[Driline]

If not, I'll have to either wait until next Christmas or perhaps buy used sooner than that...

Buying used with warranty from Henry's of Canada was a smart choice for me. Keep your eye out on flea bay. They come up from time to time.

[loco]

I've never been tempted by the 16-50. The 50-135 is a fantastic lens, for sure, based on what I've seen, but since I have several lenses that cover that range, I can't really talk myself into spending the money for it. I always take my 18-135 with me on photo trips and I always bring other lenses, too, such as the FA 31 or the DA 15. While I'm sure I might get slightly better results with those lenses, I usually find that I never bother changing. The 18-135 stays on the camera. To me, it's not worth the hassle to change lenses in the field unless there is a really good reason to do so.

My primes tend to be used for specific purposes and the zoom is great as a walkaround. And no matter what anyone says, I find I get really good results with the 18-135. Maybe I got a superb copy? It's weather resistant, lightweight, and fast enough for landscape work. It even does decent portraits in a pinch.

Obviously, if you need the slightly faster speed and don't mind the weight and changing lenses, the OP's combo would certainly give excellent results. For me, the 18-135 is good enough.

[normhead]

You guys need to go to photozone. and see what you can do with these lenses. The 18-135 can hold it's own with the 16-50, no problem, and the DA 16-50 is worse for chromatic aberrations. If you look at the charts you're going to see, knowing where the strengths of the 18-135 and 16-50 are, of course you can get better results with DA 18-135 than you can with the DA*16-50. Look at 24 mm ƒ5.6 or ƒ8 or 50mm ƒ5.6 or ƒ8. Look at the CA numbers at 50mm @ 5.6. Over 1 at ƒ5.6. For the DA 18-135, under .7. Given that the DA*16-50 is more than 3 times the money, from my perspective it's just a complete waste of money, unless you need ƒ2.8 or 16mm I have to say, I don't like trashing other people's lenses, but in this case, there's a few folks who have earned it. The DA 18-135 is not a wide aperture lens, and it needs to be stopped down, but if you use it to it's strength, it should kick the DA*16-50's butt. I went for the Tamron 17-50. If you look at the Tamron 17-50, by the charts it's a huge improvement over the DA*16-50, and I can buy both the 18-135 and the Tarmon 17-50 for $400 less than the DA*16-50 and have WR on the 18-135 and a couple hundred dollars left over.

The DA* 50-135 by comparison looks to be a standout piece of glass. But people going on about the DA*16-50 just leaves me shaking my head, both the images I've seen on line, and the numbers. It's excellent in sharpness edge to edge in every category except

To me it's a no brainer. I've got the best corner to corner zoom in the Tamron 17-50, if you look at the stats, wide open it just blows the 16-50 away in everything but maximum centre sharpness. The Tamron at 16 compared to the DA*16-50 at ƒ2.8 at any focal length, the Tamron simply leaves it in the dust. People who shoot with the DA*16-50 complaining about the DA 18-135's edges really need to look at the DA*16-50, @ ƒ2.8, at any focal length. The 16-50 in the wide end, wide open, is almost as bad as the18-135 in the long end. But hey, does anyone go on and on about that? Maybe they should.

But hey, it's your money.

[DogLover]

You guys need to go to photozone. and see what you can do with these lenses. The 18-135 can hold it's own with the 16-50, no problem, and the DA 16-50 is worse for chromatic aberrations. If you look at the charts you're going to see, knowing where the strengths of the 18-135 and 16-50 are, of course you can get better results with DA 18-135 than you can with the DA*16-50. Look at 24 mm ƒ5.6 or ƒ8 or 50mm ƒ5.6 or ƒ8. Look at the CA numbers at 50mm @ 5.6. Over 1 at ƒ5.6. For the DA 18-135, under .7. Given that the DA*16-50 is more than 3 times the money, from my perspective it's just a complete waste of money, unless you need ƒ2.8 or 16mm I have to say, I don't like trashing other people's lenses, but in this case, there's a few folks who have earned it. The DA 18-135 is not a wide aperture lens, and it needs to be stopped down, but if you use it to it's strength, it should kick the DA*16-50's butt. I went for the Tamron 17-50. If you look at the Tamron 17-50, by the charts it's a huge improvement over the DA*16-50, and I can buy both the 18-135 and the Tarmon 17-50 for $400 less than the DA*16-50 and have WR on the 18-135 and a couple hundred dollars left over.

