How 4K looks using 18-135?

KoolKool · 11-11-2018, 07:10 PM

hi people!
i'm planning for a timelapse shooting on a city, its also my travel destination too!

i'm quite a minimalist, so carry multiple lenses is a "no" for me, i just need one body one len to serve me all, space-saving, time-saving, light-weight but still demand for good enough quality, (i'm using K70)

i'm considering 18-135, so i can perform from wide to tele shots, also hyperlapse, dolly zoom... technique..and some other creative stuffs

my final output will be 4K resolution, and sadly, i don't have 4K screen, mine is small, so the best experience will be for viewers

So my question is.....how 18-135 image quality look like in real 4K screen? will soft corner issue affect 4K viewing experience?

**UncleVanya** · 11-11-2018, 08:46 PM - **1 Like**

Soft corners on the 18-135 are mainly seen above 70mm. It really depends on what the subject matter is. When I use the lens I'm above 70 mainly when there is a central subject and the corners are mostly background. So I rarely notice the issue. A point to consider is that the head to head tests of the 16-85 vs the 18-135 gave the nod to the 18-135 over cropping the 16-85 - so what really matter if wider or more telephoto is more useful.

JohnX · 11-12-2018, 04:30 AM

Presumably you'll be using the K70 for the time lapse? If so, I think you'll find its video output is not 4k standard. Far from it in fact.

KoolKool · 11-12-2018, 04:47 AM

Originally posted by JohnX

Presumably you'll be using the K70 for the time lapse? If so, I think you'll find its video output is not 4k standard. Far from it in fact.

yes, i know this feature, built in timelapse mode is cool and fun, although i never use it
most of us has been taught to use interval shooting and manual post processing at home for freedom editing and maximum quality

Originally posted by UncleVanya

Soft corners on the 18-135 are mainly seen above 70mm. It really depends on what the subject matter is. When I use the lens I'm above 70 mainly when there is a central subject and the corners are mostly background. So I rarely notice the issue. A point to consider is that the head to head tests of the 16-85 vs the 18-135 gave the nod to the 18-135 over cropping the 16-85 - so what really matter if wider or more telephoto is more useful.

well, most of my timelapse will be on wide focal, that's mean i wil go for 18mm and 24mm, when creativity needed, then longer focal

i'm just thinking
24MP downsampled to 4K resolution, plus with cropping to 16:9 ratio

So it's possible for achieve wow factor!

Kozlok · 11-12-2018, 05:56 AM

If you are shooting only wide and want WOW, I would pick up a used 16-50, or the Tamron/Sigma 17-50. The Pentax is WR of course. These all have much better IQ than the 18-135. They are all very inexpensive on the used market right now.

If you need more zoom, on a budget I’d get the Sigma 17-70 generation 1. If you have the cash, the 16-85 is better yet.

The 18-135 is fine for centered subjects, but not my choice for a landscaper.

**UncleVanya** · 11-12-2018, 06:10 AM

Originally posted by Kozlok

If you are shooting only wide and want WOW, I would pick up a used 16-50, or the Tamron/Sigma 17-50. The Pentax is WR of course. These all have much better IQ than the 18-135. They are all very inexpensive on the used market right now.

If you need more zoom, on a budget I’d get the Sigma 17-70 generation 1. If you have the cash, the 16-85 is better yet.

The 18-135 is fine for centered subjects, but not my choice for a landscaper.

I strongly disagree. At 18-24mm the 18-135 is very strong. The lens really shines @24mm, there isn't much room for improvement. (Unless you need wider aperture.)

**pentageek** · 11-12-2018, 07:05 AM

Well, my copy was rather weak at every FL:/ I bought 16-85 which is way better (for me) than 18-135.

normhead · 11-12-2018, 07:12 AM - **5 Likes**

Any image you take with the 18-135 will be fine on 4k. Even my K20D, K-5, and even my 6MP *ist and K100D images look fine on 4k. 4k is 8MP but that doesn't mean it can't upscale nicely.

