Comparison between DA 21 and the DA 18-135

6BQ5 · 01-17-2015, 11:11 AM

@Nicolas06 - Thank you for the great analysis! The DA 15 sounds intriguing but the distortion it and other UWA lenses produces scares me. It's good for some shots but not so good for most. I initially looked at the Sigma 12-24 FF lens but the corners turned me off. Even being FF so I could use it on my film body was not enough to win me over. The DA 12-24 improved on the Sigma 12-24 at the expense of FF capability but not enough to win me over. Sigma and Tamron have other attractive offerings which are wider in some cases and seem to produce great IQ. Still, the distortion is too much for me to bear. I must admit to myself that I am not an UWA shooter and that I would rather stitch images.

The DA 21 looks very attractive in terms of physical build and the IQ looks great too. Many think the DA 18-135mm is mediocre but I am impressed with its rendering. There's only so much detail someone can extract from a WA lens. The details take up such a small angular dimension that my K-30's pixels are just too big to resolve them. I think WA lenses should convey color and form more than pixel peeping detail. In that regard the DA 18-135 works well for me. The zoom lens is big whereas the prime is small. I can probably tolerate the heft. So, would there be a justifiable jump in IQ? Would this jump in IQ change the way I approach WA photography and lead me on a new path?

normhead · 01-17-2015, 11:16 AM

Hey... I love my 18-135, but when I have a shot for the 21 ltd. I take the 18-135 off the camera. It's not a big difference, the 21 makes me happier.

It has that "je ne said quoi"

Nicolas06 · 01-17-2015, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by 6BQ5

@Nicolas06 - Thank you for the great analysis! The DA 15 sounds intriguing but the distortion it and other UWA lenses produces scares me. It's good for some shots but not so good for most. I initially looked at the Sigma 12-24 FF lens but the corners turned me off. Even being FF so I could use it on my film body was not enough to win me over. The DA 12-24 improved on the Sigma 12-24 at the expense of FF capability but not enough to win me over. Sigma and Tamron have other attractive offerings which are wider in some cases and seem to produce great IQ. Still, the distortion is too much for me to bear. I must admit to myself that I am not an UWA shooter and that I would rather stitch images.

The DA 21 looks very attractive in terms of physical build and the IQ looks great too. Many think the DA 18-135mm is mediocre but I am impressed with its rendering. There's only so much detail someone can extract from a WA lens. The details take up such a small angular dimension that my K-30's pixels are just too big to resolve them. I think WA lenses should convey color and form more than pixel peeping detail. In that regard the DA 18-135 works well for me. The zoom lens is big whereas the prime is small. I can probably tolerate the heft. So, would there be a justifiable jump in IQ? Would this jump in IQ change the way I approach WA photography and lead me on a new path?

I can't really elabore too much on the 18-135, I tryed it, my father own it and me I had for quite some time 17-70 that I think was not that much better than 18-135. I gave it to my father that think the 17-70 is anyway better, maybe not at 24mm but overall, it is better for him, having both now.

What I can say is that now I shoot prime, I tend to care more of the color rendering in post processing, using DxO film pack. I also think I frame better overall. And you know what? I think it pay. The FA77 show obvious difference with the 18-135... because well it perform almost better at f/1.8 or at lest f/2.2. than the 18-135 at f/8 and the rendering is exquisite.

Even if the DA21 performance is not that present I think it manage to provide better colors and to keep better contrast in contra light. It is like half what the DA15 provide in that regard. On a DA15 shoot, you'll keep contrast and colors when other lenses will just be blown out and colors washed. The DA21 has this too, but less.

But let's be real... If you use your 18-135 around 24mm, you'll get pretty decent results. Your framing, the right angle, the choice of the light, the colors... Are all things that be more visible than the lense difference between DA21 & DA18-135.

This is not true from DA15 I think because of the bit more extreme perspective distortion but the exceptionnal flare resistance and contrast. This one is incredible. This is even far more visible for a prime like the FA77. Of course there the apperture that change everything, but there also this rendering again... On most photos, it will clearly show... Hey even the basic and innexpensive DA35 is a big change. Great colors, good resistance to flare, sharp at f/2.4 and good for low light needs.

