often.

That's all you needed to say...

Randomly chosen from a recent hike....
48mm


88mm


18mm


53mm


24mm


You definitely hike someplace different than the kinds of places I hike. I didn't change lenses once. And about 20% of my images fit the 20-40 range. The one that the 20-40 could have taken, taken at 24mm, it's very unlikely the 20-40 is going to outperform the 18-135 at 24 mm...but it could happen. The one taken at 18mm, I would have liked to go a little wider, the 18-135 wasn't what I wanted, but the 20-40 would have been worse.

Different strokes for different strokes. I personally can't imagine being restricted to that range.

[Primes4ever]

I love the pictures Normhead. I have always favoured the normal range for my photos from years of bicycle touring where I was restricted to weight. Now as a sixty year old with a bad knee, keeping it light makes it more enjoyable for me, and so what I carry has changed. I have always favoured primes and old habits die slowly. Typically I have favoured using my 31 and brought other Limiteds depending on where I was going. The 20-40 is good enough to leave three lenses home if I want to go light (it took a while for the 31 to be left behind) and the 15 and 100 are nice and complement it.

Most of my local hikes do not have high potential for wildlife, but the 60-250 will go if I think I need it. If I was in Algonquin Park, it would be worth the weight. One of these days I may come up to enjoy your camp and I promise to bring the appropriate lens coverage. The knee has to get better.

[peterjcb]

I want to get K3 and I am torn apart. Its either the kit with 18-135 and 50 as my prime lens or the 20-40 limited (which will be 576 if bought with the K3) and that make it in my price range($1250 for two lens or $1370 with the limited) Any one own the both lenses (18-135 and 20-40) ? Which choice is better?

...get a nice prime like a 35mm or a 50mm (FA31 if you can afford it) and learn how to use your camera first then worry about which lenses to buy...you will soon develop LBA, it happens to the best of us...don't worry

[normhead]

I love the pictures Normhead. I have always favoured the normal range for my photos from years of bicycle touring where I was restricted to weight. Now as a sixty year old with a bad knee, keeping it light makes it more enjoyable for me, and so what I carry has changed. I have always favoured primes and old habits die slowly. Typically I have favoured using my 31 and brought other Limiteds depending on where I was going. The 20-40 is good enough to leave three lenses home if I want to go light (it took a while for the 31 to be left behind) and the 15 and 100 are nice and complement it.

Most of my local hikes do not have high potential for wildlife, but the 60-250 will go if I think I need it. If I was in Algonquin Park, it would be worth the weight. One of these days I may come up to enjoy your camp and I promise to bring the appropriate lens coverage. The knee has to get better.

Ya those bad knees really mess you up. I hurt mine Sept. 28, carrying too much on a portage. This was my first hike in the park since then. I brought the 60-250 but didn't need it (and usually don't). But if you have a 60-250 a 20-40 makes a lot more sense. Especially if you have a 50. Compared to many lenses the 18-135 is pretty good, but not compared to the 60-250.

[lytrytyr]

The one that the 20-40 could have taken, taken at 24mm, it's very unlikely the 20-40 is going to outperform the 18-135 at 24 mm...but it could happen.

It's hard to tell from web images,
but under that difficult lighting,
I would expect the Limited to deliver more clarity.

[ppppsssstttt]

You'll get a lot of skewed responses because the 18-135 is probably the most popular lens. It's easily the first zoom lens that most people pick after the kit 18-55. The 20-40mm has mixed reviews, most likely because of the high initial price and copy variation. People who have it seem to like it. (I'm pretty happy with it, but I've never owned the 18-135mm. I've never been a fan of wide coverage zooms and valued the size and weight of prime lenses.)

