[normhead]

Did someone call my name?

Even with my use of the 18-135, I have no idea if someone else needs it. Given that I have a DA*60-250, I wonder if I wouldn't be happier with the 16-85. Using my Sigma 8-16, I take an awful lot of images at 16mm. But I also take a lot of images from 85-135, almost 30% if memory serves me well. Sounds like the OP does a lot of shooting indoors, and the 18-135 isn't the best for that. I kept reading "no sun", well the 18-135 is a sunny day lens. The OP might be dismissing it, just for that reason.

Personally, for low light... sub 2 primes or the Sigma 18-35 ƒ1.8 are the way to go. ƒ2.8 just ins't that much different from ƒ3.5, and the 18-135 goes to ƒ3.5 at 18mm. At 24mm it's still ƒ4. My 50 is ƒ1.7, and my 35 is the DA 35 ƒ2.4. I own the Tamron 17-50 but I hardly ever use it. The primes are just so much better as low light options. Or to put it another way, for low light, my 50 and the Sigm 18-35 are as much better than a 2.8 lens, as a 2.8 lens is better than my 18-135. IN those situations, ƒ2.8 seems a little half assed. Why not go all the way?

---

Last edited by normhead; 09-11-2015 at 08:09 AM.

[Fat Albert]

This is a maxim that's true of all lenses, but in my case it was particularly apt for the 18-135: once I realized its strengths and limitations, I began to appreciate it a LOT more. It is a fantastic sunny day walkaround lens. If I found myself shooting candlelit dinners indoors, I wouldn't like it very much.

[mholford]

True, the lens is stella when the conditions are good. The problem with having a full time desk job is that I am inside on weekdays.

Even with the little light that we have during winter i spend it inside at work.

---------- Post added 11-09-15 at 14:49 ----------



I know, right? But it seems like the solution is so easy a choice.

---------- Post added 11-09-15 at 15:10 ----------



The 70-300 i will say has given me a lot of good shots when I have been using it for taking portraits. Better than the 18-135 at low light.

For the extra reach and the fact that I will not get much from it if I get rid of it I think it will be good to keep it.

For the same reason of keeping a cheap but good and fast lens I will like to keep the M50 should the F50 fail.


Is this how LBAs justify their purchases?

I'd keep the 18-135 just because of the WR feature - Like you I definitely wanted at least 1 WR lens in my kit just in case I was in a position where I "needed" to take pictures even though the weather was less than great or the environment was difficult.
I may sell mine now, but only because I have a couple of other WR lenses that cover the range (2 DA* zooms). Okay, just kidding, I will probably never sell my 18-135 just because it has a nice zoom range, and is WR, and is smaller than either of my DA* lenses. It won't get a lot of use, but I can see plenty of opportunities for it to still shine.

[pathdoc]

I'm strongly considering buying either the 18-135 or the 18-55/55-300 WR combo, because summer has been wet where I am and I feel more of a need to be WR-capable when I'm out and about (I have the DFA 100 WR prime, but that has obvious limitations as regards flexibility). Common sense says get the 18-135 because if you're out in the rain, you want the maximum possible coverage without changing lenses.

I don't particularly care if it isn't the fastest and sharpest lens in existence, so long as I can keep on taking pictures in inclement weather. Sometimes practicality trumps optics.

If you think you need a WR lens at all, OP, keep it and play to its strengths.

[mattb123]

I use mine quite a bit because it's WR, has a pretty wide FL range, and is relatively small and light. No other lens I own can check all those boxes. I also have that Tamron 28-75/2.8 and it's also great but often not wide enough for the compositions I favor. I use the Tamron more for portraits these days and the 18-135 for general daytime use.
I take it mountain biking, hiking, and skiing quite a bit and just increase the ISO if light isn't plentiful.
Tough to say if it could be as useful to you as it is to me.

[Driline]

Clearly my kit is incomplete.

Clearly............For Shame.......

Me too

---------- Post added 09-11-15 at 12:24 PM ----------

Did someone call my name?

Usually in Vain.....I guess you caught a break on this one

[StephenHampshire]

I use mine quite a bit because it's WR, has a pretty wide FL range, and is relatively small and light. No other lens I own can check all those boxes. I also have that Tamron 28-75/2.8 and it's also great but often not wide enough for the compositions I favor. I use the Tamron more for portraits these days and the 18-135 for general daytime use.
I take it mountain biking, hiking, and skiing quite a bit and just increase the ISO if light isn't plentiful.
Tough to say if it could be as useful to you as it is to me.