Do you know how to read a lens chart?

My second piece of evidence....

The 18-135 will be fine for what you want, even overkill. You are going to be reducing the image from 6000 pixels wide, to 3850 wide. Most documented weaknesses in the lens will be hidden by reducing the size of the image. An 18-135 reduced to 4k is as good as any ones out there. Because of the field curvature at 18mm, I wouldn't use it for panos, but by 24 mm, that's cleaned up.

I look at over 600 images every time I sit down with a beer. I have never once said to myself "that image has soft edges it must be the 18-135."

K-3 and 18-135 at 24mm

Soft edges my derriere... pffft.

I bought mine when it first came out roughly 7 years ago, and I've never seen a practical reason to replace it.

**UncleVanya** · 11-12-2018, 08:10 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by normhead

Soft edges my derriere... pffft.

I bought mine when it first came out roughly 7 years ago, and I've never seen a practical reason to replace it.

You said it better than I did... I was hoping you'd pop in.

normhead · 11-12-2018, 09:52 AM - **1 Like**

Force of habit. every time this lens is mentioned, the haters come out of the woodwork.

It's like a hater magnet.

Haters are like moths to a flame. They can't stop themselves.

But the real reason I'm here is to promote the viewing of images on a 55 inch 4k screen. You'll probably never do a print this big and the viewing experience from the Lazy Boy is awesome. But don't buy a recliner with a power reclining mechanism. It takes way to long to get out of it on your way to the fridge for another beer.

leekil · 11-12-2018, 06:26 PM

Originally posted by normhead

Soft edges my derriere... pffft.

Your photos look great, though I was surprised at the lens chart for 135mm. Do you have any examples at that focal length?

**Des** · 11-12-2018, 07:29 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by leekil

I was surprised at the lens chart for 135mm. Do you have any examples at that focal length?

I do. Soft corners don't really matter for these sorts of images. Centre sharpness does.

normhead · 11-12-2018, 08:14 PM - **1 Like**

I'm pretty sure there was something wrong with Klaus' copy. He sent it back to Pentax, they said it was in spec. And I've never noticed it to be as bad as the spec sheet said. But who knows?

At 100 mm

At 135mm

Somehow things are not as bad as they are made out to be on the test chart. The centre sharpness at 135 is to die for, the edge sharpness if better than what you'd expect reading the test chart. The way the test chart is structured the edges were measured at over 1000 lw/ph, less than half the resolution of the centre. But it still renders nicely if you aren't expecting macro or DFA 50 1.4 type edges. The chart is misleading in that a resolution or 1000 lw/ph is portrayed as if it's close to the zero axis. But the bottom line is 1000lw/ph. not zero.

Kozlok · 11-12-2018, 10:22 PM

I have, and use, the 18-135. Im not a hater. I quite like the 18-135. The 16-85 or any of the 16/17-50’s are better. Images are more pleasant, and I can tell the difference in the corners. No, it’s not huge, but the OP said he wanted WOW.

The 16-85 and 16/17-50’s are terrible from 50/85-135 though.

**UncleVanya** · 11-13-2018, 05:39 AM

Originally posted by Kozlok

The 16-85 and 16/17-50’s are terrible from 50/85-135 though.

Lol. That's true enough.

11-11-2018, 07:10 PM	#1
KoolKool Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2018 Posts: 59	How 4K looks using 18-135? hi people! i'm planning for a timelapse shooting on a city, its also my travel destination too! i'm quite a minimalist, so carry multiple lenses is a "no" for me, i just need one body one len to serve me all, space-saving, time-saving, light-weight but still demand for good enough quality, (i'm using K70) i'm considering 18-135, so i can perform from wide to tele shots, also hyperlapse, dolly zoom... technique..and some other creative stuffs my final output will be 4K resolution, and sadly, i don't have 4K screen, mine is small, so the best experience will be for viewers So my question is.....how 18-135 image quality look like in real 4K screen? will soft corner issue affect 4K viewing experience?

