Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-10-2018, 08:26 AM - 1 Like   #16
Pentaxian
Kozlok's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Albuquerque
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,145
If you want better IQ in the normal range, a used 17-50/2.8 or the Pentax 16-50/2.8 are super cheap on the used market now. If you drag the 55-300 along anyway, that’s much better than the 18-135. If you want a single lens to travel with, the 18-135 is a great choice. I like the 16-85 as well.

If I were on a budget and wanted the best possible IQ, I would buy a used Sigma 17-50/2.8, sell the 18-50, and add the Sigma 10-20/3.5. Get the Pentax 16-50 if you want WR. If you want more range on the same budget, the Sigma 17-70 (first generation) is also cheap and great.

06-10-2018, 09:16 AM - 1 Like   #17
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
robgski's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,759
There is much love fore the 18-135 WR, as you can see here.
06-10-2018, 10:53 AM - 1 Like   #18
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2008
Photos: Albums
Posts: 217
I would keep saving for the DA*11-18mm.
It will probably be big, expensive and awesome
06-10-2018, 11:41 AM - 2 Likes   #19
Senior Member




Join Date: Jul 2017
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 280
I own both the Pentax DA 18-135 and the 16-85. I do mostly landscapes, so I found the extra field of view at 16 mm more important than the extra length of the 18-135. I also found the IQ better with the 16-85. For travel, I take the 16-85 along with the Pentax DA 10-17 fisheye. The 10-17 is a little soft with some purple fringing issues and major distortion, but it is a small lens to carry and you can use it to get very wide shots like inside cathedrals or the full width of a castle, garden or large building.

06-10-2018, 12:20 PM - 2 Likes   #20
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
An 18-135 for $240 Canadian is pretty much a no brainer. I paid $600 for mine.
The advantages of the 16-85 are marginally better IQ , but often not discernibly different, and 2mm wider,
which is completely negated by carrying the Sigma 8-16 or another UWA with it.

The 18-135 with the 55-300 is a nice walkaround kit. Smallish, fits in a shoulder camera bag easily. Covers a lot of range. with excellence in centre sharpness all through it's range. Some pseudo macro images of very small flowers.

18-135 images






Honestly people talking about this lens being soft are seriously misguided. The images don't lie.

And PS, all shot at that "un-necessary", (edge soft) 135mm.

Last edited by normhead; 06-10-2018 at 05:53 PM.
06-10-2018, 12:59 PM   #21
amateur dirt farmer
Loyal Site Supporter
pepperberry farm's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: probably out in a field somewhere...
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 41,257
to me, the 18-135mm is a no-brainer...

the range is great as a walk-around, the DC motor is near-silent and accurate, and the lens produces clear, beautifully-rendered shots...

it's like it was made for my K-3...
06-10-2018, 01:51 PM - 1 Like   #22
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Oklahoma USA
Posts: 2,192
I can't really imagine not having something wider than 18mm. I initially chose Pentax for digital because of the 16-45. 16 is a completely different perspective than 18 - which is why in 35mm I bought a 24/2.8 to go with a 28-55. Now I have the old/slow Sigma 10-20 for my Pentax, and am mostly happy with it, although even though I now have a relatively centered copy, sometimes the edge results are just horrible. On the other hand most of my Sigma photos are at 10mm and half are with a P-series split ND attached, and duplicating that setup with the 8-16 would probably be expensive and bulky. Also I use a polarizer often with the 10-20 (not as much for blue skies were you have to be careful using one as for improving foliage saturation or reducing some water reflections, both of which can result in blown highlights without the polarizer.

06-10-2018, 02:36 PM - 1 Like   #23
Pentaxian
jddwoods's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Newark, Delaware
Posts: 1,035
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentax Syntax Quote
Your lenses have a real size advantage over most anything else. The 2.8 wide angle zoom is going to a big beast. I think just adding the DA 15 for covering the wide angle should do the trick. The 16-85 would also be a great choice to complement the 55-300 PLM. Those two are my travel kit on the K-3.
I agree. Add the 15 Limited, either a used SMC version or a new HD version. My three lenses that go everywhere are my SMC 15 Limited, DA 16-85 and 55-300 PLM. These three cover everything for me. As for a good walk around versatile zoom the 18-135 would also be a fine choice and the 15 limited would complement it nicely.
06-10-2018, 02:45 PM - 1 Like   #24
Veteran Member
LensBeginner's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,696
QuoteOriginally posted by tibbitts Quote
I can't really imagine not having something wider than 18mm. I initially chose Pentax for digital because of the 16-45. 16 is a completely different perspective than 18 - which is why in 35mm I bought a 24/2.8 to go with a 28-55. Now I have the old/slow Sigma 10-20 for my Pentax, and am mostly happy with it, although even though I now have a relatively centered copy, sometimes the edge results are just horrible. On the other hand most of my Sigma photos are at 10mm and half are with a P-series split ND attached, and duplicating that setup with the 8-16 would probably be expensive and bulky. Also I use a polarizer often with the 10-20 (not as much for blue skies were you have to be careful using one as for improving foliage saturation or reducing some water reflections, both of which can result in blown highlights without the polarizer.
Agree wholeheartedly.
I have a 10-20 as well... sometimes I think I should have gone for the 8-16mm straight away... I don't commonly use filter so taht would have probably been more feasible than in your case...

