[cbope]

2.8 is 2.8... but if you have a DA* 18-135

Holy crap, where do I sign up?!?

[bandarbalu]

As the new kid on the block, I can't say I have anything really useful to add to the OP's question, but I can see myself being in exactly the same position in a year or two, and I already went through the same soul-searching related to the topic of my first thread on this board (https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/283165-look...ns-advice.html). Despite all the great advice and discussion that post kicked up, I ended up wandering in a completely different direction, but maybe the reason for that wander has some value.

I've never made money off photography, although I've been published, shot a wedding and done a couple portrait sessions for charity. After I posted a list of attributes in descending order of importance on my first Pentax lens wish list, I started second-guessing that list, because I realized that my shooting style has been different with every camera I've owned. In short, the camera/lens combo has ended up being a more important factor in determining what I shoot than what I think I'm going to shoot! I'd like to think this is because I've spent time playing around with my gear, figuring out what it's strengths and weaknesses are, and shooting to the strengths. Since I'm starting with a completely new camera that has lots of different capabilities than my current one, I'm going to have to figure those out before I can start tackling the lens question.

So what to do? I found a couple good-looking deals on a used 50-200WR and a Tamron 90. Neither ticks even a majority of my wish list items, but each has one big one (WR on the zoom and sharpness on the 90). I figure I'll play around with them, let them tell me where they perform best with the camera I have, keep a lookout for another good deal to fill the obvious hole on the wide end, and just swap out as money and opportunities arise. If I really need something for an important shoot, I'll look into renting, like I did for the wedding. It's kind of like a speed date with gear. My guess is that in a year, my order of importance in lens qualities is going to be different than it is now.

So if I have any kind of useful advice to the OP, it would be this - if your budget can handle it, and you're okay with changing your mind later, just go for it. Even if you're disappointed with the lens, the option is there to recoup most of the investment by selling it used (which would easily fund a re-purchase of the 18-135 if necessary). Tons of people are happy with the DA* 16-50, and tons aren't. You won't know which camp you're in until you try it.

[dcpropilot]

I may actually get the 16-50 along with the 50-135, AND keep the 18-135 for travel use. We'll see. If it doesn't work out, I'll go for a prime lens route.This LBA stuff is really getting to be problematic.

[bandarbalu]

And if you end up selling off any of those zooms, I'll be waiting!

[arkav]

Tamron 90

If you plan to use it as a Macro lens, the lack of quickshift may be annoying - depending on your style. I find I really like the quickshift on my DFA 100WR. I like the WR as well, but that may or may not be a factor for you.

There's a hefty price differencial, and I did think hard about getting the Tamron. I think all in all, I'm happy with the DFA macro. Heck, if I had opted for the Tamron, I probably would have broken it several times by now.

[DSims]

At that point it doesn't matter that the more expensive lens might have come out superior in 90% of the images you shoot. If the best looking image is your goal, you should have been shooting the cheaper lens.

WOW - some people think it's a tragedy when they miss 10% of their shots, but you think missing 90% is OK!

buying better glass gets you better odds of getting better IQ, but not necessarily better IQ on every image you take with it.

Do you know that I couldn't find a single compelling image from my DA55-300 over 135mm? Not a single one. While over 80% of my images from my F*300 are better than my DA55-300 images, 0% are worse.

But to me, the reason for buying better glass is, your skills have advanced to the point where it will make a difference. And people who have reached that point, don't need someone else to tell them what they need.

But that's just it. You don't have to develop advanced skills to get great images from a lens like the DA*50-135 (or a *300). All you have to do is turn that little dial so the aperture's at f/3.5, select your subject, and select your focus point. The camera will do the rest. A few weeks of DSLR ownership can qualify you. The DA*50-135 doesn't help for an "everything's near infinity" landscape shot, but it improves a huge percentage of the photos most photographers take (including many types of landscape shots). It won't improve your composition or timing. But it will improve virtually everyone's shots - wherever they're at artistically and skill-wise - as long as they follow these simple steps.

