DA 18-135mm ED DC WR What a lens!

normhead · 02-23-2016, 07:49 AM

Originally posted by timb64

Just to be clear Norm,do you or have you owned a 16-85?

Just to be clear tim have you ever owned a decent 18-135, or are you one of those guys who probably got a bad copy, was too dumb to take it back, sold it to some poor sucker instead and the spends the rest of his life trashing the lens?

You do know that there have been bad copies of every lens Pentax makes at some point complained about on the forum. Most of those people took our advice and returned their lenses and got a good copy or another lens. But no lens is immune to this. In your case, the problems seems to be you can''t get over it.

SO just to be clear, the fact that you have owned both, doesn't mean you know a damn thing. Check the lensrentals.com sample deviation numbers if you doubt me.

Jatrax sent his first copy of the 16-85 back, there have been bad copies of 16-85s as well. It's not like every copy of the lens is serviceable. Do you want to compare lenses by what you can expect, or by what is the worst that can happen if you order it. The worst that can happen if your smart is, if you get a bad copy you send it back.

If you want to talk about the worst copy of a lens ever shipped, every lens ever made sucks.

If you want to talk what can you expect to get out of a lens, then you have to look at a lot more than what one guy who constantly bitches says.

How do I know both the 31 and 77 are great lenses? I don't own either of them.

I look at the images just like everyone else, who doesn't own every lens on the planet.

Sheesh the guys owned two lenses in his life and he thinks he''s an expert on both of them.

Has it ever occurred to you how bad a lens is if it's proponents big point is "It's better than an 18-135." With less range it better be better than a 18-135 just to be worth the money they ask for it.

The 18-135's big thing is at 24mm, it's better than an 16-85 and a DA*16-50.

The 18-135 isn't designed to be a top quality lens, it's designed to be a high flexibility convenient lens. And guess what? It's better at that than a 16-85, for some people.

Please, don't make me smack you down again, cause I will if I have to.

Thanks for the laugh, have a nice day...

No, really, have nice day.

I enjoyed the opportunity to get stupid for a while.

Last edited by normhead; 02-23-2016 at 08:31 AM.

timb64 · 02-23-2016, 08:15 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by normhead

Just to be clear tim have you ever owned a decent 18-135, or are you one of those guys who probably got a bad copy, was too dumb to take it back, sold it to some poor sucker instead and the spends the rest of his life trashing the lens?

You do know that there have been bad copies of every lens Pentax makes at some point complained about on the forum. Most of those people took our advice and returned their lenses and got a good copy or another lens. But no lens is immune to this. In your case, the problems seems to be you can''t get over it.

SO just to be clear, the fact that you have owned both, doesn't mean you know a damn thing.

If you want to talk about the worst copy of a lens ever shipped, every lens ever made sucks.

If you want to talk what can you expect to get out of a lens, then you have to look at a lot more than what one guy who constantly bitches says.

How do I know both the 31 and 77 are great lenses? I don't own either of them.

I look at the images just like everyone else.

Sheesh the guys owned two lenses in his life and he thinks he''s an expert on both of them.

Please, don't make me smack you down again, cause I will if I have to.

Thanks for the laugh, have a nice day...

No, really, have nice day.

The answer to my question was a simple yes or no,I think your rant says an awful lot and I'll let others read into it what they want.

For your information I was pleased with my copy of my 18-135 and took many pictures I am very happy with. I don't think you'll be able to back up your claim that I have spent "the rest of my life trashing it"! It's just that the 16-85 is a better lens and all empirical evidence bears this out. Why take it as such a personal affront?

As to your threat to "smack me down again" I don't think I've been spoken to like that since I was about 14, but hey if that's your version of reasoned debate,good luck to you bud.Do me a big favour and put me back on your ignore list

**JensE** · 02-23-2016, 09:13 AM - **2 Likes**

Norm, I don't really understand of why you quote my entire post for

Originally posted by normhead

Here are some examples from the 18-135...

and the somewhat heated discussion afterwards. Much of what I wrote, if you actually read it carefully, and my experience with the lens is totally in line with your examples. Maybe it is because of

Originally posted by normhead

There seems to be a certain number of 16-85 users who just can't let 18-135 users get a good word in edge wise. Some kind of jealousy or something i suspect.

?

I don't own a 16-85mm and I'm not getting one as the gain for me would be marginal in every sense. I meant to answer

Originally posted by hinman

If you have to start over with your short zoom decision, would you pick one of the two and explain why

not question the 18-135mm's overall versatility.

timb64 · 02-23-2016, 09:27 AM

Norm,rather than keep editing post #31 why don't you reply directly.
With regard to poor copies of the 16-85 I think you're clutching at straws,B&H shows 30 reviews with an average 4.5 by people who've actually owned copies.No doubt if it was a duff lens there would be more adverse reviews?
Keep your chin up bud

Somehow knew you wouldn't have an answer to that and then you make out your such a great guy!