The K30 is no slouch at high ISO. The 18-135 is light enough and compact enough to stay on the camera. For the record, I have a K3 and K5 and 180135 plus a bunch of other lenses, including the Tamron 17-50, 28-75, 70-200 f2.8 an a fistful of primes. When I'm travelling light and don't know what to expect (especially with the unpredictable UK climate) I take the 18-135. If you need wider, go for the 16-85, though that is a bigger lens

[Blacknight659]

I have this lens and frankly I am not sure if I need it.
My main gripe with it is that performs poorly with low light.

I have kept it because it is wide angle.
And more importantly it is the only weather sealed lens I have.

When I am thinking of getting the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 lens I think I will use or need it even less.

What will you do?

Culture

KEEP IT!

WR is an awesome feature! You WILL want that some day.

Get a fast zoom to use when the weather is nice. I think the Sigma 17-50 2.8, Tamron 17-50 2.8, or the Sigma 18-35 1.8 are all awesome and will serve you very well.

---------- Post added 09-11-15 at 01:39 PM ----------

The K30 is no slouch at high ISO. The 18-135 is light enough and compact enough to stay on the camera. For the record, I have a K3 and K5 and 180135 plus a bunch of other lenses, including the Tamron 17-50, 28-75, 70-200 f2.8 an a fistful of primes. When I'm travelling light and don't know what to expect (especially with the unpredictable UK climate) I take the 18-135. If you need wider, go for the 16-85, though that is a bigger lens

This is very well said. I do the exact same. I have the 18-135 wr for vacation and times when I think things may be out of my control. I keep a 35mm and 50mm prime in the bag too if light gets kinda bad. (perfect vacation kit btw)

If I am on a wedding shoot, or want to be very creative I bring the 17-50 2.8, the 50-135 2.8, and the 10-17.

Sticking to my guns here... Don't Sell It!

[UncleVanya]

I am spending a month with my DA 18-135 and finding myself struggling because I am often using it in less than ideal conditions due to schedules. The slow speed can really make a dent in the IQ when the light is poor. However despite having several DA* lenses I still find it a versatile travel companion and one that I enjoy using.

The only other WR lenses that I can suggest that might fit your lenses would be the DA* 16-50 or the DA 20-40 Limited. I own neither so I have to go by reputation. The 16-50 is heavier and bigger but you lack any real options in the wide angle area. The 20-40 is a much smaller lens than the 16-50 and offers full WR performance. Given your lack of anything wide I wonder if you would miss the 16-20mm range that much.

[Blacknight659]

I am spending a month with my DA 18-135 and finding myself struggling because I am often using it in less than ideal conditions due to schedules. The slow speed can really make a dent in the IQ when the light is poor. However despite having several DA* lenses I still find it a versatile travel companion and one that I enjoy using.

The only other WR lenses that I can suggest that might fit your lenses would be the DA* 16-50 or the DA 20-40 Limited. I own neither so I have to go by reputation. The 16-50 is heavier and bigger but you lack any real options in the wide angle area. The 20-40 is a much smaller lens than the 16-50 and offers full WR performance. Given your lack of anything wide I wonder if you would miss the 16-20mm range that much.

I also agree with this. F 3.5-5.6 often puts you into the higher ISOs in doors. If you need to stop motion, well there goes even more light. In my opinion, this lens is not to be used indoors rather it should be used outside and on while you are on the go. If you don't find yourself in this situation very often, you may not have much of a use for this lens.

The Sigma/Tamron 17-50 2.8 lenses are quite attractive (I own the Sigma) but don't give you WR. You will get a lot of light and should get some AMAZING shots.

If you still need WR and something fast like f 2.8 You should look at the Pentax 16-50 for versitility or the Pentax 20-40 if you can sacrifice the wide and tele end for the light weight. Remember the 20-40 is variable f2.8-4.

[UncleVanya]

I am working on flash use with the 18-135 this month. I think if I improve my ability with flash it will open more options for using this lens.

[VoiceOfReason]

I actually shot a convention with it when my Tamron 17-50 was out and was impressed with it on the K5 using a flash indoors.

[UncleVanya]

Here's a cropped indoor shot made with the DA 18-135 @ 78mm. I was experimenting with off camera flash. This was shot with the on camera flash set to controller only mode and the off camera AF540FGZ set to bounce off the ceiling at a 45 degree angle from just about the level of the feet of the dog out about 7' to the direction she is looking.

[Blacknight659]

There you go, just keep the 18-135 and add a flash. Maybe one of the new weather sealed ones.