And quite frankly, if you've only had a quality camera for a couple of months, you actually do need someone to tell you what to get - or at least what direction to go, and what to look for. Some of us get told directly, while others quietly observe what others do and the photos they've taken. But we all need outside help - especially at the early stages. In fact some of this learning doesn't even occur until you get hands-on with the right equipment, so I don't think we should discourage people from getting it!

---------- Post added 12-29-14 at 03:09 PM ----------

Heck, if I had opted for the Tamron, I probably would have broken it several times by now.

I don't know - I thought the Tamron 90 was pretty well made. It generally doesn't require a hood either (for either flare or damage protection), because the front element is set pretty far back-in from the front of the lens. And if anything it's probably sharper than the D FA 100 WR. It's an excellent lens. I just think the images are prettier from the D FA 100 WR. Even if the 100 WR's colors are slightly overdone and shiny-like-hard-candy in appearance, I like it. Some images I get from it still awe me. I don't care so much for the slightly yellowish tint from Tamron's glass.

For me it was too much of a compromise to still pay that much for a lens (the Tamron 90) that wasn't enough better than my AF Cosina 100/3.5 macro for the money, yet not as ideal as the 100 WR. The excellent Vivitar Series 1 105/2.5 macro I had was a similar story. Both it and the Tamron cost about half what I paid for the 100WR macro. But the Tamron's images weren't quite pretty enough, and the Vivitar was just big enough and heavy enough that I seldom put it in my bag. I finally realized this made it almost worthless in practice - as nice as its images were. But the 100WR was an ideal compromise - even though it was twice the price. With it I only needed one macro lens - it has AF, WR, and good IQ at non-macro distances. Every other top macro I've seen lacks at least one of these desirable qualities. I even eventually sold my excellent F50 macro, knowing that I used the 100WR most of the time anyway. The 100WR is the "perfect compromise" for me, getting a 9 out of 10 in every single category I can think of. It simplified things by ending my search and becoming the only macro lens I now use (I gave the Cosina to my daughter).

But the Tamron 90 is an excellent place to start, and for many it's the place to stay.

[emalvick]

But, that's a personal philosophy, so I can completely understand how the DA*16-50 and DA" 50-135 would be a great compromise. And as a compromise, slightly better than the DA 18-135. But if I'm going to have to shoot primes to get max. quality, then those little Pentax primes are really the ticket. To me, the DA 18-135 on the camera with the 21, 35, 40XS FA50 1.7, and Sigma 70 in the bag is the way to travel. My 60-250 covers the long end. After the 18-135 I'd rather just skip the 2.8 zooms and go straight to primes. So my focus now is on getting better primes. Not because the 18-135 is the best zoom available in IQ, but that it's as good as I need before I switch to a prime. And I'm going to want to switch to a prime for anything spectacular in any case.

Reading this paragraph has made me realize that this is how I'm operating now. I don't have the 60-250 yet to cover my long end (55-300 is ok for me now), but at the wide end I'm finding that I'm doing just as you, using my primes/limiteds when the 18-135 isn't good enough.

In my own case, I bought the 18-135 after having the Tamron 17-50 for many years, mostly for its WR. From my experience I find the Tamron is the better zoom, but I find I use the 18-135 more often because it is more versatile as a zoom. When it came to a need for improved quality, I ended up buying a 15, 21, 43, and 77 recently (in a fit of LBA) and love having the combination of the 18-135 with those primes. My poor 17-50 is getting little use these days, although it might get more use if I ever get the 60-250.

[arkav]

I don't know - I thought the Tamron 90 was pretty well made. It generally doesn't require a hood either (for either flare or damage protection), because the front element is set pretty far back-in from the front of the lens.