Mine has a soft-ish right edge at from mid-high distances to infinity, only at 10mm or thereabouts. Indoors (i.e. short distance) is close to perfect, even wide open (f/3.5). So I guess a "perfect" copy of that lens is just a unicorn...


At the end of the day I'm pretty happy with my setup though.
06-10-2018, 03:35 PM - 1 Like   #25
Veteran Member
SSGGeezer's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Indiana, U.S.
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,845
QuoteOriginally posted by LensBeginner Quote
Agree wholeheartedly.
I have a 10-20 as well... sometimes I think I should have gone for the 8-16mm straight away... I don't commonly use filter so taht would have probably been more feasible than in your case...

Mine has a soft-ish right edge at from mid-high distances to infinity, only at 10mm or thereabouts. Indoors (i.e. short distance) is close to perfect, even wide open (f/3.5). So I guess a "perfect" copy of that lens is just a unicorn...


At the end of the day I'm pretty happy with my setup though.
You should ask Norm about the 8-16mm. It requires more than just basic PP is what I took from previous comments.

---------- Post added 06-10-18 at 03:35 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
An 18-135 for $240 Canadian is pretty much a no brainer. I paid $600 for mine.
The advantages of the 16-85 are marginally better IQ , but often not discernibly different, and 2mm wider,
which is completely negated by carrying the Sigma 8-16 or another UWA with it.

The 18-135 with the 55-300 is a nice walkaround kit. Smallish, fits in a shoulder camera bag easily. Covers a lot of range. with excellence in centre sharpness all through it's range. Some pseudo macro images of very small flowers.

18-135 images






Honestly people talking about this lens being soft are seriously misguided. The images don't lie.
Is that fairly accurate Norm?
06-10-2018, 03:59 PM - 1 Like   #26
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 345
Keep on saving!

(when the moment comes you will love to have that money aside - for the 11-18 and the K-3II or anything else if you change ideas in the meantime.)
06-10-2018, 05:04 PM   #27
Custom User Title
Loyal Site Supporter
FozzFoster's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Alberta
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,803
Original Poster
Thank you everyone for your feedback!
I really appreciate it!

I went for the 18-135! Just picked it up! New member to the family!
https://flic.kr/p/26ZQZTs

Now I have to recoup that money for the UWA.I have $485 left in my squirrel fund..
Having heard everyone here, it sounds like I should get a different UWA besides the DA* 11-18mm - I'll have to think more on that!
06-10-2018, 05:15 PM - 1 Like   #28
Veteran Member
SSGGeezer's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Indiana, U.S.
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,845
QuoteOriginally posted by FozzFoster Quote
Thank you everyone for your feedback!
I really appreciate it!

I went for the 18-135! Just picked it up! New member to the family!
https://flic.kr/p/26ZQZTs

Now I have to recoup that money for the UWA.I have $485 left in my squirrel fund..
Having heard everyone here, it sounds like I should get a different UWA besides the DA* 11-18mm - I'll have to think more on that!
No, that isn't what everyone is saying, they are just offering up suggestions if you need one right this minute or don't want to wait. I would try to keep hiding cash in your stash to see if any news about the 11-18 comes out in the next month or two.

The 18 should be wide enough in the short term.
06-10-2018, 05:21 PM - 2 Likes   #29
Custom User Title
Loyal Site Supporter
FozzFoster's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Alberta
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,803
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by SSGGeezer Quote
The 18 should be wide enough in the short term.
Oh, for sure! I've been going for years with 18 being wide enough!
Going UWA will be a whole new field for me to shoot. But some of my favorite photographers shoot with UWA and I hope to do similar shots!

QuoteOriginally posted by SSGGeezer Quote
I would try to keep hiding cash in your stash to see if any news about the 11-18 comes out in the next month or two.
That's the plan for now! I still would like the latest-greatest with WR and at f/2.8. I know it's going to be big and expensive - but I think it will be worth it. I'll just have to save for a bit longer.
I just couldn't pass on such a deal. The 18-135 goes for about $580+gst CAD at McBain Camera right now. I paid just $240.
06-10-2018, 05:36 PM - 1 Like   #30
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
For those of us who own a UWA zoom, this you have to have 16 thing is kind of crazy. Having a Sigma 8-16 I'd say, you have to have 8, 16 is only halfway there.

---------- Post added 06-10-18 at 08:37 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by SSGGeezer Quote
No, that isn't what everyone is saying, they are just offering up suggestions if you need one right this minute or don't want to wait. I would try to keep hiding cash in your stash to see if any news about the 11-18 comes out in the next month or two.

The 18 should be wide enough in the short term.
For sure if you have time to wait, wait for the 11-18.
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!
18-135mm, 8-16mm, cad, da, f/2.8, flickr, head, images, k-mount, k3ii, lens, lenses, macro, mine, norm, pentax, pentax lens, range, re, slr lens, wr
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ready to buy first full frame camera - would appreciate some advice Alice Pentax K-1 & K-1 II 40 02-18-2018 12:12 PM
After Going Full Frame, Does Anyone Else Appreciate APS-C More? reivax General Photography 44 01-11-2017 12:21 PM
Created new website - would appreciate any feedback simonkit Photographic Industry and Professionals 7 11-29-2012 11:02 AM
Keep K-x buy premium lens, get K-r and get good lens, get the K-7 w/ lens or K-5? crossover37 Pentax DSLR Discussion 19 02-06-2011 10:38 PM
Would appreciate any critique claskowski Photo Critique 6 12-10-2008 06:02 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:18 PM. | 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