But never all of this will replace the good framing, the right scene, the right angle, the right time...

The thing is you know when you decided you have an FA77, a DA35, then you want to be able to go out without any zoom at least on some occasions... So you get also that DA21. Because this is the most usefull focal length, and even if not as visible as the other it is still better. Used, it is quite unexpensive. It is also so much smaller and it's hood is so small that putting it is never an issue.

So now, when I shoot, even going to India for vacations, I just take the DA15, the DA21, the DA35 (plastic wonder) and the FA77. If I had to keep 2, that would be the 21 & the 77. DA15 while really usefull is more specialized and for some reason I tend to use less often around 35mm. This is not totally linked, but overall the pictures I take are better, at least to me...Because of the prime, because I hope I made some progress and because I also now master better the post processing.

IchabodCrane · 01-17-2015, 03:20 PM

@6BQ5 -- I have both the DA 18-135 and the DA 17-70. Sure, the DA 18-135 is a more versatile lens if you are looking to use it for telephoto. That said, my copy of the DA 17-70 is better than my copy of the DA 18-35 (which I think is a good copy). Center sharpness at mid focal lengths might be a hair better on the 18-35 but edge sharpness is better on the 17-70. The real difference is higher contrast and lower WA distortion on the 17-70. A little more richness in the colors, too. Lastly, the combination of lower distortion and that extra 1 mm at the wide end produces a wide angle difference that seems more like 2 mm. The downside to the DA 17-70 is it's a bigger lens.

01-17-2015, 12:31 PM	#18
Nicolas06 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 4,854	Originally posted by 6BQ5 @Nicolas06 - Thank you for the great analysis! The DA 15 sounds intriguing but the distortion it and other UWA lenses produces scares me. It's good for some shots but not so good for most. I initially looked at the Sigma 12-24 FF lens but the corners turned me off. Even being FF so I could use it on my film body was not enough to win me over. The DA 12-24 improved on the Sigma 12-24 at the expense of FF capability but not enough to win me over. Sigma and Tamron have other attractive offerings which are wider in some cases and seem to produce great IQ. Still, the distortion is too much for me to bear. I must admit to myself that I am not an UWA shooter and that I would rather stitch images. The DA 21 looks very attractive in terms of physical build and the IQ looks great too. Many think the DA 18-135mm is mediocre but I am impressed with its rendering. There's only so much detail someone can extract from a WA lens. The details take up such a small angular dimension that my K-30's pixels are just too big to resolve them. I think WA lenses should convey color and form more than pixel peeping detail. In that regard the DA 18-135 works well for me. The zoom lens is big whereas the prime is small. I can probably tolerate the heft. So, would there be a justifiable jump in IQ? Would this jump in IQ change the way I approach WA photography and lead me on a new path? I can't really elabore too much on the 18-135, I tryed it, my father own it and me I had for quite some time 17-70 that I think was not that much better than 18-135. I gave it to my father that think the 17-70 is anyway better, maybe not at 24mm but overall, it is better for him, having both now. What I can say is that now I shoot prime, I tend to care more of the color rendering in post processing, using DxO film pack. I also think I frame better overall. And you know what? I think it pay. The FA77 show obvious difference with the 18-135... because well it perform almost better at f/1.8 or at lest f/2.2. than the 18-135 at f/8 and the rendering is exquisite. Even if the DA21 performance is not that present I think it manage to provide better colors and to keep better contrast in contra light. It is like half what the DA15 provide in that regard. On a DA15 shoot, you'll keep contrast and colors when other lenses will just be blown out and colors washed. The DA21 has this too, but less. But let's be real... If you use your 18-135 around 24mm, you'll get pretty decent results. Your framing, the right angle, the choice of the light, the colors... Are all things that be more visible than the lense difference between DA21 & DA18-135. This is not true from DA15 I think because of the bit more extreme perspective distortion but the exceptionnal flare resistance and contrast. This one is incredible. This is even far more visible for a prime like the FA77. Of course there the apperture that change everything, but there also this rendering again... On most photos, it will clearly show... Hey even the basic and innexpensive DA35 is a big change. Great colors, good resistance to flare, sharp at f/2.4 and good for low light needs. But never all of this will replace the good framing, the right scene, the right angle, the right time... The thing is you know when you decided you have an FA77, a DA35, then you want to be able to go out without any zoom at least on some occasions... So you get also that DA21. Because this is the most usefull focal length, and even if not as visible as the other it is still better. Used, it is quite unexpensive. It is also so much smaller and it's hood is so small that putting it is never an issue. So now, when I shoot, even going to India for vacations, I just take the DA15, the DA21, the DA35 (plastic wonder) and the FA77. If I had to keep 2, that would be the 21 & the 77. DA15 while really usefull is more specialized and for some reason I tend to use less often around 35mm. This is not totally linked, but overall the pictures I take are better, at least to me...Because of the prime, because I hope I made some progress and because I also now master better the post processing. Last edited by Nicolas06; 01-17-2015 at 12:37 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Field Report: 10 Day Mediterranean Cruise: K-30, DA 18-135, DA 21 f3.2, Sigma 10-20	mgvh	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	13	08-17-2014 08:49 AM
35mm Comparison: DA35 f2.4, DAL 18-55, DA 18-135, Tamron 24-135, F 35-70	mgvh	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	07-29-2013 02:49 PM
Request: Comparison between DA 18-135mm and DA 17-70mm	gnaztee	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	23	02-25-2011 06:38 PM
Anyone with the DA 18-135 and the DA 16-45?	gazonk	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	12-10-2010 05:26 AM