For most of the year, I shoot almost exclusively with a macro lens, almost every day. I'm often hiking in rough environments, and I've taken a few tumbles while clambering over rocks, etc.
I've never held the Tamron macro, but if the build is anything like the other Tamron lenses I've owned, I think I'd have a ziplock full of pieces at this point in time.

Based on my recent experience with the 17-50, I don't think I'll go near another Tamron lens again, but that has nothing to do with it being bumped.

[normhead]

WOW - some people think it's a tragedy when they miss 10% of their shots, but you think missing 90% is OK!

Personally I don't think missing any is OK. That why I like primes... use the 18-135 to frame and get my focal length down, if the shot warrants it, switch to a prime. If you want every shot, you're not shooting zooms, 2.8 zooms or otherwise.

Do you know that I couldn't find a single compelling image from my DA55-300 over 135mm? Not a single one. While over 80% of my images from my F*300 are better than my DA55-300 images, 0% are worse.

I'd repeat myself... easier to just say read the above..

IN the Photozone test the 55-300 is rated excellent in one out of 30 categories. Barely excellent at 55mm centre, and no where else.

The DA 18-135 is excellent 12 of 64, and at 24mm and ƒ5.6 is rated excellent both centre and edge. And many of those 18-135 "excellent" scores are very close to perfect. The strong point of the DA 55-300 is it's stronger than any other available cheap lens available for Pentax at 300mm in the low end of "very good", rated at 1882 lw/ph at ƒ11, on a 16 MP camera.

The FA*300 is rated excellent... at 2082 @ ƒ5.6 on a 10 Mp camera. So are we surprised that this would be true? hardly. But in terms of measured performance, the DA 55-300 is not in the same category as a lens like the 18-135. The DA 55-300 is excellent at one focal length and one ƒ stop to the 13 the

The DA 18-135 is centre sharp in 13 of the 18 test FL/aperture combinations and has excellent excellent or very close to excellent edge sharpness in 2 of the 18. And at it's best is 2649 out of 2750, very close to perfect.

The DA 55-300 is centre sharp in 1 of the 15 tests FL/Aperture combinations, isn't close to excellent edge sharpness anywhere in it's range and has a best score of 2089 out of 2350.

Saying I can't get better images out of my DA 18-135 than you can out of a DA 16-50 because a 55-300 can't beat a 300 prime. That's a pretty desperate maneuver in your debating strategy, and it's not even a little bit difficult to show the flaw in the logic. You should read a little more carefully. You might comprehend what I'm saying.

But, if you want to compare zooms to primes, check out my DA*60-250 @ 200mm compared to (2254 lw/ph (which kicks an FA*300 4.5's (2082 lw/ph @ ƒ5.6 butt by the way) to a DA*200 2074 @ ƒ5.6.

The FA*300 however has the .4 pixel CA to make it a stellar lens despite less than impressive resolution numbers as does the 200mm prime. While the 60-250 is above prime resolution for lw/ph, it's not in prime territory for CA.

So to summarize... the fact that you can get a better image with an F* 300 prime than you can with a DA 55-300 zoom, doesn't mean you can't get a better image with a DA 18-135 than you can with a DA*16-50. The numbers for the DA 18-135 are much better than the 55-300. Like it's in a whole different class.

Check the numbers for yourself, see if I'm right.

[EarlVonTapia]

Norm, you're putting a lot of effort into defending a pretty pedestrian optic. I've seen your pics that you share with the 18-135. Some of them are quite good. Some of them just don't really do anything for me.

I'm not a fan of the 16-50, yet Rondec seems to barf magic out of that thing quite easily.

In the end, I think it's a case of different strokes for different folks. Some people just won't warm to the 18-135 no matter what. I think that's okay.

Also, for all your reliance on Photozone's numbers in defending the 18-135, you fail to note that PZ's ultimate recommendation is to stay away from the lens.