The DA* 50-135 by comparison looks to be a standout piece of glass. But people going on about the DA*16-50 just leaves me shaking my head, both the images I've seen on line, and the numbers. It's excellent in sharpness edge to edge in every category except

To me it's a no brainer. I've got the best corner to corner zoom in the Tamron 17-50, if you look at the stats, wide open it just blows the 16-50 away in everything but maximum centre sharpness. The Tamron at 16 compared to the DA*16-50 at ƒ2.8 at any focal length, the Tamron simply leaves it in the dust. People who shoot with the DA*16-50 complaining about the DA 18-135's edges really need to look at the DA*16-50, @ ƒ2.8, at any focal length. The 16-50 in the wide end, wide open, is almost as bad as the18-135 in the long end. But hey, does anyone go on and on about that? Maybe they should.

But hey, it's your money.

I'm not sure you read all the responses here. The 16-50 hasn't really received a whole lotta love. Several of us have written about we replaced it with. I still think the results you get from it are far and away better than what I've seen from the 18-135, though. I couldn't care less what the numbers show on the tests, images from the 18-135, at least the vast majority of them, just have no "oomph" to them. I don't think posting the test results along with the photos would make them look any better, but I could be wrong. As I said before, it's a kit lens. The results you get from it look like a pretty decent kit lens, and if that's ok with you, then have at it. It is your money.

Personally, if I'm not trying to get the best quality I possibly can, then I don't even need to be messing around with a DSLR. Compacts and PnS's are getting better all the time. My equipment represents what is currently the optimum cost/bulk/quality ratio for me. If I were to decide that I need to make some changes to that in favor of weight/bulk/cost, then I'm going to a whole other type of system, not worse lenses on my current system.

[normhead]

I don't think posting the test results along with the photos would make them look any better, but I could be wrong. As I said before, it's a kit lens.

OK, I get it, you say you've seen better results out of the DA *16-50. I say do blind test and show me the results. We've seen lots of people in here go on and on about what they can see, and come up really lame on the blind tests. As for the kit lens thing.... I guess you've never seen my comparison of the 18-55 with the 77 and a few others. The differences in lw/ph are few less than 10%, and no one has yet to prove to me that they can see 10%. However what I have proved to myself over and over is that if I look at two lenses like the DA*60-250 @90 mm, and the Tamron 90, the Tamron will have better micro-contrast and more punch, because of it's lower CA values. People will tell you they can correct CA with software. You can, but you cannot correct it to give you decent micro-contrast...

So if you really want images that pop, look at lenses like the 77 and 31 that have really low CA numbers. IN my experience, that's what gets you pop. Not a CA disaster like the 16-50. If the numerical values are similar, the lens with the best control of CA will produce the best image every time. And that's why I'm happy using the 18-135, and 60-250, bypassing the 16-50. I'll carry my 21, 35, 40 50 and 70mm lenses to give me the ultimate quality. I certainly won't be looking for that from most zooms. Although the 50-135 is quite good at 90, it's largely unimpressive. Especially since the Tarmon 90 is so good. Look at the numbers for the 60-250. That's what a good zoom can look like. As I said not as good as the Tarmon 90, or my Sigma 70 but darn good. The DA*16-50 and DA*50-135, there are some CA issues there. Personally, if you don't need ƒ2.8, my guess is the DA 18-135 and DA* 60-250 will give you a lot more pop. Especially if you have primes to fill in for the 18-135 when appropriate.