I'm not sure if you can go wrong either way... If you go with the 18-135 and 50, you'll have a lot of versatility. If you go with the 20-40mm, you'd not have the hassle of changing lenses but you also get the modern-almost-impossible to flare coatings and (supposedly) better image quality (but... that's up to other people on this thread to debate. I think I'm biased too, Pentax said the 20-40mm is aimed at those looking to upgrade the kit lens. I think I'd aim to get a 70 or 77mm and a 15mm after the 20-40mm

[drypenn]

I think that the realm of Pentax is blessed with excellent primes in the range between 20-40mm. You can have the 21, the venerable 28 classics in various incarnations, the 31, the two 35's and a little farther out the 15 and the 43 in the opposite ends. Having said that, I must agree, that the 18-135 may be a better choice for the best all-rounder with an excellent compromise on flexibility, size, price, IQ and features (WR, quickshift, etc.). Sooner or later, you can always get one of those aforementioned primes.

[lesmore49]

How many times do we have to correct that friggin Photozone review?
You feel like saying to these newbs, 'When you get some images with your primes as good as the one's I get with my 18-135, we'll talk."

X 2 Norm.

A number of years ago, I was going back and forth with a decision as to whether to buy a Pentax 40mm Limited. I recall reading and communicating with another photographer who dismissed this lens as very poor. He didn't have one, but that was his opinion.

As a result I didn't get it for a few years. I finally did buy one about 3 years ago. I have to tell you that this lens is a jewel, the picture quality I'm able to get with this lens...on either my K-m, K10D, K-5...is wonderful.

I avoided the 18-135 for about a year, after reading a negative assessment online, about this lens. Finally I started checking out photo examples (including your sample pix) produced by this lens...on this forum. I really liked what I saw, purchased my copy, last April.

It's been an excellent lens. So much so, that it's become one of my regulars.

Same deal with the Sigma 150-500. Heard and read some negative comments about this lens. I wanted long reach in a new lens, so decided to bite the bullet. It's another great lens.

I set ISO at 800-1600, F stop is usually F 10/11, shutter speed is generally over 1/1000th, but not always. I use the SR in my K-5, shut the Sigma shake reduction off (have used the Sigma SR-nothing wrong with it) ...the pix are excellent.

I sometimes wonder if lousy pix are not so much the fault of the camera equipment...but maybe a reflection on the skill level.

Les

[SGOMMO7]

Hi, I have for 20-40 which I am very pleased with, (you do have to check for decentering though as an abundance of rumors speak of bad copies floating around).

The 20-40 is designed to be something special, it has metal construction and a felt lined lens cap; it's an object meant, not so much for taking pictures as it's an object meant to be taken pictures of, and to be petted like a cat, and spoken about in an air of sophistication usually only reserved for fine aged wine.
I named mine: Maximilian the III and only use it to take pictures of things that I deem to be significantly noteworthy and of cultural significance.
On the other hand the other lens you mention... Oh what was it? The 18...130 something or other? Anyways it's not important what is important to know is that it's a... prosumer...ha.. lens...ha, (bursts out in a chuckle as a slight tear wells up in my eye). All I know is that if I go to my yacht club with a... a... prosumer len....ha,ha, (bursts out again laughing) Oh, sorry, sorry, anyways as I was saying if I was to show up with a... ha, plastic prosumer... Ha ha ha, Oh, I apologize I can't even say the words.

Let me put it this way: if I feel like taking a picture of my McLaren it's either going to be with, Maximilian the III, Duke Charles of Wellington, or Princess Alexandria, (20-40, 31, 77, respectively). Anyways to even consider that other lens, whatever it was, over the 20-40 is already enough that I don't think I could be blamed for writing you off as an unsophisticated boob. Why in Pentax's own literature on the 20-40 they speak of how it was meticulously crafted and created to capture the presence and atmosphere of space!
The other lens you are considering it described in such words as, "useful range" and, "lens for everyday use" need I say more?

I do hope you make the right decision bmw_328ci, (the choice that you know is right).

[drypenn]

How many times do we have to correct that friggin Photozone review?

Liked!

I just hope that after reading that review (only now), my 18-135 will not wallow in self-pity and start producing poor IQ!