[kweekun]

I just bought a K-5II body with a SMC Pentax-M 50mm 1.4 lenses
and i think i need a zoom lenses that wide enough for group photos but have a good reach too
[ because i'm a teacher so sometimes i need to take a picture of my student in group or zoom really long to reach one of student when we had a field trip ]

is 18 - 135mm can fulfill my need? or it's better to spend on 18-55mm WR + HD 55 - 300mm WR
[ i need WR because sometimes i need to take photo of those kids while light rain ]

or there's a better option?

[colonel00]

I would go with the 18-135 and then pick up a 55-300WR when you can. These two lenses are my standard walk-around/adventure kit. The 18-135 is outstanding for the money and it's dirt cheap now. The 55-300 is decent but you shouldn't need that much reach unless you are taking really distant photos. Now, there are better options but it depends on your budget. I think you can get the 18-135 and the 55-300 WR both for around $500. Perhaps check the classifieds. As far as other options, the 16-85 gets great reviews and is on my list if my 18-135 ever dies. If you can afford it, you might look at that lens paired with the 55-300. Again, it comes down to budget restrictions and usage needs.

Bottom line, I'd take the 18-135 over the 18-55 any day.

[Paul the Sunman]

Welcome to the forum.

Neither lens is ideal for what you want by itself. The 55-300 is certainly not wide enough for group shots (unless you can get a very long way back), and the 18-135 is not sharp enough at the edges for that purpose. I am very fond of the DA 18-135, especially for travel photos, but its edge softness would see students situated at the ends looking quite indistinct. The thing about a formal class shot is that every Mum and Dad will want to see their little offspring as sharp as possible.

I did the official photo for a conference I was attending in Stockholm earlier this year, using my K3 + DA 40mm. You can see it at the top of the conference page. If you click on the image you will get a large size, and can even click again to zoom in further: you will see it is very sharp right to the edges. The disadvantage of the DA 40 though is that again you have to go a fair way back, and you have to be able to "zoom with your legs", which is not always possible.

I think a better zoom option would be the HD DA 16-85, which is sharper across the frame than the 18-135. The long end (85mm) may also be sufficient for your "single student from a distance needs", but if not you could add the 55-300 at a later stage. I quite like that lens for long "portraits".

Forget the 18-55; not suitable. I have used it for a conference photo once before, but even stopped down to f/8, the people at the edges are noticeably less sharp than those in the middle (and neither centre nor edge compare to the DA40).

Happy snapping.

[kweekun]

I would go with the 18-135 and then pick up a 55-300WR when you can. These two lenses are my standard walk-around/adventure kit. The 18-135 is outstanding for the money and it's dirt cheap now. The 55-300 is decent but you shouldn't need that much reach unless you are taking really distant photos. Now, there are better options but it depends on your budget. I think you can get the 18-135 and the 55-300 WR both for around $500. Perhaps check the classifieds. As far as other options, the 16-85 gets great reviews and is on my list if my 18-135 ever dies. If you can afford it, you might look at that lens paired with the 55-300. Again, it comes down to budget restrictions and usage needs.

Bottom line, I'd take the 18-135 over the 18-55 any day.

i see so the 18-55mm is not even an option that i should consider...
in my country the 18-135WR is more expensive than the HD 55-300mm so yeah i should choose one of them for time beings...
i'm not familiar with zoom lenses because i step up from bridge camera, so how far that 135mm can reach
[ i mean if i tried to focus on full body of student from far away, how far it can reach while still sharp ]

Welcome to the forum.

Neither lens is ideal for what you want by itself. The 55-300 is certainly not wide enough for group shots (unless you can get a very long way back), and the 18-135 is not sharp enough at the edges for that purpose. I am very fond of the DA 18-135, especially for travel photos, but its edge softness would see students situated at the ends looking quite indistinct. The thing about a formal class shot is that every Mum and Dad will want to see their little offspring as sharp as possible.