Verdict

We were quite enthusiastic about the Pentax DA-SMC 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 ED AL [IF] WR at the time we received it. Regarding the high pricing of the lens we were expecting a very good performance throughout its broad zoom range and all that in a very compact, high quality body. Unfortunately the testing reality revealed a mediocre optical performance at best. A lens with a 7.5x zoom ratio may be quite ambitious but other manufacturers managed to design pretty good lenses with an even more extreme range. The Pentax lens is actually very good to even excellent in the image center but the borders/corners suffer from massive field curvature at the wide end and plain sofness at tele settings. This is certainly no issue for portraits and such but you don't really want use this lens for architecture or landscape photography here. This is also in so far surprising because the (cheaper) Pentax SMC-DA 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 (a Tamron design) was actually very usable here. The secondary characteristics (distortions, vignetting, CAs) are about class-average. A very positive aspect is the build quality of the lens - the lens body is based on tightly assembled, high quality materials and the weather sealing is a quite unique selling point. The new DC AF motor may not be as fast as Pentax' SDM but it's quite fast and comparatively quiet. The biggest problem of the lens is its pricing which is simply not in line with the optical performance. Better consider the Pentax DA-SMC 17-70mm f/4 SDM instead which is a far better lens.

Just to mention again - we couldn't believe the rather poor performance so we asked the local Pentax service in Hamburg/Germany for an assessment of the situation. Result: the lens is within factory specifications.

Pentax SMC-DA 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 ED AL [IF] WR - Review / Lens Test - Sample Images & Verdict

[Rondec]

Personally I don't think missing any is OK. That why I like primes... use the 18-135 to frame and get my focal length down, if the shot warrants it, switch to a prime. If you want every shot, you're not shooting zooms, 2.8 zooms or otherwise.



I'd repeat myself... easier to just say read the above..

IN the Photozone test the 55-300 is rated excellent in one out of 30 categories. Barely excellent at 55mm centre, and no where else.

The DA 18-135 is excellent 12 of 64, and at 24mm and ƒ5.6 is rated excellent both centre and edge. And many of those 18-135 "excellent" scores are very close to perfect. The strong point of the DA 55-300 is it's stronger than any other available cheap lens available for Pentax at 300mm in the low end of "very good", rated at 1882 lw/ph at ƒ11, on a 16 MP camera.

The FA*300 is rated excellent... at 2082 @ ƒ5.6 on a 10 Mp camera. So are we surprised that this would be true? hardly. But in terms of measured performance, the DA 55-300 is not in the same category as a lens like the 18-135. The DA 55-300 is excellent at one focal length and one ƒ stop to the 13 the

The DA 18-135 is centre sharp in 13 of the 18 test FL/aperture combinations and has excellent excellent or very close to excellent edge sharpness in 2 of the 18. And at it's best is 2649 out of 2750, very close to perfect.

The DA 55-300 is centre sharp in 1 of the 15 tests FL/Aperture combinations, isn't close to excellent edge sharpness anywhere in it's range and has a best score of 2089 out of 2350.

Saying I can't get better images out of my DA 18-135 than you can out of a DA 16-50 because a 55-300 can't beat a 300 prime. That's a pretty desperate maneuver in your debating strategy, and it's not even a little bit difficult to show the flaw in the logic. You should read a little more carefully. You might comprehend what I'm saying.

But, if you want to compare zooms to primes, check out my DA*60-250 @ 200mm compared to (2254 lw/ph (which kicks an FA*300 4.5's (2082 lw/ph @ ƒ5.6 butt by the way) to a DA*200 2074 @ ƒ5.6.

The FA*300 however has the .4 pixel CA to make it a stellar lens despite less than impressive resolution numbers as does the 200mm prime. While the 60-250 is above prime resolution for lw/ph, it's not in prime territory for CA.

So to summarize... the fact that you can get a better image with an F* 300 prime than you can with a DA 55-300 zoom, doesn't mean you can't get a better image with a DA 18-135 than you can with a DA*16-50. The numbers for the DA 18-135 are much better than the 55-300. Like it's in a whole different class.

