[TaoMaas]

I wouldn't worry about it. Use both lenses and be happy! Even though I have better quality lenses that cover these particular ranges, I'll often snap on my old Pentax 35-80 or 28-80 as a "walking around" lens.

[normhead]

A kit lens is what you use until you put the lens you really like on the camera. The 18-135 is designed to be a walk around do anything lens, and it's probably the best at that. But it is strongest at about 24mm. That is well under the range of your 35 to 80.

So to me, the answer is pretty obvious. You don't shoot where the 18-135 is strong. Where you do shoot, 35 to 80, I'm guessing if you shoot a lot between 70 an 80mm, the 18-135 has already started to lose edge sharpness at that point. For the picture you posted, although the 18-135 will probably beat your 35-80 in terms of centre sharpness, but your subject fills the whole frame, the edge sharpness is important, and it's quite possible your 35-80 out performs the 18-135 edge to edge, at that focal length, and for that type of image. As well, portraits often look better softer. If you do a lot of portrait work, this could be the softness/sharpness compromise that suits your style. In all lenses, not just kit lenses, you have to be aware of their strengths and where you should use them and where you shouldn't. Obviously 35-80 is in your wheelhouse.

I have a Pentax 35-80, and even though it's not highly rated I love the images from it. But, 35 is not wide angle on APS-c, and I'd miss a ton of wide angle landscape images, if I carried it instead of the 18-135, and a lot of pseudo macro images. So most of the time it stays home. I just isn't the same lens on APS-c it was on 35mm film.

Sounds like for you, your 35-80 is a completely workable lens though. Enjoy.

[Digitalis]

I've ended up deleting every single landscape and/or water photo I've taken so far. In my mind, that should be so simple to photograph, but all my efforts are complete rubbish! Its definitely a learning curve.

As a photography instructor - I'll let you in on a secret: don't delete those "crappy" images. Each "bad" image has some potential to it, find it, crop it until it works or find out why it didn't work at all: and try to improve on it. Landscape photography is never as easy as some believe it to be: sometimes the light happens, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes the whole composition is wrong, the focal length you have isn't long enough or wide enough or you didn't stop the lens down far enough for the scene - learn from your mistakes instead of throwing them out.


Pentax K5IIS - Sigma 15-30mm f/3.5-4.5 @ 15mm ISO 80 1/60th f/8

[trip]

Great image. As I understand it, there is often a trade-off between contrast and resolution in lens design. Both are relevant for perceived sharpness. Good micro contrast can enhance perceived sharpness but a lens with great resolution may not jump out as "sharp" because it lacks contrast. So your Pentax 18-135 may have better resolution if you are pixel peeping, but the Sigma may still produce images with a better all-round "feel" for sharpness, etc.

That's a great explanation, and seems in-line with what I'm seeing. Thanks!

I have no experience with 18-135 and don't want to blame it, but obviously the zoom range is x7,5 vs. Sigma x2,29.

I hadn't considered this either... so much to learn!

Why not post a few sample pics somewhere of the shots you are making with each and tell us what you like and hate about each even if you aren't ready to commit to a photo a day with either lens.

Great idea! A photo a day will be difficult to commit to with the weird, long shift hours I work, but it's a 4 days on/4 days off roster, so I think I'll do a couple runs of four days with each lens while on my days off and post the results. Stand by!

Photography is a legitimate art, and art is subjective. If you are liking the older lens just because, then that is fine. [...] If it is coming down to color rendition. Sometimes that's the way it goes. Perhaps you could try shooting raw and play with white balance in post processing?

I will definitely try that once I have a working laptop again; I don't mind a bit of work in processing- that's half the fun! I've never played with raw files before, so I'm looking forward to figuring it out.

I wouldn't worry about it. Use both lenses and be happy! Even though I have better quality lenses that cover these particular ranges, I'll often snap on my old Pentax 35-80 or 28-80 as a "walking around" lens.

I have had the Pentax lens out in the last few days and managed a few shots I'm really happy with, so I may have overreacted haha. Either way, I'm having fun!

The 18-135 is designed to be a walk around do anything lens, and it's probably the best at that. But it is strongest at about 24mm. That is well under the range of your 35 to 80.



So to me, the answer is pretty obvious. You don't shoot where the 18-135 is strong. Where you do shoot, 35 to 80, I'm guessing if you shoot a lot between 70 an 80mm, the 18-135 has already started to lose edge sharpness at that point. For the picture you posted, although the 18-135 will probably beat your 35-80 in terms of centre sharpness, but your subject fills the whole frame, the edge sharpness is important, and it's quite possible your 35-80 out performs the 18-135 edge to edge, at that focal length, and for that type of image. As well, portraits often look better softer. If you do a lot of portrait work, this could be the softness/sharpness compromise that suits your style. In all lenses, not just kit lenses, you have to be aware of their strengths and where you should use them and where you shouldn't. Obviously 35-80 is in your wheelhouse. [...] Sounds like for you, your 35-80 is a completely workable lens though. Enjoy.

All excellent points to consider, thank you! I think I'll have to sit down with it and compare different focal lengths, because the 18-135 has actually looked best to me in the 40-50mm range... but then, I can't recall if I've tried anything around 24mm. My list of things to try/comparisons to make keeps growing in line with how much time I spend on this forum haha... I'm going to be very busy!

As a photography instructor - I'll let you in on a secret: don't delete those "crappy" images. Each "bad" image has some potential to it, find it, crop it until it works or find out why it didn't work at all: and try to improve on it. Landscape photography is never as easy as some believe it to be: sometimes the light happens, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes the whole composition is wrong, the focal length you have isn't long enough or wide enough or you didn't stop the lens down far enough for the scene - learn from your mistakes instead of throwing them out.

Good advice! To date, the offending photos have just felt terribly... boring. I'll resist the pull of the "delete" button next time though, and post here for pointers first!

[savoche]

Drypenn, I will do NO SUCH THING!
... Because I *may* have bought an M 50/1.7 on eBay. My uh,.. finger slipped?

Good advice! To date, the offending photos have just felt terribly... boring. I'll resist the pull of the "delete" button next time though, and post here for pointers first!

Definitely good advice. I never delete pictures in-camera, and I rarely delete pictures afterwards. Sometimes if they are completely mis-focused or totally blown, but just "bad" pictures I keep - to learn from, and sometimes I go back and try to find a grain of gold in there somewhere. Most of the time I don't find it, but sometimes... And most times I learn something. (But then, with so much to learn it's hard not to! )

[UncleVanya]

It is good practice to try to avoid deleting in camera for multiple reasons. One that is not always known is that this causes more wear on the memory vs. simply waiting and formatting when you need to reuse the card. (By reducing the number of write cycles)