[DogLover]

OK, I get it, you say you've seen better results out of the DA *16-50. I say do blind test and show me the results. We've seen lots of people in here go on and on about what they can see, and come up really lame on the blind tests. As for the kit lens thing.... I guess you've never seen my comparison of the 18-55 with the 77 and a few others. The differences in lw/ph are few less than 10%, and no one has yet to prove to me that they can see 10%. However what I have proved to myself over and over is that if I look at two lenses like the DA*60-250 @90 mm, and the Tamron 90, the Tamron will have better micro-contrast and more punch, because of it's lower CA values. People will tell you they can correct CA with software. You can, but you cannot correct it to give you decent micro-contrast...

So if you really want images that pop, look at lenses like the 77 and 31 that have really low CA numbers. IN my experience, that's what gets you pop. Not a CA disaster like the 16-50. If the numerical values are similar, the lens with the best control of CA will produce the best image every time. And that's why I'm happy using the 18-135, and 60-250, bypassing the 16-50. I'll carry my 21, 35, 40 50 and 70mm lenses to give me the ultimate quality. I certainly won't be looking for that from most zooms. Although the 50-135 is quite good at 90, it's largely unimpressive. Especially since the Tarmon 90 is so good. Look at the numbers for the 60-250. That's what a good zoom can look like. As I said not as good as the Tarmon 90, or my Sigma 70 but darn good. The DA*16-50 and DA*50-135, there are some CA issues there. Personally, if you don't need ƒ2.8, my guess is the DA 18-135 and DA* 60-250 will give you a lot more pop. Especially if you have primes to fill in for the 18-135 when appropriate.

Agreed, I guess, and if you look at my signature you'll see that most of my lenses are primes. That is what I use probably 90% of the time. But the discussion in this thread is about zooms.

[DSims]

I couldn't care less what the numbers show on the tests, images from the 18-135, at least the vast majority of them, just have no "oomph" to them. I don't think posting the test results along with the photos would make them look any better, but I could be wrong. As I said before, it's a kit lens. The results you get from it look like a pretty decent kit lens, and if that's ok with you, then have at it. It is your money.

Personally, if I'm not trying to get the best quality I possibly can, then I don't even need to be messing around with a DSLR. Compacts and PnS's are getting better all the time. My equipment represents what is currently the optimum cost/bulk/quality ratio for me.

I agree with you. The vast majority of images I've seen from the DA18-135 lack the necessary qualities to make them truly compelling. And it's not just the photographer. These qualities can even be difficult to categorize at times, but they're what makes you stop to look at certain images (while disregarding others). Yet I still don't deny that it's a very good lens in the right circumstances, and I've considered getting one for travel ever since they came out. But somehow, every time I thought I might get one, I quickly came back to your conclusion - If I'm taking my DSLR, I'll take at least a couple of my better lenses. Otherwise I'll just use my Olympus XZ-1.

Agreed, I guess, and if you look at my signature you'll see that most of my lenses are primes. That is what I use probably 90% of the time. But the discussion in this thread is about zooms.

As I'm sure Norm knows, I don't agree with about half of what he says, and I'm not afraid to say so. But if you haven't seen his work, you should look at some of his images - they're very impressive! I think he gets the best results I've ever seen out of those lenses. They suit his style, and he really knows how to get the most out of them.

OK, I get it, you say you've seen better results out of the DA *16-50. I say do blind test and show me the results. We've seen lots of people in here go on and on about what they can see, and come up really lame on the blind tests.

So if you really want images that pop, look at lenses like the 77 and 31 that have really low CA numbers. IN my experience, that's what gets you pop. Not a CA disaster like the 16-50. If the numerical values are similar, the lens with the best control of CA will produce the best image every time. And that's why I'm happy using the 18-135, and 60-250, bypassing the 16-50. Although the 50-135 is quite good at 90, it's largely unimpressive. Especially since the Tarmon 90 is so good. Look at the numbers for the 60-250. That's what a good zoom can look like. As I said not as good as the Tarmon 90, or my Sigma 70 but darn good. The DA*16-50 and DA*50-135, there are some CA issues there. Personally, if you don't need ƒ2.8, my guess is the DA 18-135 and DA* 60-250 will give you a lot more pop. Especially if you have primes to fill in for the 18-135 when appropriate.