I did the official photo for a conference I was attending in Stockholm earlier this year, using my K3 + DA 40mm. You can see it at the top of the conference page. If you click on the image you will get a large size, and can even click again to zoom in further: you will see it is very sharp right to the edges. The disadvantage of the DA 40 though is that again you have to go a fair way back, and you have to be able to "zoom with your legs", which is not always possible.

I think a better zoom option would be the HD DA 16-85, which is sharper across the frame than the 18-135. The long end (85mm) may also be sufficient for your "single student from a distance needs", but if not you could add the 55-300 at a later stage. I quite like that lens for long "portraits".

Forget the 18-55; not suitable.

Happy snapping.

woah, nice pic that you got there, very sharp...
40mm eh... hmm i don't mind using my foot as zoom ring, but yeah as you said sometimes it's not always possible but will consider it...

HD DA 16 - 85 still quite expensive for my budget but maybe i can saving more in future...


so i guess this make the 18-55 is out from the list

thanks

[Adam]

The 18-135mm is always great to have as a multi-purpose, go-to lens. I'd grab one. Perhaps add the 55-300mm later on, but skip the 18-55mm.

[dms]

As a teacher I use my Q w/ toy 4 lens (equivalent of a 24 mm lens on K-5) likely every week (especially for labs). It is always in my book bag or jacket pocket.
If I were to carry my K-5 to classes I would want a small moderate wide plus a macro--likely 24 mm, and 35 macro or 50 macro.
I think small is important in your scenario. And unless you have school recess in yard, field trips, or sports, the FL > 50 mm is not likely to be important--but if it is you would be the best judge of speed needed, FL range, quality (the high quality of the image is perhaps not important), etc.

Sorry you did say field trips--I have never used the zooms you are considering, but I would suggest the 55-300 mm lens (to supplement a 24 mm or 28 mm wide) would be a more useful range. 135 mm is really not that long to zoom in on a moderately distant student.

[Paul the Sunman]

HD DA 16 - 85 still quite expensive for my budget but maybe i can saving more in future...
thanks

If price is the issue, perhaps the venerable DA 16-45 would suit you. It was discontinued a couple of years ago, but is still widely available at a very good price, new or used. It is a much better lens than the 18-55.

[Davidparis]

I just bought a K-5II body with a SMC Pentax-M 50mm 1.4 lenses
and i think i need a zoom lenses that wide enough for group photos but have a good reach too
[ because i'm a teacher so sometimes i need to take a picture of my student in group or zoom really long to reach one of student when we had a field trip ]

is 18 - 135mm can fulfill my need? or it's better to spend on 18-55mm WR + HD 55 - 300mm WR
[ i need WR because sometimes i need to take photo of those kids while light rain ]

or there's a better option?

Clearly, best option would be no 18-55WR, get the 18-135 now and the 55-300 later. The 18-135 is very versatile and useful.

[kweekun]

The 18-135mm is always great to have as a multi-purpose, go-to lens. I'd grab one. Perhaps add the 55-300mm later on, but skip the 18-55mm.

i see... 18 - 55mm sure have a bad reputation from all the reply that member said

As a teacher I use my Q w/ toy 4 lens (equivalent of a 24 mm lens on K-5) likely every week (especially for labs). It is always in my book bag or jacket pocket.
If I were to carry my K-5 to classes I would want a small moderate wide plus a macro--likely 24 mm, and 35 macro or 50 macro.
I think small is important in your scenario. And unless you have school recess in yard, field trips, or sports, the FL > 50 mm is not likely to be important--but if it is you would be the best judge of speed needed, FL range, quality (the high quality of the image is perhaps not important), etc.

Sorry you did say field trips--I have never used the zooms you are considering, but I would suggest the 55-300 mm lens (to supplement a 24 mm or 28 mm wide) would be a more useful range. 135 mm is really not that long to zoom in on a moderately distant student.

hmm my student rather shy type so i want use the long zoom for take a "stalk" snap from a far when they not notice me and act natural but i have no experience with zoom one so i didn't know how long 135mm is.

