[clackers]

Forgive me please if I'm missing something but wouldn't the 18-135 WR be a better choice than the 50-135 for it's versatility and weather resistance or is the IQ of the 50-135 much better? I have the 18-135 and love it.

The DA* 50-135 is certainly weather resistant, TimesShadow.


As far as versatility goes, of course, there's the usual trade off of image quality vs zoom range. It's probably why, for me, it pips the FA77 in a lot of outings.


So you may be happy with everything the 18-135 does for you ... Normhead has pointed out its best focal lengths - I think he was saying 24mm or thereabouts it's really very good.

---

Last edited by clackers; 05-27-2015 at 10:08 PM.

[Glenn5995]

I have the both the DA* 50-135 & DA* 60-250 (as well as the DA 18-135 referred to by TimesShadow). My experience is that the 60-250 focuses faster than the 50-135. It is not a big difference, but I have better success with action shots (sports, air shows, etc) with the 60-250. The 50-135 is smaller, lighter and faster. It performs better in low light situations, even when at the same aperture as the 60-250. Image quality is excellent with both, but I believe my 50-135 out performs the 60-250 at f2.8 to 5.6, f5.6 to 8.0 they are about the same and from f8.0 to f22 the advantage goes to the 60-250. It just depends on what your photography needs are. Both are EXCELLENT lenses, each have a slight edge over the other in specific areas.

The 18-135 is a very good and versatile lens. It is my fastest focusing lens. Stopped down it produces very good images, but never quite matches the 50-135 or the 60-250. It is great walk around lens. In well lit areas it performs very well. Low light is its weakness.

Hope this helps.

[percy]

Forgive me please if I'm missing something but wouldn't the 18-135 WR be a better choice than the 50-135 for it's versatility and weather resistance or is the IQ of the 50-135 much better? I have the 18-135 and love it.

The 18-135 is a very useful lens with arguably the most useful range for a general use walkabout lens. Stopped down can produce some pretty good images, but the IQ of the 50-135 is definitely a step up.
I believe the weather resistance of the DA* lenses is superior to WR lenses as well.

[ChatMechant]

Uggh, I went through this dilemma. settled on the 50-135 + 300 for a while. the 60-250 IQ was fantastic, but bigger and heavier and there's just something reassuring about internal focus. Now I have just the 18-135 and 90% of the time it's good enough.

[fredralphfred]

I don't need any more lenses, but I must admit I'm tempted by the 50-135. The comments about slow autofocus and problems with SDM on earlier copies, though, have deterred me. How slow is slow, and in what kind of situations does the slow autofocus show up? I was hoping to use the lens for some indoor portraits at the animal shelters where I volunteer - and the animals move, so slow autofocus isn't ideal. Currently, I use a Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 but I'd like to have a little more reach and a wider aperture.

OK. I haven't had the 50-135 for long, and I'm no photo expert. I have a few lenses now and should use them more. But as little as I've used the 50-135 in the 2 weeks I've had it, there are two things that stick with me:


(1) If all the DA* lenses are built like this, I'd take a Limited any day. Even with the screw focus.
(2) The screw focus on ALL my limiteds is faster than the 50-135. And this is on a K200D. And my 20-40 Limited? That DC motor is like a rocket ship compared to the 50-135. It actually makes auto-focus on the K200 useful.


The lens feels nice, but I don't like the lack of stops at the ends of the focusing range. The Limiteds and M-series lenses I have feel much better at both zooming and focusing.

[clackers]

The screw focus on ALL my limiteds is faster than the 50-135.

Mine's converted to screwdrive, Fred. Not wedding silent anymore, but I can do sports with it now!

[Bob from Aus]

Forgive me please if I'm missing something but wouldn't the 18-135 WR be a better choice than the 50-135 for it's versatility and weather resistance or is the IQ of the 50-135 much better? I have the 18-135 and love it.

Different lens for a different job
18-135 is a good versatile walk around lens when you want or need to keep your kit light
50-135 is a sensational bright lens for taking top quality photos you want to brag about. I love love love the skin tones I can get with the 50-135. reminds me of professional film.

[Sandy Hancock]

I had both for a while and kept the DA*50-135. It is considerably smaller and lighter, and it doesn't extend at all while zooming. The image quality is extraordinary, and I echo Bob's comment above about the rendering of skin tones.

For optical design reasons I don't fully understand, the 60-250 doesn't behave like a 250 at the long end unless the subject is quite distant. Fine for big game or sports in a stadium, but not so good for little birds or sports where you're closer to the action - at closer distances it doesn't give much more magnification than a 135mm lens.

If I want a real telephoto I make do with the DA*300 +/- the 1.4xTC.

[Samoht]

Good inputs by all of you, thanks!

If I would buy a TC it certainly would be the Pentax version just because of its weather sealing, buying a non weather sealed TC and putting it between a weather sealed body and lens is really nothing I want to do. I want the weather sealing, TC is not off the table though.
A 150-450 would have been awesome but it costs about 3000 USD and this used 60-250 has a starting price of 825 USD and I can probably get it for 765-800 USD, so basically the 150-450 is to expensive for me.

A DA* 300 would work, about 5-600 USD more though than this used lens. Haven't seen a used 300 up for sale here in Sweden, buying from abroad feels a bit insecure and the delivery cost is usually quite expensive.
Extended zoom was actually news for me, thought it worked in the same way as the 50-135. You learn something every day.

What felt like an easy pick has become kind of mindboggling, my thoughts from the start was that the 50-135 would be a overall kind of walkabout lens and the 60-250 a wildlife lens.

Money wise:
Buying Pentax 1,4xTC to the DA* 50-135, will give approx 70-190mm: 540 USD
Used DA* 60-250: 765-825 USD
New DA* 300: 1350ish USD

[Sandy Hancock]

Just get the teleconverter. It works brilliantly with the DA*50-135.

[TimesShadow]

As always, you guys are awesome with the information. I've not experienced the other lenses in the discussion so thank you for the direct comparison to the one I do have... 18-135.

[aleonx3]

Forgive me please if I'm missing something but wouldn't the 18-135 WR be a better choice than the 50-135 for it's versatility and weather resistance or is the IQ of the 50-135 much better? I have the 18-135 and love it.

The 18-135 is great for what it is meant for (great all purpose outdoor lens)... but it is not the same as 50-135 since it is also great for portrait and stage photography (wider aperture and shallow DOF).

[normhead]

The 50-135 is sharp over it's whole range and at the edges. In that sense it's a completely different lens than the 18-135, and it; faster. And it's best where the 18-135 is weakest. You shoot successfully with an 18-135 by being aware of it;s limitations in the long end. But it may not always be appropriate, and there will be many pictures where the 50-135 would be noticeably better. You can do great things with an 18-135, but you can't do everything you'd do with 50-135, or in my case, a 60-250.

The DA* 50-135 lets in 4 times as much light at 135mm, that opens a lot of indoor an low light possibilities.

[Samoht]

Checked the DA* club for photos taken with 60-250 and am now finding myself wanting to replace my Tamron 17-50 with a DA* 16-50 instead. Easily distracted, noo...

[normhead]

Here, this should help....

DA*60-250 images.

DA-60-250 Slideshow by Norm_Head | Photobucket