Check the numbers for yourself, see if I'm right.

You really pick and choose your numbers, Norm. I get that you like the 18-135. It is a fine lens. I think Photozone had a bad copy, based on the photos I have seen that folks turn out from it. But that said, the 16-50 is in a different class and it turns out really nice photos, even when you are shooting at wide apertures. The Tamron 17-50 f2.8 is in the same class with the 16-50, has less fringing, probably a little less flare, but isn't sealed (something I value, since I do a lot of outdoor photography in the elements) and doesn't have the same contrast and colors I get with the 16-50.

I really am not trying to sell anyone on the lens. I just think picking a couple of numbers out of a Photozone review that really crushed the 18-135 and claiming that those prove that it is a better lens is certainly distorting the review. It was a negative review with some dismal photos taken from the long end, in particular. Fortunately, there are a lot better copies out there, but I wouldn't use that review to support any claims about how awesome the 18-135 is.

[normhead]

You really pick and choose your numbers, Norm. I get that you like the 18-135. It is a fine lens. I think Photozone had a bad copy, based on the photos I have seen that folks turn out from it. But that said, the 16-50 is in a different class and it turns out really nice photos, even when you are shooting at wide apertures. The Tamron 17-50 f2.8 is in the same class with the 16-50, has less fringing, probably a little less flare, but isn't sealed (something I value, since I do a lot of outdoor photography in the elements) and doesn't have the same contrast and colors I get with the 16-50.

I really am not trying to sell anyone on the lens. I just think picking a couple of numbers out of a Photozone review that really crushed the 18-135 and claiming that those prove that it is a better lens is certainly distorting the review. It was a negative review with some dismal photos taken from the long end, in particular. Fortunately, there are a lot better copies out there, but I wouldn't use that review to support any claims about how awesome the 18-135 is.

Where did I pick and choose my numbers?

I just think picking a couple of numbers out of a Photozone review that really crushed the 18-135

That's insulting... I've studied the numbers and picked the one that illustrate what I'm talking about. They are in no way picked to be unfair to one lens or the other. Show me how you think my examples don't support the points I'm making about these lenses. I'm interested in what a lens can do for me. The positives. As for the negatives, areas where the lens is weak, don't do that. it's easy. DOn't use an 18-135 for a landscape at 100mm, but if you're shooting a pseudo macro, it will do just fine.

I just think picking a couple of numbers out of a Photozone review that really crushed the 18-135 and claiming that those prove that it is a better lens is certainly distorting the review.

Ya, I know, actually looking at the test results is cheating. Just listen to the guy's opinion. "It's all on the surface, no need to look any deeper here folks." Unfortunately, from my perspective, that's no way to understand anything. Thats the cheap easy and pretty much lazy man's way out.

What I do is, I try and explain the results i see, and I use the numbers to try and make sense of it. Unless you're saying people's personal opinions are all that matters. What I like to say is, "These are my opinions, and look, these are numbers done by some independent testers, that support those opinions. That is not cherry picking numbers, that is research. That is using what other people have seen in tests etc. that support what I see.

Do I put much stock in folks who see something different but can't explain what they see with any kind of rational, as has been done in most of the recommendations in this thread? To me that's just shoddy. That's just some guy saying "I love this lens and this other lens is junk because I like mine better." If my "cherry picked numbers" are worthless, how worthless is the stuff posted where the guys can't even find any data to support their case?

I have no problem with you loving your DA*16-50. But I've told you exactly why I avoid it. It's not a lot better than an 18-135, and it's not as good as a prime. And in the area around 24mm, the 18-135 used to advantage can produce better images, according to the same photozone article that trashed the 18-135, and the 18-135 covers 50-135 without a lens change if all you need is centre sharpness.

Now what is this "cherry picking " non-sense? That is discussing the strengths of the lens. Not cherry picking.

