Walkaround lens - IQ vs FL variety

Zerv · 10-09-2015, 12:00 PM

Like a lot of people, my current walk-around all purpose lens is the 18-135. VS my prime lenses, I'm OK to give up IQ for the trade off of being able to handle an unknown and variety of situations which may require going from wide to telephoto from one image to another. Also, when I'm just shooting to document family events and memories.

But to take the thought further, if I am just looking to get a wide variety of shots or document events that don't require the utmost in IQ, does the 18-135 make sense any more rather than going with a lens that has a much larger FL range? I'm thinking 18-200, 18-250, maybe even 50-200 and the like. I'm assuming all these types of zooms have comparable image quality. Yes, some are better than others, and of course there is a minimum quality expectation; I'd never accept a lens that negates me using my DSLR in the first place. But as long as a zoom lens is capable of taking decent pictures to share online or make small prints, am I not following through on my primary purpose by limiting myself to the 18-135? Are there other lenses out there that do this job better and for comparable costs?

Last edited by Zerv; 10-09-2015 at 12:24 PM.

**jatrax** · 10-09-2015, 12:25 PM

One option is to carry two lenses. In your case the 18-135 and the 55-300. There is a significant overlap which reduces lens changes quite a bit. This is what my wife carries all the time. It is small and light and covers 18-300 with quite good IQ.

I'm not a big fan of the super-zooms but YMMV.

Zerv · 10-09-2015, 12:55 PM

Thanks jatrax. Not a huge fan of them either in general, but I understand and must accept their usage in my life. It's hard enough trying to keep an eye on and carry the kids. But changing between a couple zooms, let alone changing multiple prime lenses every time something catches my eye is an impossibility when out with the family. I'm lucky if I can get snap a quick picture sometimes! Any convenience helps these days.

**boriscleto** · 10-09-2015, 01:22 PM

There is a nice in-depth review of the DA 18-270 here on the site. Wider FL range, but no WR.

Pentax-DA 18-270mm F3.5-6.3 Review - Introduction | PentaxForums.com Reviews

bdery · 10-09-2015, 01:26 PM

Depends on the camera. With a K-3 you can crop 135mm to a good extend.

I'd say you have a good lens for most purposes, what you'd gain with primes would be DOF control, size of the lens, rendering and sometimes corner sharpness.

When I want to move lightly, I bring the 16-85 (somewhat similar to your 18-135) along with the DA40 and maybe DA21. They're so small they're never a bother and if I really feel I am capturing a unique image, I switch, otherwise I happily shoot with the zoom.

**jatrax** · 10-09-2015, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by Zerv

But changing between a couple zooms, let alone changing multiple prime lenses every time something catches my eye is an impossibility when out with the family.

My wife carries two zooms 18-135 and 55-300 but 90% or more of her images are with the 18-135. With the k-3 she can crop 135mm quite effectively into what she wants. So the only time she shifts to the 55-300 is when she knows she will need the extra reach and plans for it. All of her 'catch my eye' shots are with the 18-135. She also packs a small macro, either my 35mm limited or an F 50mm macro.

**Just1MoreDave** · 10-09-2015, 02:05 PM

I think zoom range is useful for the family/documentation shots, because you can take a quick shot in the moment and the camera doesn't detract from the activity you're doing. But If I'm walking around just to take interesting pictures, a wide range of focal lengths doesn't help - in fact, I often come back with lots of boring stuff. If I take just one prime, I absolutely miss the shots where that prime won't really work out, like everyone worries about. Instead I edit in advance, so I only take shots that work for the lens I have, usually better images. The prime may have superior IQ but that does not really contribute to the better images as much as editing in advance. This may not work for everyone but it can save you from carting along a truckload of lenses to walk in the park.

Zerv · 10-09-2015, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by Just1MoreDave

I think zoom range is useful for the family/documentation shots, because you can take a quick shot in the moment and the camera doesn't detract from the activity you're doing. But If I'm walking around just to take interesting pictures, a wide range of focal lengths doesn't help - in fact, I often come back with lots of boring stuff. If I take just one prime, I absolutely miss the shots where that prime won't really work out, like everyone worries about. Instead I edit in advance, so I only take shots that work for the lens I have, usually better images. The prime may have superior IQ but that does not really contribute to the better images as much as editing in advance. This may not work for everyone but it can save you from carting along a truckload of lenses to walk in the park.

