[Merts]

Just out of curiosity, who started with the 18-135 as their first lens? If you didn't start with it, did it replace (or relegate) any other lenses when you got it?

I started with the 18-135 on my k5II (along with the SMC 50 1.2 I had from my film camera).
It's still my most used lens, unless I'm doing macro work.

[emalvick]

I would have been interrested by sigma if it was small and light. I have 50-135 that is still lighter and while I like the picture it provide I find it too big/heavy/intimidating. For many cases, my FA77 replaced it. Overall it render better and is far smaller. I miss 135mm a bit but not enough on most occasion to get the 50-135 out. I get the 50-135 out when I feel the shooting greatly benefit of it (events for example).

This is my issue with Sigma many times. Everytime I buy a lens, especially zoom ones, I come upon three similar choices Tamron, Sigma, and Pentax. The three are generally of similar quality with Pentax often costing quite a bit more and Tamron and Sigma costing less. For zooms I'll often look at those two brands and choose Tamron because of size, even though the Sigma sometimes are arguably better.

On primes, I end up in a debate over Sigma and Pentax. I've spent more on Pentax in many instances because the primes are so much more compact. The one exception is the only Sigma I have, a 30 mm 1.4. And that was mostly because I couldn't justify the cost of the 31 mm Pentax Limited and the size of the two lenses are actually fairly similar. Size matters.

With your experience on Primes, have you ever gotten an older 135 mm lens. I have one that has often been a favorite and has gotten used for landscapes more than I would ever expect. It is fairly compact, and is the one manual lens I use the most. It's gotten less use since I got the 18-135, which is also pleasant for its compact size (for a zoom).

[UncleVanya]

I added the 18-135 when I bought my k50, and I already had Pentax DA 18-55, DA 50-200, F 35-135, F 100 2.8 Macro, FA 80-320, and an A* 85. All of these get a lot less love now.

The 18-135 range is great for travel photography when you have limited tolerance from family or fellow travelers for taking time to swap lenses. The colors are rendered nicely and the center is nice and sharp even on the long end.

Btw, my first 35mm camera that I owned was a cheap plastic one I got at 6 years old. I think the first SLR I used was when I was 8, which is when I also got a nice rangefinder, and by the age of 12 I got an SLR of my own. I think it it's completely rationale to have a 6 year old handle your DSLR, and the 18-135 is a great lens to hand any budding young photographer.

[normhead]

Just get an 18-135 and quit fretting. If you want a faster lens for indoors get a Tamron 17-50.

DA_18-135 Slideshow by Norm_Head | Photobucket

Telephoto


Landscape


Medium Range


Or pseudo macro
DA_18-135-small_flowers Slideshow by Norm_Head | Photobucket



I'm always impressed with how many people recommend giving up reach.... it's just not in my mindset. The 135 part of the 18-135 is already a compromise from an 18-200 or 18-250 type lens made in the interest if image quality. I'd suggest those who complain about the IQ at 135 just don't understand the need to use a tripod in low light for a lens that long. Especially true when some one compares a 17-70. My guess is a 17-70 would cost me about a third of my images. And people can complain about the image quality at 135..., well if you shoot with a 70 and crop to the same field of view, it's a lot worse.

As a walk around I can live with 135... barely. people talking about 70mm as the long end for a walk-around lens? IYa well. I've read some people say the 20-40 is their favourite walk around lens. Everybody has an opinion.

---

Last edited by normhead; 12-22-2014 at 08:52 AM.

[NeilGratton]

I'm always impressed with how many people recommend giving up reach.... it's just not in my mindset. The 135 part of the 18-135 is already a compromise from an 18-200 or 18-250 type lens made in the interest if image quality. I'd suggest those who complain about the IQ at 135 just don't understand the need to use a tripod in low light for a lens that long. Especially true when some one compares a 17-70. My guess is a 17-70 would cost me about a third of my images. And people can complain about the image quality at 135..., well if you shoot with a 70 and crop to the same field of view, it's a lot worse.

As a walk around I can live with 135... barely. people talking about 70mm as the long end for a walk-around lens? IYa well. I've read some people say the 20-40 is their favourite walk around lens. Everybody has an opinion.

My favourite walk-around lens ever was a 28mm prime (on APS-C). Great for general / family / street photography, good for landscapes. Not the lens you want to have on your camera if you need to do a quick wildlife shot though.

Like you said, there are different opinions and mindsets - and different lenses (weights, image quality, aperture range, focal length range) appeal to different photographers with different subjects in mind. And at different times. I'll most likely stick on a prime for street photography, but a zoom if I'm out hiking.

[normhead]

My favourite walk-around lens ever was a 28mm prime (on APS-C). Great for general / family / street photography, good for landscapes. Not the lens you want to have on your camera if you need to do a quick wildlife shot though.

