[UncleVanya]

If I may step into the quagmire, the lenses in question are all adequate for great photos. Buy the lens you can afford that gives the range and has the features you want. Ignore the pundits, and shoot some pictures.

[ScooterMaxi Jim]

UncleVanya - you've got the right idea.

Norm, if this was about landscape lenses - we would be talking about higher end prime lenses for the most part. As for regular, general uses where a zoom will be more versatile, then the need to stop down isn't a priority. It happens that my typical shooting situation often is close to f/4. For instance, it is my preferred f-stop for portrait work because faster yields poor focus on important facial features and smaller apertures don't yield enough background blur.

As for that 31mm comparison, I find it quite odd that one lens wide open is not much sharper than the borders (the other not close at all) and the two lenses are not close to consistent as to where the sharpest center area lands. It is very clear, then, that the two samples are not at all close in overall sample quality. That tends to yield the theory you're forwarding questionable, at best.

Sorry, UncleVanya - I just couldn't resist.

[Nicolas06]

Let's look at the actual numbers, so we can put this to rest. Please pay attention to the ranges of resolution assigned to EX, VG, G, F, P for 16mp vs. 24mp (likely amplified due to AA vs. non AA filter factor). Let's stick to wide open. All modern lenses are pretty decent at f/5.6 - if that setting is stopped down by one stop or a bit more.

At 24mm borders and extreme (corner) the 16-85 is 2295 and 2076 (middle of VG 2070-2410 range, and nudging into the VG range). The 18-135 indicates 2054 border (somewhat below VG) and 1928 extreme (very slightly above the middle of the good range). The 16-45 rates 1959 at border ranking it in the upper third of VG in the 10mp 1750-2050 VG range; the review did not include extreme for 24mm. So, in this instance, it is clear that the 16-45 is slightly ahead of the 16-85 at 24mm, and the 18-135 is quite some distance behind.

This is funny all the restrictions and ways you have to put here to conclude that the 16-45 is the best. Especially counting that typicall the more resolution the lenses have, the lower the lenses tend to fare, in particular on borders.

Still you try to sell things as different while they perform the same. The one that will be the sharpest will be the one that is a good sample and shot on a K3...

[Nicolas06]

UncleVanya - you've got the right idea.

Norm, if this was about landscape lenses - we would be talking about higher end prime lenses for the most part.

You 2 first sentences are in complete oposition. The UncleVanya remark is about all of theses lenses are doing a great job in practice... And yet you explain us they can't perform to take a landscape...

As for regular, general uses where a zoom will be more versatile, then the need to stop down isn't a priority. It happens that my typical shooting situation often is close to f/4. For instance, it is my preferred f-stop for portrait work because faster yields poor focus on important facial features and smaller apertures don't yield enough background blur.

Everybody has preferences, that doesn't make f/4 the only choice ever or the only reference to take.

[normhead]

UncleVanya - you've got the right idea.

Norm, if this was about landscape lenses - we would be talking about higher end prime lenses for the most part. As for regular, general uses where a zoom will be more versatile, then the need to stop down isn't a priority. It happens that my typical shooting situation often is close to f/4. For instance, it is my preferred f-stop for portrait work because faster yields poor focus on important facial features and smaller apertures don't yield enough background blur.

As for that 31mm comparison, I find it quite odd that one lens wide open is not much sharper than the borders (the other not close at all) and the two lenses are not close to consistent as to where the sharpest center area lands. It is very clear, then, that the two samples are not at all close in overall sample quality. That tends to yield the theory you're forwarding questionable, at best.

Sorry, UncleVanya - I just couldn't resist.

And if we were talking portrait lenses you'd be right. But we are talking "walking around lenses", not "walking around in a portrait studio" lenses.

It occurs to me that we have opposed theories about how to evaluate a camera, you are apparently looking at the lens at it's worst as if you will use the lens at it's worst settings.

I look at lenses at their best settings, to evaluate whether the lens adds anything to my arsenal. I'm more concerned about what lens does well , than what it does poorly. Which clarifies why we are opposite sides of this issue. The simple fact, you can say it's the worst, because at some settings it is, while I can say it's the best, because at some settings it is, and we can both be right.

In this case, you rate the 18-135 so poorly, because it doesn't do what you need it to do. My only question would be do you really think that's relevant to everyone else looking for a walk around lens. I could probably post 1000 keepers i would have missed if the 16-45 was my walk around lens.

My favourite portrait lenses would be the Sigma 70-2.8 and 50 1.7. I simply don't consider ƒ4 lenses portrait lenses. Maybe snapshot lenses.

Every lens is bad if you use it for a purpose for which it wasn't designed or which doesn't fit it's technical profile.

[kh1234567890]

In this case, you rate the 18-135 so poorly, because it doesn't do what you need it to do. My only question would be do you really think that's relevant to everyone else looking for a walk around lens. I could probably post 1000 keepers i would have missed if the 16-45 was my walk around lens.

But is the DA18-135 any better than the DA18-55/DA50-200 pair, the cost being about the same ?

[IchabodCrane]

What is a "walking around lens" unless it's the one on my iPhone (which does walk around with me often)? The category is mid-range zoom and it's not defined by what anyone thinks it should never be used for. If we get too many people playing that game, ultimately we'll conclude the lens shouldn't be used for anything. That hardly makes sense considering it's such a popular class of lens.

[normhead]

But is the DA18-135 any better than the DA18-55/DA50-200 pair, the cost being about the same ?

