Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-29-2015, 05:38 PM   #1
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 385
18-135 is back and better than i thought

A few months ago i made a quick decision and sold my 18-135. I then bought a 16-50 and a 50-135 looking for that next step up in image quality. I wasnt overly turned on with the 16-50 and sold it but the 50-135 really blew me away. Problem is, for a travel or one lens solution, being limited to 50mm on the short end eliminates alot of shots. I was in a camera shop the other day and they had a used 18-135 so i grabbed it. I have done some testing with it to make sure i got a good copy and am very happy with the results. When i had the first copy, i wasnt aware how good this lens gets when stopped down to F8 or even better F11.

Here are some of my tests that show how much better this lens gets towards the edges at F11. Center sharpness is pretty well the same from wide open. I also have the same examples at 35mm, 50mm and 135 if anyone is interested in seeing them.











Here is a fun little test. Before you look, try and figure out which is from the 18-135 and which is from the 50-135. These results i found to be the most surprising.









03-29-2015, 07:08 PM   #2
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,457
Stopped down is when it starts to shine. Every lens has its sweet spots and if you take time to learn the lens you will see it pays off in final quality of images.
I just spent 5 hrs learning a Samyang 14mm from top to bottom with calibration and learning the distance scale in practice and various apertures......Even produced my own shooting chart for it.
The 18-135 is a very good lens and its a favorite that is often overlooked because people don't take the time to learn it and use its strong points. I don't use mine past about 100mm for anything significant except pure fun.....my copy just doesn't have it at the long end for sharpness compared to other lenses in my bag that are even considered lesser lenses by many.
Congrats on your experiences with it......Looks like your headed in the right direction and got a good copy to boot !
The next to the last one is the 18-135 !

Last edited by Dlanor Sekao; 03-29-2015 at 07:20 PM.
03-29-2015, 07:41 PM   #3
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
mgvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: MD
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,029
I don't have the 50-135, but I do like my 18-135. I would guess that the first of the two pairs is the 18-135 simply because--if yours is anything like mine--it tends to be a bit darker/more saturated than my other lenses. So, the deeper, darker blue looks like the 18-135 to me.
03-29-2015, 10:48 PM   #4
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 12,145
The second image is from the 18-135 (it has some purple, bluish color aberrations), the first image is from the 50-150, colors are clean.
Actually, for flexibility you can use a 16-300 instead of a 18-135. With a 16-300 , you can shot everything and anything, from wide angle to tele, but at 300 mm f/11, unless you have a tripod or shot in full sun, it's gonna be hard to get a non blurred shot. Image quality with a 16-300 is good enough to post photos on the web (https://www.flickr.com/groups/tamron_16-300/).


Last edited by biz-engineer; 03-30-2015 at 03:41 AM.
03-30-2015, 07:23 AM   #5
Pentaxian
ChatMechant's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Matsuyama
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,284
I've lately been considering ditching my two DA* zooms and picking up an 18-135. However, when I had the 55-300 it too was plenty sharp at f11, but my 50-135 is sharp at 2.8 I suppose that's the tradeoff.
I honestly have no idea which photo is from which lens.
03-30-2015, 07:38 AM   #6
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Austin, Texas
Photos: Albums
Posts: 328
Also enjoying my 18-135

Very nice lens for a one-lens option, especially out of doors at F/8. Then again, I have been reading very wonderful comments on the new DA 16-85 WR. More money, bigger, with less of a focal length range, but supposed to have a much better IQ.
03-30-2015, 11:11 AM   #7
Senior Member




Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Southern Maryland
Posts: 110
I've been super happy with my 18-135 when paired with my k-01. nice compact size, convenient shooting range, and great colors in the images. plus it's sharp enough when used outdoors! It really is an underrated lens.

03-30-2015, 11:26 AM   #8
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
The second image is from the 18-135 (it has some purple, bluish color aberrations), the first image is from the 50-150, colors are clean.
Actually, for flexibility you can use a 16-300 instead of a 18-135. With a 16-300 , you can shot everything and anything, from wide angle to tele, but at 300 mm f/11, unless you have a tripod or shot in full sun, it's gonna be hard to get a non blurred shot. Image quality with a 16-300 is good enough to post photos on the web (https://www.flickr.com/groups/tamron_16-300/).
You do realize that you can't tell anything looking at a bunch of shots from one lens. The value to a thread like this is it compares two lenses under the same conditions. What I see between the two enlarged images is a different white balance and exposure. And I'm wondering, exactly where do you see the " purple, bluish color aberrations". What part of the image. And how do you know the 16-300 wouldn't have been worse?

The worst lens I own looks great, at flickr size.