If price is the issue, perhaps the venerable DA 16-45 would suit you. It was discontinued a couple of years ago, but is still widely available at a very good price, new or used. It is a much better lens than the 18-55.

will try to find it on marketplace or ebay that ship world wide, thanks for the recommendation

Clearly, best option would be no 18-55WR, get the 18-135 now and the 55-300 later. The 18-135 is very versatile and useful.

another NO comment for 18 - 55, so yeah i will throw the lens from my list
thanks

[pathdoc]

Between the 18-135mm and the 55-300mm WR, I would (and, I might add, DID) get the 18-135 first.

I seriously considered the 55-300, because it was cheaper and had the extra telephoto reach, but thought I might miss a lot of shots at the wide end. Experience on two occasions, the sort for which I specifically bought the lens, has shown me that I made the right decision.

If price is the issue, perhaps the venerable DA 16-45 would suit you

I don't think that one is weather-resistant, and OP has stated that WR is a requirement due to field trips.

another NO comment for 18 - 55, so yeah i will throw the lens from my list

I think the 18-55mm WR has its place, but in my opinion that place is in a bundle with a low-end WR body (e.g. KS-series, K-30, K-50) and a 50-200mm WR zoom, in other words as part of a self-contained and relatively inexpensive start-up system. Alternatively, from time to time it gets offered (here on the forum marketplace or in the big stores) as part of an inexpensive two-zoom WR package without the camera, and that's also fine. I wouldn't buy it purely on its own, especially not the DA L version. The metal-mount version with quickshift, paired with either its 50-200 or 55-300mm WR equivalent, probably isn't a bad combination either, but as far as I'm concerned the best single-lens option for you right now remains the 18-135mm. Add the 55-300 HD WR later when you can afford it.

[Adam]

i see... 18 - 55mm sure have a bad reputation from all the reply that member said

Not necessarily, it's just not a lens you get for the image quality, but rather the low price.

[kweekun]

Between the 18-135mm and the 55-300mm WR, I would (and, I might add, DID) get the 18-135 first.

I seriously considered the 55-300, because it was cheaper and had the extra telephoto reach, but thought I might miss a lot of shots at the wide end. Experience on two occasions, the sort for which I specifically bought the lens, has shown me that I made the right decision.


I think the 18-55mm WR has its place, but in my opinion that place is in a bundle with a low-end WR body (e.g. KS-series, K-30, K-50) and a 50-200mm WR zoom, in other words as part of a self-contained and relatively inexpensive start-up system. Alternatively, from time to time it gets offered (here on the forum marketplace or in the big stores) as part of an inexpensive two-zoom WR package without the camera, and that's also fine. I wouldn't buy it purely on its own, especially not the DA L version. The metal-mount version with quickshift, paired with either its 50-200 or 55-300mm WR equivalent, probably isn't a bad combination either, but as far as I'm concerned the best single-lens option for you right now remains the 18-135mm. Add the 55-300 HD WR later when you can afford it.

make sense... because i don't know how long the 135mm can be, maybe long enough... or maybe not... but at least i got the wide side... with decent IQ, worth every penny i guess...

Not necessarily, it's just not a lens you get for the image quality, but rather the low price.

is the IQ of 18-55mm that bad? i mean compared to 18 - 135mm

[boriscleto]

is the IQ of 18-55mm that bad? i mean compared to 18 - 135mm

It's not as bad as the lens snobs make it out to be. It's just not quite as good as the 18-135.

[Paul the Sunman]

I used the 18-55 on a recent trip to India because my son had borrowed my 18-135. It wasn't bad, but neither was it very good. Because of this, I ended up using my primes (15, 40, 70) for most of my shooting. I would have used the 18-55 more if it had been raining, as it was the only WR lens I had with me.

[Adam]

is the IQ of 18-55mm that bad? i mean compared to 18 - 135mm

Not that bad at all, but it's essentially the lowest-performing lens that you can buy new.