[audiobomber]

Not a fan of the 18-55's I've owned (original and II). The 18-135 is way better IMO.

[normhead]

Not a fan of the 18-55's I've owned (original and II). The 18-135 is way better IMO.

If it's all you have, you can do quite a lot with it.

[bdery]

Sometimes people just have a couple of images that illustrate what they are talking about... and sometimes they don't. No biggie.

I'd have to dig through my gallery to find telling examples that would make sense side by side. I might do that, but with Christmas coming and two photo sessions to edit and distribute, that's not gonna happen soon

[normhead]

I'd have to dig through my gallery to find telling examples that would make sense side by side. I might do that, but with Christmas coming and two photo sessions to edit and distribute, that's not gonna happen soon

Don't worry about it... I know with my K-20D I had one image where I went out with it and Tess went out with the K-5, we were shooting a sunset from a nearby ridge, and we came home and looked at the images, and just said "we have to get another k-5". The images were that different because of the extra dynamic range. So those images have always stuck in my mind. But if you didn't have that kind of moment, there's nothing wrong with that. It's not really worth your time at least in my opinion. . My issue with my comparisons is, I had stopped using the 18-55 before we bought a K-5, so when I do comparisons, it's alway K100D or K20D and 18-55 against 18-135 and Tamron 17-50 and K-5 or K3. Too many variables.

When I went from 18-55 to 18-135, it was for the extra range in focal length. I have many great images taken with the 18-55.

---

Last edited by normhead; 12-08-2015 at 08:21 AM.

[bdery]

When I went from 18-55 to 18-135, it was for the extra range in focal length.

As a bonus, you gained fast, silent AF, sharper results in the center, and maybe better contrast.

I have many great images taken with the 18-55.

Me too. I can't say I miss it, but I remember it fondly.