Last edited by timb64; 02-23-2016 at 03:44 PM.

**DW58** · 02-23-2016, 09:53 AM

In PF lens review today 16-85 lists at $628.00. 18-135 $444.00. To many that may not be much of a difference. To many others, like me, it is. Some people prefer to have a bit more at the wide end and some, like me, prefer more reach. Two different lenses. Both of which have appeal to different people for different reasons. Concerned about edge to edge sharpness? Use primes.

**THoog** · 02-23-2016, 10:16 AM

At the moment, B&H and Adorama have both lenses within a couple dollars of each other. Amazon has the DA 18-135 for under $400, if you can find the correct listing instead of the old one that says the lens is discontinued (not true!).

Either way, it's nice to have options.

**boriscleto** · 02-23-2016, 10:21 AM

Originally posted by THoog

At the moment, B&H and Adorama have both lenses within a couple dollars of each other. Amazon has the DA 18-135 for under $400, if you can find the correct listing instead of the old one that says the lens is discontinued (not true!).

Either way, it's nice to have options.

I got mine for less than $300 in the "discontinued" listing last month. But it was OEM white box...

Dewman · 02-23-2016, 11:27 AM

Originally posted by boriscleto

I got mine for less than $300 in the "discontinued" listing last month. But it was OEM white box...

I got my DA 18-135mm attached to a K-30 (Less than 2K SA) on a CL ad for $175.00. My best Craig's List deal on a long time! Second best was a DA 16-45mm and a Tamron 18-200mm for $200.00. Both in the original boxes.. I LOVE the DA 16-45mm. I love the sharpness, color rendition and the 3-D effect if provides. The extra 2 mm on the wide end made more difference that I would have thought.

**THoog** · 02-23-2016, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by boriscleto

I got mine for less than $300 in the "discontinued" listing last month. But it was OEM white box...

Electronics Basket (shipped by Amazon) has a listing for $291 right now - I'm guessing it's a white box.

normhead · 02-23-2016, 12:01 PM

Did I miss anything? I was out taking pictures....

**THoog** · 02-23-2016, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by normhead

Did I miss anything? I was out taking pictures....

Rupert dropped by to insist that lenses can only be compared in terms of squirrel-portrait-taking capability, but he deleted the post before anyone else saw it.

Dewman · 02-23-2016, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by normhead

Did I miss anything? I was out taking pictures....

Do you have ANY IDEA how dang aggravating it is for you to have those scenes available to you and I don't?

Very nice, Norm. Just teasing, of course.

normhead · 02-23-2016, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by THoog

Rupert dropped by to insist that lenses can only be compared in terms of squirrel-portrait-taking capability, but he deleted the post before anyone else saw it.

Darn that's what happens, you go away for a bit and you miss all the good stuff.

---------- Post added 02-23-16 at 02:08 PM ----------

Originally posted by Dewman

Do you have ANY IDEA how dang aggravating it is for you to have those scenes available to you and I don't? Very nice, Norm. Just teasing, of course.

I know what it's like when I am visiting somewhere and I don't have photo ops right out the door... it sucks. Is that what you're saying?

**JensE** · 02-23-2016, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by THoog

Electronics Basket (shipped by Amazon) has a listing for $291 right now - I'm guessing it's a white box.

We're finally kind of back on the thread topic: Great value for this price! Also here in Germany, the 18-135mm can currently be had for much less than the 16-85mm.

Dewman · 02-23-2016, 12:15 PM

I keep being tempted to "upgrade" to a K-3..... or now, the K-1.... but, for the type of photos I take (strictly amateur), and my financial allowance for camera equipment, I think I'll just stick with my K-50 and K-30. I seldom print anything larger than 8x10 and.... well, I've grown very fond of the K-50/K-30 line. I'm not nearly as refined as some of you are in your ability to discern all the minute differences between cameras and lenses. So, I just go with what looks good to me and so far, I'm a happy camper.

But, who knows.... If I come across a swingin' deal like I missed out on, I might be tempted to jump on it!