It sounds like you're concentrating on certain aspects of an image's "pop," and completely ignoring others. Better-aligned focus in all the colors simultaneously (i.e. a lack of CA) is only one factor. Subject isolation, Bokeh, transition to OOF - all these factors matter greatly as well. And naturally so do many other characteristics, including color rendition.

I KNOW you can't provide any 50mm blind tests comparing the DA*16-50 and DA18-135 at f/3.5. Nor can you provide any 135mm blind tests comparing the DA*60-250, DA18-135 and DA*50-135 at f/3.5! Yet I shoot both these DA* lenses around that aperture most of the time. In fact, I often shoot my FA*85 around f/3.5 too, so it's not just what I shoot at because it's as wide as the aperture can go (with good IQ) on the 50-135 - it's actually the amount of subject isolation and DOF I want anyway! Yet I can't even use that aperture on your two lenses. So what good would those other two lenses be to me? Very little, unless I happen to desperately need the wider or longer end mounted on the same camera at the same time.



Still, I would sincerely be interested in seeing links to where you've shown some of these tests, because I've seen that you produce very good images with your lenses. I imagine the IQ characteristics you're comparing are very important to some (perhaps even most) shooters. And I'm also very curious as to what aspects they don't cover, which may be important to other types of photographers.

BTW, I sold my Tamron 90 macro, while I still have my "largely unimpressive" DA*50-135. And I replaced the Tamron 90 with the D FA 100 WR macro. The Tamron 90 is very impressive (perhaps Tamron's best K-mount lens), but these other two lenses fit my needs, style and tastes better.

---

Last edited by DSims; 12-28-2014 at 02:53 AM.

[normhead]

I agree with you. The vast majority of images I've seen from the DA18-135 lack the necessary qualities to make them truly compelling. And it's not just the photographer. These qualities can even be difficult to categorize at times, but they're what makes you stop to look at certain images (while disregarding others). Yet I still don't deny that it's a very good lens in the right circumstances, and I've considered getting one for travel ever since they came out. But somehow, every time I thought I might get one, I quickly came back to your conclusion - If I'm taking my DSLR, I'll take at least a couple of my better lenses. Otherwise I'll just use my Olympus XZ-1.



As I'm sure Norm knows, I don't agree with about half of what he says, and I'm not afraid to say so. But if you haven't seen his work, you should look at some of his images - they're very impressive! I think he gets the best results I've ever seen out of those lenses. They suit his style, and he really knows how to get the most out of them.

It sounds like you're concentrating on certain aspects of an image's "pop," and completely ignoring others. Better-aligned focus in all the colors simultaneously (i.e. a lack of CA) is only one factor. Subject isolation, Bokeh, transition to OOF - all these factors matter greatly as well. And naturally so do many other characteristics, including color rendition.

I KNOW you can't provide any 50mm blind tests comparing the DA*16-50 and DA18-135 at f/3.5. Nor can you provide any 135mm blind tests comparing the DA*60-250, DA18-135 and DA*50-135 at f/3.5! Yet I shoot both these DA* lenses around that aperture most of the time. In fact, I often shoot my FA*85 around f/3.5 too, so it's not just what I shoot at because it's as wide as the aperture can go (with good IQ) on the 50-135 - it's actually the amount of subject isolation and DOF I want anyway! Yet I can't even use that aperture on your two lenses. So what good would those other two lenses be to me? Very little, unless I happen to desperately need the wider or longer end mounted on the same camera at the same time.



Still, I would sincerely be interested in seeing links to where you've shown some of these tests, because I've seen that you produce very good images with your lenses. I imagine the IQ characteristics you're comparing are very important to some (perhaps even most) shooters. And I'm also very curious as to what aspects they don't cover, which may be important to other types of photographers.