I agree, Just1MoreDave. When I want to take pictures for myself, it's the FA limited on full time. Definitely gets you in the mindset for that lens and you put yourself in the right type of shots vs trying to make shots work. But yes, when you want to fit in some shots of surroundings while taking shots of the family, that freedom to take the time to compose and put yourself in places goes out the door. You need to be where you are and make things happen, and fast. So now I'm wondering if there is an alternative I'm not considering to replace my 18-135. Even better if the trade gains me back money that I can re-route to another lens.

Perhaps the Sigma 18-200 Contemporary? Or the Sigma 18-250 Macro HSM? This idea of having a bonus macro in there just in case is very tempting. Should a family/documentation/walk-around be a "jack of all trades"? Especially with tools like Lightroom and such, can these "master of none" superzooms give results that offset their shortcomings?

mcgregni · 10-09-2015, 03:27 PM

I think I can detect that you really have decided that you need a 'superzoom' for the practical applications you have in mind. Only you know the restrictions on 'proper' photography that you face when on family outings, although I have experienced it all for sure! Most Pentax DSLR users value their primes above all else, as the ultimate technical and creative tool. However, the DSLR is extremely versatile, and putting it to use in a kind of super-bridge type capacity is perfectly valid ....

I very much doubt there is that much optical IQ compromise to worry about with those zoom you're considering, at least for the type of images you want. The main limitation may be the max apertures, but if you can stop down a little and compensate with higher ISO then you're also benefiting from avoiding the weaker widest apertures.

A bit of processing optimisation, NR and sharpening, perhaps some CA or distortion correction, should bring things up to scratch if needed. It the lenses have modern coatings then you may find any defects to be minimal.

I've got the Tamron AF70-300 Di LD macro, and the 1:4 macro capability can be useful ....But, frankly, in practice steady handholding at the long end with such close focus is a challenge, especially as you're usually at F5.6 or smaller .... So in the field it might not always give what you want for macro .... I'd carry a compact macro prime for those uses ....

goldenarrow · 10-09-2015, 04:26 PM

Just an idea, but you might experiment with a superzoom camera. I am trying this with a Pentax MX in a jacket pocket and the K3 with wide angle zoom around my neck and a 50mm prime & a telephoto zoom in the small backpack. Just a thought.

pathdoc · 10-10-2015, 04:58 AM

I've always sung the praises of the 18-250 (or 270 or 300 or whatever upper limit is new this week), but I recently bought an 18-135. I bought it for the WR and only for the WR - and for the first time I'm seriously considering getting rid of my 18-250. If Pentax should bring out a WR 16-300 in a few years, or even a full-frame WR 28-300, the 18-135 will almost certainly be looking for another home too.

Addit: I did actually consider a two lens WR solution - 18-55 and 55-300 or 50-200 - but practicality and cost said no: do it all with the one lens, and if you REALLY find you need a 300mm WR capability down the road, THEN pick up the 55-300 HD when it's not so new and going cheap.

**pepperberry farm** · 10-10-2015, 06:45 AM

I also carry a DA 18-250mm as my walk-around lens; if there's something specific I'm carrying the camera for, I will bring whatever lens I think will work best... but if I'm hiking or just walking around as a tourist someone, a superzoom fills the bill nicely...

I know they have their detractors (superzooms), but I am not a pro and I don't spend a lot of time pixel-peeping, just shooting for me and my enjoyment...

lesmore49 · 10-10-2015, 07:32 AM

I have a number of Limited primes...21, 40, 70 and although I like them , I find myself using my 18-135 as my 'urban' walk around lens about 90 % of the time.

My 18-135 wins out because it's zoom is versatile. I always seem to be able to find the right focal length in an urban setting with this lens. It's sharp and also weather resistant which works well for me, when I have it attached to either my weather resistant K10D or K5 bodies. The only downside to my 18-135 is that I get the dreaded

lens creep. Not a big deal to me, though.

For a rural walk around lens, I find the 55-300 is the best. More reach.

I maybe a tad unusual, I mostly carry two cameras around at any one time. So with the other body, I may have a prime, a fisheye (10-17), a 50 macro or a super wide angle like my 12-24.

But if I'm only carrying one body...in an urban setting...it's the 18-135...rural...55-300.

**pacerr** · 10-10-2015, 08:04 AM

Over the years I've found two small accessories have expanded the pleasure of carrying a camera far beyond their humble reputation.