I would put that completely on "do you want two lenses or one." Or do you want 200 or don't you? Unlike others on the forum, I don't trash the 18-55 or the 50-200. I've seen great images from both.

Here's my 18-135 libraries

One of the advantages of the 18-135 and 16-85 is they both do excellent pseudo macro, which is definitely part of my walking around....

But just for general touristy kinds of every day stuff, I use it all the time, even indoors at X-mas and family gatherings.
DA_18-135 Slideshow by Norm_Head | Photobucket

That's my kind of walking around. If it's your kind of walking around, you'll want this lens.

[reh321]

There are still a few new K50 bodies around at the very good price of $400 Australian, body only. I'm unsure about getting the kit lens in the bundle, which would be roughly another hundred dollars, or trying or an upgrade to something more versatile and capable. The Sigma 17-70 has impressed me for a while, despite some criticism of it's performance wide open, while SP or EX Tamrons or Sigma's are getting out of my budget. Any other lenses I should consider as an upgrade walk around lens without going too expensive? The 17-70 is about $330 on Ebay and I wouldn't want to go over this. Mainly I shoot with classic lenses, the main kit being:
Pentacon 30 F3.5
Rikenon 50mm F2
Rikenon 28-100 F4
Nikon 80-200 F4.5.

If anyone knows of any reason any these won't perform well on a K50 I'd appreciate the advice.

Hal55

It seems like this thread just keeps going and going, so I might as well add my advice.


Almost a year ago I bought a K-30 used-like-new from KEH, which was kitted with the standard 18-55mm lens.


Almost immediately, I bought the 18-135 lens various members have already recommended.
It is the one normally mounted on the camera and the one I use the most.
I've had no reason to second-guess my decision.

[UncleVanya]

I would put that completely on "do you want two lenses or one." Or do you want 200 or don't you? Unlike others on the forum, I don't trash the 18-55.

Here's my 18-135 libraries

One of the advantages of the 18-135 and 16-85 is they both do excellent pseudo macro, which is definitely part of my walking around....

But just for general touristy kinds of every day stuff, I use it all the time, even indoors at X-mas and family gatherings.
DA_18-135 Slideshow by Norm_Head | Photobucket

That's my kind of walking around. If it's your kind of walking around, you'll want this lens.

My first DSLR was the K100D Super and it came with a DA 18-55 (series 1) and the DA 50-200. I used the heck out of both lenses. The 50-200 is light and small and while not as easy to carry as a one lens combo that particular two lens combo is pretty good. The 18-55 (even series 1) is a really good kit lens - nothing wrong with using it in my opinion. The 18-135 seems better in the areas they overlap but that could be bias. Want to convince yourself that this is all just an exercise in small optimizations? Look on the forums for the 18-55 and 18-135 threads and see what people can do with these lenses.

As for which is best - as said above - do you need 200? Do you want to not have two lenses and be forced to swap them? These will lead you to the right answer.

[eyrr]

That's my kind of walking around. If it's your kind of walking around, you'll want this lens.

Gorgeous slideshows! That's exactly my kind of walking around. I'm glad I opted for this lens. It continues to surprise me with all the things it does well.

[Setter Dog]

With my K-50 I went for the 18-135mm bundle, which wasn't that much extra. Really great lens in my opinion and very versatile.
I liked it so much I kept it when I upgraded my body and still use it often.

I agree with Victor. I have the K-50 w/18-135, and 55-300. I like both lenses, but the 18-135mm WR is definitely the most versatile.
Jack

[Des]

When I had a film SLR, I used to lug around two all-metal MF zooms to give me 28-210mm. They weighed a lot and I always seemed to have the wide-normal lens on when I wanted tele and vice versa.On an APS-C body, the 18-135 covers pretty much the whole of that range in one light-weight, compact, WR package, with near-silent AF and manual focus override. My old Canon FD 70-210 f4 was faster and probably better at the long end (no way to compare now), but that's the only con. If I'd had this in the 1980s and 1990s I would have thought it was a dream come true.

The 18-135 might be soft in the corners, but usually that doesn't matter. Look at the way Norm and others can make it sing, in a wide variety of conditions. At half the price of the 16-85, it's a great buy.

[IchabodCrane]

When I had a film SLR, I used to lug around two all-metal MF zooms to give me 28-210mm. They weighed a lot and I always seemed to have the wide-normal lens on when I wanted tele and vice versa.On an APS-C body, the 18-135 covers pretty much the whole of that range in one light-weight, compact, WR package, with near-silent AF and manual focus override. My old Canon FD 70-210 f4 was faster and probably better at the long end (no way to compare now), but that's the only con. If I'd had this in the 1980s and 1990s I would have thought it was a dream come true.

The 18-135 might be soft in the corners, but usually that doesn't matter. Look at the way Norm and others can make it sing, in a wide variety of conditions. At half the price of the 16-85, it's a great buy.

The value proposition is regional. In the USA, the premium for the DA 16-85 over the DA 18-135 is about 11% at the moment. That changes the question substantially.

[UncleVanya]

The value proposition is regional. In the USA, the premium for the DA 16-85 over the DA 18-135 is about 11% at the moment. That changes the question substantially.

Not used. There the delta is quite large. On eBay a sold items search shows the 16-85 going for 317 - 500+ used, the 317 being an outlier with most above $390. The 18-135 was shown sold for under $200, more typically around $225. The real street price difference for used being between 50%-100% premium over the 18-135 sometimes more.