Like you said, there are different opinions and mindsets - and different lenses (weights, image quality, aperture range, focal length range) appeal to different photographers with different subjects in mind. And at different times. I'll most likely stick on a prime for street photography, but a zoom if I'm out hiking.

For sure, if you know who you are, an what your priorities are, it's easy to figure out which is the best lens for you. It's the figuring out who you are and how you shoot that's the hard part.

[Nicolas06]

For sure, if you know who you are, an what your priorities are, it's easy to figure out which is the best lens for you. It's the figuring out who you are and how you shoot that's the hard part.

+1 You can't almost conclude without trying... I learnt that... But trying mean spending lot of money ...

But you know normhead I have been 2 week visiting india, with 4 lenses: DA15, DA21, DA35, FA77. One would say, who 77mm, that's short ! The thing is FA77 give more than good enoughr results cropped to 135mm that I don't think the 18-135mm would add anything on the long end.

Next photo is 4270x2050, crop from K3 FA77... This is 110mm equivalent field of view horizontally, 150mm vertically. Not too bad I would say. Yoy don't have the full rez but it is perfectly sharp, corners to corners (obviously it is easier for a crop). And I think it render quite well. You really need 135mm if you want to crop up to 200-250mm. Provided the lense is good enough for that.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[normhead]

That's cool, but wait until you get a 6000x4000 135mm image, crop the soft edges off it to get a sharp 4000x3000 to give you a field of view more like a 200mm lens. If you crop your 77 image to that, you'll see a difference. And I bet you'd see a difference already if you actually did the test.. Cropping costs your resolution more than a bad lens does. The difference between a good lens and a bad lens, on a 10MP camera is 200 lw/ph. An FA 77 is 2326 lw/ph when perfect is conidered to be 2350. It doesn't get much more excellent than that. But the DA 18-55 at ƒ5.6 gives you 2154 lw/ph on the same camera. SO a little under 200 lw/ph difference between the best an the worst. If you crop 400 pixels, from the FA 77 images, at least in resolution, you've lost your advantage. You still may prefer the 77 image but it won't be because you matched the resolution.

The highest number for a DA 18-135 on a K-5 is 2689 lw/ph... or in other words, an 18-55 on a K-5 is much better than a 77 on a K10D. And an 18-135 on a K3 is going to have more resolution than a 77 on a K-5. People need to keep these things in perspective.

If you were good with your 77 on a K-5 , you should be more than pleased with an 18-135 on a K-3, unless you use the ƒ1.8-ƒ4 setting a lot

[Nicolas06]

That's cool, but wait until you get a 6000x4000 135mm image, crop the soft edges off it to get a sharp 4000x3000 to give you a field of view more like a 200mm lens. If you crop your 77 image to that, you'll see a difference. And I bet you'd see a difference already if you actually did the test.. Cropping costs your resolution more than a bad lens does. The difference between a good lens and a bad lens, on a 10MP camera is 200 lw/ph. An FA 77 is 2326 lw/ph when perfect is conidered to be 2350. It doesn't get much more excellent than that. But the DA 18-55 at ƒ5.6 gives you 2154 lw/ph on the same camera. SO a little under 200 lw/ph difference between the best an the worst. If you crop 400 pixels, from the FA 77 images, at least in resolution, you've lost your advantage. You still may prefer the 77 image but it won't be because you matched the resolution.

The highest number for a DA 18-135 on a K-5 is 2689 lw/ph... or in other words, an 18-55 on a K-5 is much better than a 77 on a K10D. And an 18-135 on a K3 is going to have more resolution than a 77 on a K-5. People need to keep these things in perspective.

If you were good with your 77 on a K-5 , you should be more than pleased with an 18-135 on a K-3, unless you use the ƒ1.8-ƒ4 setting a lot

If we want to go lw/lp, for practical purposes excepted for huge print (> 30") or pixel peeping, 6MP is enough. With K3, this mean we can crop to get the framing of double the focal length and get a very nice picture.

On both 18-135 & FA77 or 18-85 if this one is center sharp, 135mm framing would be of no issue. This mean that if your needs don't go past 135mm for framing... well FA77 that will not be an issue, neither 16-85, and you'll not see the difference in resolution on a typical print or screen.

The 18-135 center has lot of resolution, and get good pictures for example at 24mm. Sharp corners to corners. I would miss some spice in the picture but that quite good. Not so at 18mm or past 50-70mm. The problem is more uncropped 18-135 that is visibly weak on borders even at f/8 past 70-85mm. Even through it is a zoom, one need to remember to not frame the subject by changing the focal length, but choose a wider focal and to crop in post processing so most of the frame that matter to him is of good quality, removing the weak borders. Meaning it is not up to 135mm that 18-135 is better but only after... when you want to crop 200mm.