BTW, I sold my Tamron 90 macro, while I still have my "largely unimpressive" DA*50-135. And I replaced the Tamron 90 with the D FA 100 WR macro. The Tamron 90 is very impressive (perhaps Tamron's best K-mount lens), but these other two lenses fit my needs, style and tastes better.

From what I've seen of the 100 macro, whether you use the Tamron 900 or 100 macro is personal preference... and the Pentax has better build quality...

so it's not just what I shoot at because it's as wide as the aperture can go (with good IQ) on the 50-135 - it's actually the amount of subject isolation and DOF I want anyway!

There you have why those 2.8 lenses are what you want. If you need ƒ2.8, and subject isolation can be part of that need, you'll do fine with the 16-50 and 50-135.

Personally, I don't understand why the DA*s have the CA values they do. The Tamron 17-50 and Pentax DA*60-250 show that lenses in those focal lengths can control CA. The DA*16-50 and DA*50-135 are supposed to be premium glass. I end up looking at the values for the 60-250 and wondering, did the same people design all three of these lenses? What happened?

Look at the numbers for the Sigma 18-35. The sharpness numbers are second to non and the CA numbers
are all well less than a pixel, at 35mm, the CA is practically negligible. There is a lot of room for improvement in those Pentax lenses.

The CA numbers for the DA*50-135 and the FA 77.



My feeling is, they could have done better. SO for me, the 18-135 does just fine, until it's prime time. But the DA*16-50 and DA*50-135 are in the same category. I can get much better shooting primes... until you get into a stack of primes lens like the 60-250 or Sigma 18-35 I don't want to pay the big bucks.

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.

[loco]

All of these were taken with the 18-135. Maybe they don't have much "oomph", but I was pleased with them. And even though I had the FA31 and DA15 with me, i didn't bother to change lenses. One day I'm going to take a trip and see how long I can leave the 18-135 in the bag. Maybe then I'll get some images with pop!

https://www.flickr.com/photos/locosphotos/sets/72157630890848634/

[normhead]

Images like this, taken as preliminary images, often end up being selected as among the best...



The most important aspect of whether or not you get keepers from a lens, is how much you use it, how often it's on your camera. There is of course a minimum standard to be met, but there are not many lenses of modern design that don't meet them, and most of those are super zooms. If it's not on your camera, you won't get good images with it.

With images like this one... really, it's not going to be better shot with a more expensive lens. This is the kind of image the 18-135 is made for.

[c.a.m]

All of these were taken with the 18-135. Maybe they don't have much "oomph", but I was pleased with them.

And it seems that many others are also pleased with them, judging by the number of comments and 'likes.'

Your series with the 18-135 helped to convince me to get this lens, even though I have the 50-135 and several good primes.

- Craig

[loco]

That's a fabulous shot, Norm!

And thanks so much, Craig, that's very kind of you! I hope you are enjoying the lens! Truth be told, if money was no object, I'd certainly have and enjoy the 50-135. I think I'd primarily use it for portraits.

[DogLover]

All of these were taken with the 18-135. Maybe they don't have much "oomph", but I was pleased with them. And even though I had the FA31 and DA15 with me, i didn't bother to change lenses. One day I'm going to take a trip and see how long I can leave the 18-135 in the bag. Maybe then I'll get some images with pop!

https://www.flickr.com/photos/locosphotos/sets/72157630890848634/

You have done a great job with the lens in these. Without a doubt, the best I have seen. You are obviously also very skilled when it comes to post processing. Well done!

[loco]

Thank you DogLover. If I can do well with the lens, anyone can. I primarily use it for landscapes. It is not as strong on the long end but is still usable for sure.

[Driline]

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

AHA! so you admit the 18-135 is inferior compared to the 16-50 & 50-135..... You all heard him say it. I know I did ...... LOL.

Hey question for you. Would you dump the 50-135 for the FA 77? I'm contemplating selling or trading my 50-135 for the FA 77. Once I do I'll have all the three Amigo's.