I usually carry quality +1 and +2 close-up filters and a Tamron Pz-AF 1.4 TC along with an appropriate mid-range zoom like an SP 28-75, SP 24-135, DA 16-45 or DA 18-135 WR and a K200D as a utility kit when not 'intentionally planning to commit photography'.

The unexpected opportunities to find interesting photo opportunities any time, any where far exceeds the potential of missing a 'perfect' chance shot with the very best gear I've left at home.

(Also can pass time while my wife shops!

)

Zerv · 10-12-2015, 10:21 AM

Thanks, all. Your comments are helping me with coming to terms in the need for a superzoom. I know us gearheads are all about having the best gear possible, which is why endlessly (and happily) discuss such nuances and minutiae. But as others have said, the best gear possible is one that allows you to do something vs nothing. So perhaps I'm doing a little maturing of my own in the sacrifice for convenience.

Before I came to Pentax, I used an 18-200 as a full time lens. Now with the 18-135, I find I don't miss the 136-200 all that much. I might even give the 16-85 a whirl and see if I don't miss the 86-135 enough to gain back some IQ while still having zoom convenience. Plus, the 16-17 sounds fun to have without switching lenses.

Originally posted by pacerr

Over the years I've found two small accessories have expanded the pleasure of carrying a camera far beyond their humble reputation.

I usually carry quality +1 and +2 close-up filters and a Tamron Pz-AF 1.4 TC along with an appropriate mid-range zoom like an SP 28-75, SP 24-135, DA 16-45 or DA 18-135 WR and a K200D as a utility kit when not 'intentionally planning to commit photography'. )

This is a great suggestion! Definitely in theme with the situation at hand. I'll look into this. Thanks!

10-09-2015, 12:00 PM	#1
Zerv Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 92	Walkaround lens - IQ vs FL variety Like a lot of people, my current walk-around all purpose lens is the 18-135. VS my prime lenses, I'm OK to give up IQ for the trade off of being able to handle an unknown and variety of situations which may require going from wide to telephoto from one image to another. Also, when I'm just shooting to document family events and memories. But to take the thought further, if I am just looking to get a wide variety of shots or document events that don't require the utmost in IQ, does the 18-135 make sense any more rather than going with a lens that has a much larger FL range? I'm thinking 18-200, 18-250, maybe even 50-200 and the like. I'm assuming all these types of zooms have comparable image quality. Yes, some are better than others, and of course there is a minimum quality expectation; I'd never accept a lens that negates me using my DSLR in the first place. But as long as a zoom lens is capable of taking decent pictures to share online or make small prints, am I not following through on my primary purpose by limiting myself to the 18-135? Are there other lenses out there that do this job better and for comparable costs? Last edited by Zerv; 10-09-2015 at 12:24 PM.

10-10-2015, 04:58 AM	#11
pathdoc Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2015 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,381	I've always sung the praises of the 18-250 (or 270 or 300 or whatever upper limit is new this week), but I recently bought an 18-135. I bought it for the WR and only for the WR - and for the first time I'm seriously considering getting rid of my 18-250. If Pentax should bring out a WR 16-300 in a few years, or even a full-frame WR 28-300, the 18-135 will almost certainly be looking for another home too. Addit: I did actually consider a two lens WR solution - 18-55 and 55-300 or 50-200 - but practicality and cost said no: do it all with the one lens, and if you REALLY find you need a 300mm WR capability down the road, THEN pick up the 55-300 HD when it's not so new and going cheap. Last edited by pathdoc; 10-10-2015 at 05:04 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
N = R* fp ne fl fi fc fL	szmyk	Monthly Photo Contests	11	02-08-2015 02:06 PM
Walkaround lens	cecanima	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	34	11-03-2014 08:35 AM
Wanted - Acquired: Walkaround zoom lens	jeantarrou	Sold Items	6	06-11-2014 11:08 AM
Tamron 70-200 IQ vs 135 prime IQ	TOUGEFC	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	21	08-25-2011 05:48 AM
Zenitar 16 vs. 18-55 kit lens - IQ?	germar	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	12	04-27-2007 02:16 AM

10-09-2015, 12:25 PM	#2
jatrax Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Washington Cascades Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,991	One option is to carry two lenses. In your case the 18-135 and the 55-300. There is a significant overlap which reduces lens changes quite a bit. This is what my wife carries all the time. It is small and light and covers 18-300 with quite good IQ. I'm not a big fan of the super-zooms but YMMV.

