Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-17-2017, 12:36 PM   #1
Forum Member




Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Burson California
Posts: 61
Between 18-135 & 18-270 which for good walk around lens ???

Of these two lenses which would be the best all around walk around lens for every day use ?? and considering I will be getting the 55-300. Feedback appreciated. Thanks bill

01-17-2017, 12:48 PM   #2
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
TER-OR's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Dundee, IL
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,699
The 18-135 is really nice to use, the motorized focus is very responsive and sure. I find it more useful than many lenses in its range. I also have the 55-300, and this is a good pairing - moving the 55-300 to a long-use only. The 18-135 is better from 55-135 than the 55-300 is.
01-17-2017, 01:18 PM   #3
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,381
I don't have the 18-270, but I do have its 18-250 predecessor, which is identical in design philosophy and intent if not the specifics. I also have the 18-135.

IMO the 18-135 is optically the better lens. It is perhaps slightly shorter but a little bulkier, subjectively. In low light situations, my K-5 will (just) lock focus zoomed out all the way on the 18-135 to f/5.6 but struggles on the 18-250 at f/6.3.

If you are taking casual fun "went there, saw that" snaps with good to excellent light, the superzoom has a versatility which is hard to beat; if you want to bring home some real keepers, forego the 136-270mm range and use a separate lens for it.

If you are DEFINITELY getting the 55-300, the 18-270 is pointless overlap. In fact the 16-85 may be a better choice to cover the wide end if you are getting something for the long end anyway, because you get a little more at the wide end. I considered it but went for the 18-135 because I wanted ONE WR zoom lens that could do as much as possible outdoors in wide open spaces at reasonable cost, and that fit the bill better. Had I not already been swimming in glass decided on a two lens WR solution with price no real object, I would have gone with 16-85 + 55-300.
01-17-2017, 01:43 PM   #4
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: San Mateo, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 179
QuoteOriginally posted by pathdoc Quote
If you are DEFINITELY getting the 55-300, the 18-270 is pointless overlap. In fact the 16-85 may be a better choice to cover the wide end if you are getting something for the long end anyway, because you get a little more at the wide end. I considered it but went for the 18-135 because I wanted ONE WR zoom lens that could do as much as possible outdoors in wide open spaces at reasonable cost, and that fit the bill better. Had I not already been swimming in glass decided on a two lens WR solution with price no real object, I would have gone with 16-85 + 55-300.
I went with the two lens WR solution, and I'm happy I did. I had the 18-135 and the old non-WR 55-300. I've sold both and now have the 16-85 and newest 55-300 PLM. I've found that I use 16mm much more than the 86-135 range, but your usage may be different. In any case, I agree with @pathdoc that the 18-270 is pointless overlap if you have the 55-300.

01-17-2017, 02:01 PM   #5
Digitiser of Film
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North East of England
Posts: 20,576
I had the 18-270 for quite a while and sold it a few months back.

As superzooms go, it's OK, but that's about as enthusiastic as I can be. Under 100mm, it's actually rather good when used between f/5.6 and f/8... in fact, in the centre it's even pretty good wide open at these focal lengths. But from 100mm upwards, the performance drops dramatically, and you really need to use it between f/8 and f/11 for the best results. At the long end, even stopping down doesn't help all that much with detail, though for on-screen images and smaller prints it's fine.

AF speed isn't particularly quick, either, though it's quiet and very accurate. Not great for moving subjects, but for everything else it's perfectly acceptable.

The Sigma 18-300 is a much better lens, IMHO, and whilst it still suffers from being a super-zoom, it's actually rather good for what it is. And it's surprisingly good in the centre even at 300mm.

I can't comment knowledgeably on the 18-135. I briefly owned a copy, but found the border performance severely lacking and returned it. That could have been an issue with my individual copy, but since I haven't tried another, I can't say one way or the other.
01-17-2017, 06:13 PM   #6
hcc
Pentaxian
hcc's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,999
This is a hard call and it will depends upon what you shoot.

I have both DA18-135mm and DA18-270mm. (I had before a DA18-250m.) I have use for both DA18-135mm and DA18-270mm. When I travel light, and cannot change lenses, the DA18-270mm is my only option. It has the reach and is pretty sturdy. The AF is nice IMHO.

I use the DA18-135mm mostly for its WR characteristics, or when I use my FA*300mm f4.5 on a second body. In this case, the DA18-270mm is no needed.

I may add that my use might not be typical and I operate in a manner that may differ from the OP. I love to shoot prime and the DA18-270mm plus a few primes is my preferred combo. In addition I like to have two camera bodies: a superzoom on one body and a prime on the other.

Altogether, not as simple as one may think. There are uses for both DA18-135mm and DA18-270mm.

Hope that the comment may help.
01-17-2017, 07:35 PM   #7
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Mechanicsburg, PA
Posts: 176
It is quite simple. If you want better image quality, go with the 18-135. If you think you may shoot pictures of wildlife and/or birds, get the 18-270.

01-17-2017, 08:56 PM   #8
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 602
QuoteOriginally posted by Gold Coast Quote
Of these two lenses which would be the best all around walk around lens for every day use ?? and considering I will be getting the 55-300. Feedback appreciated. Thanks bill
Without question the best one to pair with these the 55-300 is the DA HD 16-85. The 18-135 is great if you want a little better telephoto reach but... The 16-85 is just a sharper lens all around and is a great walk around piece of glass. However the 18-135mm is really nice as well. Either one will work pass on the 18-270.
01-17-2017, 09:58 PM   #9
Pentaxian
Paul the Sunman's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,838
16-85 is a great match for the 55-300, but the 18-135 is pretty good too. The 16-85 is better across the frame, and the extra 2mm at the wide end is invaluable. However, the 18-135 is more than serviceable, and may be the better choice if you frequently want it's long end without the hassle of changing lenses.
01-17-2017, 10:18 PM   #10
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
pres589's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Wichita, KS
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,509
If you know you are going to be carrying the 55-300, I would skip the 18-135, and get the Tamron 17-50 right now at $300. Not tomorrow, right now.

For general carry and not relying on another lens for longer reach, I really like my 18-135. The 18-250 and 18-270's just aren't that sharp, and the WR and fast AF of the 18-135 is some fat icing on that cake.
01-18-2017, 07:58 AM   #11
Veteran Member
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,830
With all the pixels we now have at our disposal, cropping the 135 end of the 18-135 works well for me when I need a little more reach. Almost all of the longer super zooms are at their weakest at the long end, and stopped down a bit, the 18-135 does fine. You can't beat the size and convenience, and WR is a bonus.
01-18-2017, 08:56 AM   #12
Site Supporter
Bengan's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Stockholm
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,756
Out of the two you are listing I would definitely recommend the 18-135. It's fairly sharp with good autofocus and weather sealed. I have even been able to get an almost decent "birdy-num-num" shot with some cropping. If you think that you need something with a wider range, I'd recommend the Sigma 18-300.
Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K-3  Photo 
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
k-mount, lens, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Best walk around lens between 18-135 or 18-270 ??? Gold Coast Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 13 06-13-2016 08:38 AM
Need a lens recommendation for my mom between DA 18-135, Sigma 18-250, and DA 55-300 VoiceOfReason Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 27 01-06-2016 08:13 PM
Pentax 18-270 vs 18-135 rdj92807 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 18 02-14-2015 10:20 AM
Walk around lens - 18-135/18-250? JayX2A Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 13 02-01-2013 04:22 PM
Walk-Around/Travel Zoom: Pentax 18-135 vs. Sigma 17-50 ahw Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 7 10-10-2011 06:55 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:42 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top