[DSims]

For most of the year, I shoot almost exclusively with a macro lens, almost every day. I'm often hiking in rough environments, and I've taken a few tumbles while clambering over rocks, etc.
I've never held the Tamron macro, but if the build is anything like the other Tamron lenses I've owned, I think I'd have a ziplock full of pieces at this point in time.

For most people, I don't think the build quality is a problem. It seems better than the Tamron 17-50 or 28-75, for example. But in your case I can see it's good you have the 100WR, like I do.

[bandarbalu]

If you plan to use it as a Macro lens, the lack of quickshift may be annoying - depending on your style. I find I really like the quickshift on my DFA 100WR. I like the WR as well, but that may or may not be a factor for you.

There's a hefty price differencial, and I did think hard about getting the Tamron. I think all in all, I'm happy with the DFA macro. Heck, if I had opted for the Tamron, I probably would have broken it several times by now.

No intent to hijack the thread here, but I hear you. The Tammy gives me a chance to sample a sharp lens on a camera capable of resolving far more detail than I've had access to previously, but not much else. Having trolled B&H, Adorama, this buy/sell site, and FM for a month now, I realize that I can only afford one or two of my wants in any one lens right now, but if I pick and choose carefully with patience, I can collect most of those wants, one lens at a time, and then figure out what they're really worth to me. For example, with my Olympus gear, I had no WR option whatsoever, but the dust-reduction was so effective I never had to worry about changing lenses at the spur of the moment (in dry conditions, of course). My Canon friend has his sensor cleaned every couple months because of dust build-up, and I can't ever see myself doing that, so I might end up finding that one zoom is my preference for Pentax if it minimizes dust issues from lens changes. Then again, if dust is a non-issue, I can see myself gravitating to a bag full of primes, because it never rains in Southern California!

[Rondec]

Where did I pick and choose my numbers?



That's insulting... I've studied the numbers and picked the one that illustrate what I'm talking about. They are in no way picked to be unfair to one lens or the other. Show me how you think my examples don't support the points I'm making about these lenses. I'm interested in what a lens can do for me. The positives. As for the negatives, areas where the lens is weak, don't do that. it's easy. DOn't use an 18-135 for a landscape at 100mm, but if you're shooting a pseudo macro, it will do just fine.



Ya, I know, actually looking at the test results is cheating. Just listen to the guy's opinion. "It's all on the surface, no need to look any deeper here folks." Unfortunately, from my perspective, that's no way to understand anything. Thats the cheap easy and pretty much lazy man's way out.

What I do is, I try and explain the results i see, and I use the numbers to try and make sense of it. Unless you're saying people's personal opinions are all that matters. What I like to say is, "These are my opinions, and look, these are numbers done by some independent testers, that support those opinions. That is not cherry picking numbers, that is research. That is using what other people have seen in tests etc. that support what I see.

Do I put much stock in folks who see something different but can't explain what they see with any kind of rational, as has been done in most of the recommendations in this thread? To me that's just shoddy. That's just some guy saying "I love this lens and this other lens is junk because I like mine better." If my "cherry picked numbers" are worthless, how worthless is the stuff posted where the guys can't even find any data to support their case?

I have no problem with you loving your DA*16-50. But I've told you exactly why I avoid it. It's not a lot better than an 18-135, and it's not as good as a prime. And in the area around 24mm, the 18-135 used to advantage can produce better images, according to the same photozone article that trashed the 18-135, and the 18-135 covers 50-135 without a lens change if all you need is centre sharpness.

Now what is this "cherry picking " non-sense? That is discussing the strengths of the lens. Not cherry picking.

Klaus said that the 16-50's issues with chromatic aberrations were pretty much noted at the wide end and resolved by the time you stopped down at f4. He rates the 16-50 as 3 stars optically, while he rated the 18-135 at 1.5 stars (an unusually low number for Photozone). Oh well, hopefully people don't just buy lenses purely based on CA numbers.