10-09-2015, 12:55 PM	#3
Zerv Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 92 Original Poster	Thanks jatrax. Not a huge fan of them either in general, but I understand and must accept their usage in my life. It's hard enough trying to keep an eye on and carry the kids. But changing between a couple zooms, let alone changing multiple prime lenses every time something catches my eye is an impossibility when out with the family. I'm lucky if I can get snap a quick picture sometimes! Any convenience helps these days.

10-09-2015, 01:22 PM	#4
boriscleto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: North Syracuse, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,475	There is a nice in-depth review of the DA 18-270 here on the site. Wider FL range, but no WR. Pentax-DA 18-270mm F3.5-6.3 Review - Introduction \| PentaxForums.com Reviews

10-09-2015, 01:26 PM	#5
bdery Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Quebec city, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,357	Depends on the camera. With a K-3 you can crop 135mm to a good extend. I'd say you have a good lens for most purposes, what you'd gain with primes would be DOF control, size of the lens, rendering and sometimes corner sharpness. When I want to move lightly, I bring the 16-85 (somewhat similar to your 18-135) along with the DA40 and maybe DA21. They're so small they're never a bother and if I really feel I am capturing a unique image, I switch, otherwise I happily shoot with the zoom.

10-09-2015, 01:46 PM	#6
jatrax Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Washington Cascades Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,991	Originally posted by Zerv But changing between a couple zooms, let alone changing multiple prime lenses every time something catches my eye is an impossibility when out with the family. My wife carries two zooms 18-135 and 55-300 but 90% or more of her images are with the 18-135. With the k-3 she can crop 135mm quite effectively into what she wants. So the only time she shifts to the 55-300 is when she knows she will need the extra reach and plans for it. All of her 'catch my eye' shots are with the 18-135. She also packs a small macro, either my 35mm limited or an F 50mm macro.

10-09-2015, 02:05 PM	#7
Just1MoreDave Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Aurora, CO Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,340	I think zoom range is useful for the family/documentation shots, because you can take a quick shot in the moment and the camera doesn't detract from the activity you're doing. But If I'm walking around just to take interesting pictures, a wide range of focal lengths doesn't help - in fact, I often come back with lots of boring stuff. If I take just one prime, I absolutely miss the shots where that prime won't really work out, like everyone worries about. Instead I edit in advance, so I only take shots that work for the lens I have, usually better images. The prime may have superior IQ but that does not really contribute to the better images as much as editing in advance. This may not work for everyone but it can save you from carting along a truckload of lenses to walk in the park.

10-09-2015, 02:35 PM	#8
Zerv Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 92 Original Poster	Originally posted by Just1MoreDave I think zoom range is useful for the family/documentation shots, because you can take a quick shot in the moment and the camera doesn't detract from the activity you're doing. But If I'm walking around just to take interesting pictures, a wide range of focal lengths doesn't help - in fact, I often come back with lots of boring stuff. If I take just one prime, I absolutely miss the shots where that prime won't really work out, like everyone worries about. Instead I edit in advance, so I only take shots that work for the lens I have, usually better images. The prime may have superior IQ but that does not really contribute to the better images as much as editing in advance. This may not work for everyone but it can save you from carting along a truckload of lenses to walk in the park. I agree, Just1MoreDave. When I want to take pictures for myself, it's the FA limited on full time. Definitely gets you in the mindset for that lens and you put yourself in the right type of shots vs trying to make shots work. But yes, when you want to fit in some shots of surroundings while taking shots of the family, that freedom to take the time to compose and put yourself in places goes out the door. You need to be where you are and make things happen, and fast. So now I'm wondering if there is an alternative I'm not considering to replace my 18-135. Even better if the trade gains me back money that I can re-route to another lens. Perhaps the Sigma 18-200 Contemporary? Or the Sigma 18-250 Macro HSM? This idea of having a bonus macro in there just in case is very tempting. Should a family/documentation/walk-around be a "jack of all trades"? Especially with tools like Lightroom and such, can these "master of none" superzooms give results that offset their shortcomings?