02-23-2016, 12:06 PM	#43
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by THoog Rupert dropped by to insist that lenses can only be compared in terms of squirrel-portrait-taking capability, but he deleted the post before anyone else saw it. Darn that's what happens, you go away for a bit and you miss all the good stuff. ---------- Post added 02-23-16 at 02:08 PM ---------- Originally posted by Dewman Do you have ANY IDEA how dang aggravating it is for you to have those scenes available to you and I don't? Very nice, Norm. Just teasing, of course. I know what it's like when I am visiting somewhere and I don't have photo ops right out the door... it sucks. Is that what you're saying? Last edited by normhead; 02-23-2016 at 12:25 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Pentax DA 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 ED AL (IF) DC WR (Mint)	ArkanFoto	Sold Items	5	02-25-2016 08:10 AM
Pentax DA 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 ED AL (IF) DC WR @ Amazon - $250	luftfluss	Pentax Price Watch	8	08-29-2015 12:55 PM
Pentax SMC DA 18-135mm F/3.5-5.6 ED AL (IF) DC WR Lens	Xajoman	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	7	03-03-2015 07:46 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax-DA 18-135mm ED AL (IF) DC WR lens	The Foto Guy	Sold Items	3	05-09-2014 07:01 AM

02-23-2016, 07:49 AM	#31
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by timb64 Just to be clear Norm,do you or have you owned a 16-85? Just to be clear tim have you ever owned a decent 18-135, or are you one of those guys who probably got a bad copy, was too dumb to take it back, sold it to some poor sucker instead and the spends the rest of his life trashing the lens? You do know that there have been bad copies of every lens Pentax makes at some point complained about on the forum. Most of those people took our advice and returned their lenses and got a good copy or another lens. But no lens is immune to this. In your case, the problems seems to be you can''t get over it. SO just to be clear, the fact that you have owned both, doesn't mean you know a damn thing. Check the lensrentals.com sample deviation numbers if you doubt me. Jatrax sent his first copy of the 16-85 back, there have been bad copies of 16-85s as well. It's not like every copy of the lens is serviceable. Do you want to compare lenses by what you can expect, or by what is the worst that can happen if you order it. The worst that can happen if your smart is, if you get a bad copy you send it back. If you want to talk about the worst copy of a lens ever shipped, every lens ever made sucks. If you want to talk what can you expect to get out of a lens, then you have to look at a lot more than what one guy who constantly bitches says. How do I know both the 31 and 77 are great lenses? I don't own either of them. I look at the images just like everyone else, who doesn't own every lens on the planet. Sheesh the guys owned two lenses in his life and he thinks he''s an expert on both of them. Has it ever occurred to you how bad a lens is if it's proponents big point is "It's better than an 18-135." With less range it better be better than a 18-135 just to be worth the money they ask for it. The 18-135's big thing is at 24mm, it's better than an 16-85 and a DA16-50. The 18-135 isn't designed to be a top quality lens, it's designed to be a high flexibility convenient lens. And guess what? It's better at that than a 16-85, for some people. Please, don't make me smack you down again, cause I will if I have to. Thanks for the laugh, have a nice day... No, really, have nice day. I enjoyed the opportunity to get stupid for a while. Last edited by normhead; 02-23-2016 at 08:31 AM.*

02-23-2016, 08:15 AM - 1 Like	#32
timb64 Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: /Situation : Doing my best to avoid idiots! Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,514	Originally posted by normhead Just to be clear tim have you ever owned a decent 18-135, or are you one of those guys who probably got a bad copy, was too dumb to take it back, sold it to some poor sucker instead and the spends the rest of his life trashing the lens? You do know that there have been bad copies of every lens Pentax makes at some point complained about on the forum. Most of those people took our advice and returned their lenses and got a good copy or another lens. But no lens is immune to this. In your case, the problems seems to be you can''t get over it. SO just to be clear, the fact that you have owned both, doesn't mean you know a damn thing. If you want to talk about the worst copy of a lens ever shipped, every lens ever made sucks. If you want to talk what can you expect to get out of a lens, then you have to look at a lot more than what one guy who constantly bitches says. How do I know both the 31 and 77 are great lenses? I don't own either of them. I look at the images just like everyone else. Sheesh the guys owned two lenses in his life and he thinks he''s an expert on both of them. Please, don't make me smack you down again, cause I will if I have to. Thanks for the laugh, have a nice day... No, really, have nice day. The answer to my question was a simple yes or no,I think your rant says an awful lot and I'll let others read into it what they want. For your information I was pleased with my copy of my 18-135 and took many pictures I am very happy with. I don't think you'll be able to back up your claim that I have spent "the rest of my life trashing it"! It's just that the 16-85 is a better lens and all empirical evidence bears this out. Why take it as such a personal affront? As to your threat to "smack me down again" I don't think I've been spoken to like that since I was about 14, but hey if that's your version of reasoned debate,good luck to you bud.Do me a big favour and put me back on your ignore list

02-23-2016, 09:13 AM - 2 Likes	#33
JensE Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2015 Location: Leipzig Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,975	Norm, I don't really understand of why you quote my entire post for Originally posted by normhead Here are some examples from the 18-135... and the somewhat heated discussion afterwards. Much of what I wrote, if you actually read it carefully, and my experience with the lens is totally in line with your examples. Maybe it is because of Originally posted by normhead There seems to be a certain number of 16-85 users who just can't let 18-135 users get a good word in edge wise. Some kind of jealousy or something i suspect. ? I don't own a 16-85mm and I'm not getting one as the gain for me would be marginal in every sense. I meant to answer Originally posted by hinman If you have to start over with your short zoom decision, would you pick one of the two and explain why not question the 18-135mm's overall versatility.