01-17-2015, 11:11 AM	#16
6BQ5 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: Nevada, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,348 Original Poster	@Nicolas06 - Thank you for the great analysis! The DA 15 sounds intriguing but the distortion it and other UWA lenses produces scares me. It's good for some shots but not so good for most. I initially looked at the Sigma 12-24 FF lens but the corners turned me off. Even being FF so I could use it on my film body was not enough to win me over. The DA 12-24 improved on the Sigma 12-24 at the expense of FF capability but not enough to win me over. Sigma and Tamron have other attractive offerings which are wider in some cases and seem to produce great IQ. Still, the distortion is too much for me to bear. I must admit to myself that I am not an UWA shooter and that I would rather stitch images. The DA 21 looks very attractive in terms of physical build and the IQ looks great too. Many think the DA 18-135mm is mediocre but I am impressed with its rendering. There's only so much detail someone can extract from a WA lens. The details take up such a small angular dimension that my K-30's pixels are just too big to resolve them. I think WA lenses should convey color and form more than pixel peeping detail. In that regard the DA 18-135 works well for me. The zoom lens is big whereas the prime is small. I can probably tolerate the heft. So, would there be a justifiable jump in IQ? Would this jump in IQ change the way I approach WA photography and lead me on a new path?

01-17-2015, 11:16 AM	#17
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Hey... I love my 18-135, but when I have a shot for the 21 ltd. I take the 18-135 off the camera. It's not a big difference, the 21 makes me happier. It has that "je ne said quoi"

01-17-2015, 03:20 PM	#19
IchabodCrane Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,728	@6BQ5 -- I have both the DA 18-135 and the DA 17-70. Sure, the DA 18-135 is a more versatile lens if you are looking to use it for telephoto. That said, my copy of the DA 17-70 is better than my copy of the DA 18-35 (which I think is a good copy). Center sharpness at mid focal lengths might be a hair better on the 18-35 but edge sharpness is better on the 17-70. The real difference is higher contrast and lower WA distortion on the 17-70. A little more richness in the colors, too. Lastly, the combination of lower distortion and that extra 1 mm at the wide end produces a wide angle difference that seems more like 2 mm. The downside to the DA 17-70 is it's a bigger lens.