10-09-2015, 03:27 PM	#9
mcgregni Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: Surrey, England Posts: 2,603	I think I can detect that you really have decided that you need a 'superzoom' for the practical applications you have in mind. Only you know the restrictions on 'proper' photography that you face when on family outings, although I have experienced it all for sure! Most Pentax DSLR users value their primes above all else, as the ultimate technical and creative tool. However, the DSLR is extremely versatile, and putting it to use in a kind of super-bridge type capacity is perfectly valid .... I very much doubt there is that much optical IQ compromise to worry about with those zoom you're considering, at least for the type of images you want. The main limitation may be the max apertures, but if you can stop down a little and compensate with higher ISO then you're also benefiting from avoiding the weaker widest apertures. A bit of processing optimisation, NR and sharpening, perhaps some CA or distortion correction, should bring things up to scratch if needed. It the lenses have modern coatings then you may find any defects to be minimal. I've got the Tamron AF70-300 Di LD macro, and the 1:4 macro capability can be useful ....But, frankly, in practice steady handholding at the long end with such close focus is a challenge, especially as you're usually at F5.6 or smaller .... So in the field it might not always give what you want for macro .... I'd carry a compact macro prime for those uses ....

10-09-2015, 04:26 PM	#10
goldenarrow Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Chicago Suburbs. Photos: Gallery Posts: 501	Just an idea, but you might experiment with a superzoom camera. I am trying this with a Pentax MX in a jacket pocket and the K3 with wide angle zoom around my neck and a 50mm prime & a telephoto zoom in the small backpack. Just a thought.

10-10-2015, 06:45 AM	#12
pepperberry farm amateur dirt farmer Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: probably out in a field somewhere... Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 41,679	I also carry a DA 18-250mm as my walk-around lens; if there's something specific I'm carrying the camera for, I will bring whatever lens I think will work best... but if I'm hiking or just walking around as a tourist someone, a superzoom fills the bill nicely... I know they have their detractors (superzooms), but I am not a pro and I don't spend a lot of time pixel-peeping, just shooting for me and my enjoyment...

10-10-2015, 07:32 AM	#13
lesmore49 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Western Canada Posts: 12,344	I have a number of Limited primes...21, 40, 70 and although I like them , I find myself using my 18-135 as my 'urban' walk around lens about 90 % of the time. My 18-135 wins out because it's zoom is versatile. I always seem to be able to find the right focal length in an urban setting with this lens. It's sharp and also weather resistant which works well for me, when I have it attached to either my weather resistant K10D or K5 bodies. The only downside to my 18-135 is that I get the dreaded lens creep. Not a big deal to me, though. For a rural walk around lens, I find the 55-300 is the best. More reach. I maybe a tad unusual, I mostly carry two cameras around at any one time. So with the other body, I may have a prime, a fisheye (10-17), a 50 macro or a super wide angle like my 12-24. But if I'm only carrying one body...in an urban setting...it's the 18-135...rural...55-300.

10-10-2015, 08:04 AM	#14
pacerr Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Paris, TN Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,349	Over the years I've found two small accessories have expanded the pleasure of carrying a camera far beyond their humble reputation. I usually carry quality +1 and +2 close-up filters and a Tamron Pz-AF 1.4 TC along with an appropriate mid-range zoom like an SP 28-75, SP 24-135, DA 16-45 or DA 18-135 WR and a K200D as a utility kit when not 'intentionally planning to commit photography'. The unexpected opportunities to find interesting photo opportunities any time, any where far exceeds the potential of missing a 'perfect' chance shot with the very best gear I've left at home. (Also can pass time while my wife shops! )

10-12-2015, 10:21 AM	#15
Zerv Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 92 Original Poster	Thanks, all. Your comments are helping me with coming to terms in the need for a superzoom. I know us gearheads are all about having the best gear possible, which is why endlessly (and happily) discuss such nuances and minutiae. But as others have said, the best gear possible is one that allows you to do something vs nothing. So perhaps I'm doing a little maturing of my own in the sacrifice for convenience. Before I came to Pentax, I used an 18-200 as a full time lens. Now with the 18-135, I find I don't miss the 136-200 all that much. I might even give the 16-85 a whirl and see if I don't miss the 86-135 enough to gain back some IQ while still having zoom convenience. Plus, the 16-17 sounds fun to have without switching lenses. Originally posted by pacerr Over the years I've found two small accessories have expanded the pleasure of carrying a camera far beyond their humble reputation. I usually carry quality +1 and +2 close-up filters and a Tamron Pz-AF 1.4 TC along with an appropriate mid-range zoom like an SP 28-75, SP 24-135, DA 16-45 or DA 18-135 WR and a K200D as a utility kit when not 'intentionally planning to commit photography'. ) This is a great suggestion! Definitely in theme with the situation at hand. I'll look into this. Thanks!