02-23-2016, 09:27 AM	#34
timb64 Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: /Situation : Doing my best to avoid idiots! Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,514	Norm,rather than keep editing post #31 why don't you reply directly. With regard to poor copies of the 16-85 I think you're clutching at straws,B&H shows 30 reviews with an average 4.5 by people who've actually owned copies.No doubt if it was a duff lens there would be more adverse reviews? Keep your chin up bud Somehow knew you wouldn't have an answer to that and then you make out your such a great guy! Last edited by timb64; 02-23-2016 at 03:44 PM.

02-23-2016, 09:53 AM	#35
DW58 Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2015 Location: Rural Oregon Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,082	In PF lens review today 16-85 lists at $628.00. 18-135 $444.00. To many that may not be much of a difference. To many others, like me, it is. Some people prefer to have a bit more at the wide end and some, like me, prefer more reach. Two different lenses. Both of which have appeal to different people for different reasons. Concerned about edge to edge sharpness? Use primes.

02-23-2016, 10:16 AM	#36
THoog Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: North Carolina Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,685	At the moment, B&H and Adorama have both lenses within a couple dollars of each other. Amazon has the DA 18-135 for under $400, if you can find the correct listing instead of the old one that says the lens is discontinued (not true!). Either way, it's nice to have options.

02-23-2016, 10:21 AM	#37
boriscleto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: North Syracuse, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,476	Originally posted by THoog At the moment, B&H and Adorama have both lenses within a couple dollars of each other. Amazon has the DA 18-135 for under $400, if you can find the correct listing instead of the old one that says the lens is discontinued (not true!). Either way, it's nice to have options. I got mine for less than $300 in the "discontinued" listing last month. But it was OEM white box...

02-23-2016, 11:27 AM	#38
Dewman Veteran Member Join Date: May 2012 Location: Idaho Posts: 5,492 Original Poster	Originally posted by boriscleto I got mine for less than $300 in the "discontinued" listing last month. But it was OEM white box... I got my DA 18-135mm attached to a K-30 (Less than 2K SA) on a CL ad for $175.00. My best Craig's List deal on a long time! Second best was a DA 16-45mm and a Tamron 18-200mm for $200.00. Both in the original boxes.. I LOVE the DA 16-45mm. I love the sharpness, color rendition and the 3-D effect if provides. The extra 2 mm on the wide end made more difference that I would have thought.

02-23-2016, 11:46 AM	#39
THoog Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: North Carolina Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,685	Originally posted by boriscleto I got mine for less than $300 in the "discontinued" listing last month. But it was OEM white box... Electronics Basket (shipped by Amazon) has a listing for $291 right now - I'm guessing it's a white box.

02-23-2016, 12:01 PM	#40
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Did I miss anything? I was out taking pictures....

02-23-2016, 12:05 PM	#41
THoog Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: North Carolina Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,685	Originally posted by normhead Did I miss anything? I was out taking pictures.... Rupert dropped by to insist that lenses can only be compared in terms of squirrel-portrait-taking capability, but he deleted the post before anyone else saw it.

02-23-2016, 12:06 PM	#42
Dewman Veteran Member Join Date: May 2012 Location: Idaho Posts: 5,492 Original Poster	Originally posted by normhead Did I miss anything? I was out taking pictures.... Do you have ANY IDEA how dang aggravating it is for you to have those scenes available to you and I don't? Very nice, Norm. Just teasing, of course.

02-23-2016, 12:09 PM	#44
JensE Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2015 Location: Leipzig Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,975	Originally posted by THoog Electronics Basket (shipped by Amazon) has a listing for $291 right now - I'm guessing it's a white box. We're finally kind of back on the thread topic: Great value for this price! Also here in Germany, the 18-135mm can currently be had for much less than the 16-85mm.

02-23-2016, 12:15 PM	#45
Dewman Veteran Member Join Date: May 2012 Location: Idaho Posts: 5,492 Original Poster	I keep being tempted to "upgrade" to a K-3..... or now, the K-1.... but, for the type of photos I take (strictly amateur), and my financial allowance for camera equipment, I think I'll just stick with my K-50 and K-30. I seldom print anything larger than 8x10 and.... well, I've grown very fond of the K-50/K-30 line. I'm not nearly as refined as some of you are in your ability to discern all the minute differences between cameras and lenses. So, I just go with what looks good to me and so far, I'm a happy camper. But, who knows.... If I come across a swingin' deal like I missed out on, I might be tempted to jump on it!