Last edited by normhead; 03-30-2015 at 11:31 AM.
03-30-2015, 11:31 AM   #9
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 385
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
The second image is from the 18-135 (it has some purple, bluish color aberrations), the first image is from the 50-150, colors are clean.
Actually, for flexibility you can use a 16-300 instead of a 18-135. With a 16-300 , you can shot everything and anything, from wide angle to tele, but at 300 mm f/11, unless you have a tripod or shot in full sun, it's gonna be hard to get a non blurred shot. Image quality with a 16-300 is good enough to post photos on the web (https://www.flickr.com/groups/tamron_16-300/).
Good eye! You are correct. I was looking at edge to edge sharpness and couldnt tell much of a difference. I wonder if I had fixed CA in post if it anyone could tell the difference.

The 50-135 is still my favorite as its tac sharp at 2.8 and at 135mm and will be my goto lens for critical shooting but honestly I would have never parted with my first copy of the 18-135 had I done these tests and realized its potential.
03-30-2015, 12:27 PM   #10
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 12,145
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
You do realize that you can't tell anything looking at a bunch of shots from one lens. The value to a thread like this is it compares two lenses under the same conditions. What I see between the two enlarged images is a different white balance and exposure. And I'm wondering, exactly where do you see the " purple, bluish color aberrations". What part of the image. And how do you know the 16-300 wouldn't have been worse? The worst lens I own looks great, at flickr size.
I'm not on the forum to be bullying other members. Hopefully, I respond to threads with constructive answers. The forum is a place to share our experiences, knowledge and seek help from this Pentax community of users. If you have a problem with this concept, don't complain to us, please complain to administrators.
03-30-2015, 01:20 PM   #11
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
I'm not on the forum to be bullying other members. Hopefully, I respond to threads with constructive answers. The forum is a place to share our experiences, knowledge and seek help from this Pentax community of users. If you have a problem with this concept, don't complain to us, please complain to administrators.
I wasn't complaining to us. I was complaining to you. My point was to show you why I couldn't take you seriously. I'm one of those people who spends a lot of time doing and looking at comparison images so when I post, I know what I'm talking about. Having tested my own 18-250 against the 18-135, and found it no where near the quality, I can't help but be suspicious about this 16-300 and it's performance. I thought maybe you knew something. Apparently I was wrong. I'd still encourage you not to recommend equipment as superior to other pieces of equipment, unless you actually had a chance to try out both in the same environment. If that's bullying.... well, you've got a really thin skin.
03-30-2015, 01:21 PM   #12
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 385
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
You do realize that you can't tell anything looking at a bunch of shots from one lens. The value to a thread like this is it compares two lenses under the same conditions. What I see between the two enlarged images is a different white balance and exposure. And I'm wondering, exactly where do you see the " purple, bluish color aberrations". What part of the image. And how do you know the 16-300 wouldn't have been worse?

The worst lens I own looks great, at flickr size.
The 4 at different apertures was just to display my findings of how edge and corner sharpness improves as you stop down.

As for the pics of the signs, the two different lenses seemed to render the colors differently. I even tried in post to make the blue look the same just by tweaking exposure, highlighs, whites and blacks. White balance was exactly the same. I shot one lense then changed and shot the next.
03-30-2015, 01:32 PM   #13
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
QuoteOriginally posted by jayman_1975 Quote
The 4 at different apertures was just to display my findings of how edge and corner sharpness improves as you stop down.

As for the pics of the signs, the two different lenses seemed to render the colors differently. I even tried in post to make the blue look the same just by tweaking exposure, highlighs, whites and blacks. White balance was exactly the same. I shot one lense then changed and shot the next.
I've gone through the same process, you do your best, but, that's part of the process, one of the advantages in evaluating images is looking at where the lens is weak and deciding whether or not you can live with it. And of course 50-135 is the weakest part of the the DA 18-135....just based on the numbers it shouldn't be anywhere close to the DA* 50-135... so how close it really is is a little eye opening. My motto at the moment is "don't sell 2.8 glass, buy it". SO even though they may not be a huge amount of difference, I'd be keeping the 50-135. The DA* 18-135 is stellar at 24mm to 50mm for a zoom. You can buy a lens like the 18-135 just for it's performance at 24mm, it's worth the money for that, everything else is gravy. I wouldn't consider another super zoom, that somewhere in it's zoom range wasn't excellent centre and edge like the 18-135 is at 24mm. So far the 18-135 is the only one I've found that meets that criteria.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
50mm, copy, f11, flickr, k-mount, lens, pentax lens, results, slr lens, wasnt
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Am I reading this riight ? The Pentax 18-135 WR is sharper than Tamron 17-50 F2.8 ? photoleet Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 21 09-05-2014 08:53 PM
It's a better camera than I thought. Here's why... jon404 Pentax K-01 4 10-15-2013 12:01 AM
Pentax DA 18-55mm, why is AL II better than WR? Newtophotos Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 9 08-31-2013 06:17 AM
Is an FA-J 18-35f4-5.6 better than a DA-L 18-55? Lowell Goudge Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 5 12-29-2012 10:09 PM
Is there a cheap "landscape" lens that is better than the 18-55 kit I got with K100D? shaolin95 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 17 06-13-2009 06:37 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:10 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top