[normhead]

The falacy in this argument is the small number of times you actually benefit from edge to edge sharpness. It rarely comes into play, and the further assumption that when it does the DA 18-135 isn't good enough. IN the pictures I've already posted, it makes no difference to the image.

Even in images like this


The edge sharpness is adequate... taken from the edge..


As long as your subject is located by rule of thirds or inside that frame, the 18-135 is excellent even at 135.

The appeal of the 77 is it's ability to create smooth OOF areas in shallow DoF images and excellent control of CA, maening very good micro-contrast. ANd any lens that goes to ƒ1.8 is going to be prized. And that's where most expensive lenses excel. But as an older lens, the purple fringing can be worse than expected in a more modern lens. I've certainly never seen anything like it using my SIgma 70 macro. but then, there is a heavy weight cost to carrying heavily corrected glass.

Meaning it is not up to 135mm that 18-135 is better but only after... when you want to crop 200mm.

Show me. I'll believe it when I see it. At web size can you even see a difference?

I frequently carry both the SIgma 70 macro and 18-135, I take the 18-135 off the camera for macro and some landscapes, but 90% of the time the 18-135 is the lens to use. And 90 % of the time the Sigma won't even do what the 18-135 will do. If you want to carry one lens, carry the one that does everything, even if it doesn't do some things terribly well. Don't be dreaming that you can use a lens like the 77 for 135 without a TC, and now were talking a couple grand instead of $400.

[TER-OR]

The 18-135 is a good walkaround lens, and I've even used it for impromptu macro at 100mm. It's not as sharp as my FA100 f2.8 but I don't expect it to be when used that close. You'll really like the motor focus, it's silent and really quick. Just remember to use AF-C when tracking subjects. I forgot last time at the Husky Huddle and got a lot of backfocused shots. I was really worried until I remembered to look at my settings - I was in AF-S. When cropped, and resized for viewing online you cannot tell, and the images of these huskies and malamutes playing their games is all I wanted.

The WR zoom is the right range for 90% of what you'll do. Beyond that get a 55-300 if you want reach, and then figure out if you want a nice prime or two at some range.

The lenses I get the most pleasure using are the 18-135, the FA100 and the DA21mm.

[VoiceOfReason]

The 18-135 has been great with the ocean spray here on my vacation, and the rendering is fine too. Sure, at pixel peeping range it isn't as sharp as most of my other lenses, but I am resizing my shots for viewing on the internet so no big deal.

[Nicolas06]

Show me. I'll believe it when I see it. At web size can you even see a difference?

Your border crop... well I invite anybody to check where it is. The bottom left corner of the crop is half way to the middle on the scene horizontaly and in the middle vertically. Yet it is plain soft. We are near to the rule of third key points and it is soft. You didn't choose an easy subject (low contrast due to the light, but a subject that has lot of detail) and for sure that doesn't help. It also look that the jpeg quality is too low.

If you want to look for yourself to how sharp and punchy can be a good lens well I'd say look at the full rez image of any forum member or mine. I don't pretend to make better photo, but for sure they are far sharper.

I don't publish exif, but you can get the full sized images and compare the resolution to 6016x4000 the native resolution of K3 to have an idea of the crop level. You can also reframe more heavily to see how it would look or to look at 100% crop directly. Here this album as some crops and it is FA77 lens only: https://www.flickr.com/photos/nicolasbousquet/sets/72157648678545097/

[normhead]

What I'm not seeing is evidence that any other lens would do a lot better, or that it matters, especially in web sized images. While a regularly change to the DA-60-250 if I think I might want to print a picture. I would happily have shown a picture taken with 77, but I don't have one. My point in showing that picture was not to show how bad the 18-135 is, I have worse lenses, but to show how little difference it makes in everyday images. Looks bad pixel peeping, looks fine web sized.

If you crop 50% of your pixel width and hieght, you crop 50% of your resolution. It's pretty insane to be talking about the loss in resolution between a DA 18-135 and a 77 when you're never going to use even a fraction of that resolution in the first place. IN the world of 12 MP camera that wasn't as true, in the world of 24 MP cameras, if you're shooting with a lens that scores excellent on the lw/ph measurements, as the DA 18-135 does, you're not going to have issues. If you would like to quote a real world example of where I'm wrong, I'll be happy to listen. As I said, if you loved the 77 on your K-10d, you'll love the 18-135 on your K-3, and you'll get better resolution from it. If you want to pick on it. pick on the CA levels which are going on mess up your micro-contrast. That's the big issue between Pentax zooms and cheaper Pentax primes.

[voy-tech]

If you crop 50% of your pixel width and hieght, you crop 50% of your resolution.

Actually it's 25% of original resolution - if you cut an image that is half of width and half of height of original you get only 25% or original resolution since you multiply both edges (0.5 * 0.5 = 0.25). So in K3 24MP sensor the resulting image is 6MP not 12MP.