11-12-2018, 07:12 AM - 5 Likes	#8
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Any image you take with the 18-135 will be fine on 4k. Even my K20D, K-5, and even my 6MP ist and K100D images look fine on 4k. 4k is 8MP but that doesn't mean it can't upscale nicely. Do you know how to read a lens chart? My second piece of evidence.... The 18-135 will be fine for what you want, even overkill. You are going to be reducing the image from 6000 pixels wide, to 3850 wide. Most documented weaknesses in the lens will be hidden by reducing the size of the image. An 18-135 reduced to 4k is as good as any ones out there. Because of the field curvature at 18mm, I wouldn't use it for panos, but by 24 mm, that's cleaned up. I look at over 600 images every time I sit down with a beer. I have never once said to myself "that image has soft edges it must be the 18-135." K-3 and 18-135 at 24mm Soft edges my derriere... pffft. I bought mine when it first came out roughly 7 years ago, and I've never seen a practical reason to replace it. Last edited by normhead; 11-12-2018 at 09:47 AM.*

11-12-2018, 09:52 AM - 1 Like	#10
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Force of habit. every time this lens is mentioned, the haters come out of the woodwork. It's like a hater magnet. Haters are like moths to a flame. They can't stop themselves. But the real reason I'm here is to promote the viewing of images on a 55 inch 4k screen. You'll probably never do a print this big and the viewing experience from the Lazy Boy is awesome. But don't buy a recliner with a power reclining mechanism. It takes way to long to get out of it on your way to the fridge for another beer. Last edited by normhead; 11-12-2018 at 10:50 AM.

11-12-2018, 08:14 PM - 1 Like	#13
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	I'm pretty sure there was something wrong with Klaus' copy. He sent it back to Pentax, they said it was in spec. And I've never noticed it to be as bad as the spec sheet said. But who knows? At 100 mm At 135mm Somehow things are not as bad as they are made out to be on the test chart. The centre sharpness at 135 is to die for, the edge sharpness if better than what you'd expect reading the test chart. The way the test chart is structured the edges were measured at over 1000 lw/ph, less than half the resolution of the centre. But it still renders nicely if you aren't expecting macro or DFA 50 1.4 type edges. The chart is misleading in that a resolution or 1000 lw/ph is portrayed as if it's close to the zero axis. But the bottom line is 1000lw/ph. not zero. Last edited by normhead; 11-13-2018 at 11:27 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Retina, 4K and FHD in post processing RAW files ?	biz-engineer	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	5	01-31-2018 04:56 PM
Black Magic releasing 4K camera for $4k and Pocket RAW video camera for $1k	ploetzlich	Photographic Industry and Professionals	9	08-07-2013 04:18 PM
Thematic Outdoors, in bad weather, using your DA WR zooms: 18-55, 18-135, 50-200.	MD Optofonik	Mini-Challenges, Games, and Photo Stories	3	05-11-2013 05:59 PM
Using the $200 Nikon 1 V1 as a 4K video camera	ploetzlich	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	2	03-19-2013 04:56 PM
For Sale - Sold: Sigma 10-20/4-5.6, Kiron 28/2, FA50/1.4, Helios 44-4k 58/2, DA* 50-135/2.8, To	systemA	Sold Items	13	12-15-2010 05:15 AM

11-11-2018, 08:46 PM - 1 Like	#2
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,409	Soft corners on the 18-135 are mainly seen above 70mm. It really depends on what the subject matter is. When I use the lens I'm above 70 mainly when there is a central subject and the corners are mostly background. So I rarely notice the issue. A point to consider is that the head to head tests of the 16-85 vs the 18-135 gave the nod to the 18-135 over cropping the 16-85 - so what really matter if wider or more telephoto is more useful.

11-12-2018, 04:30 AM	#3
JohnX Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: London Posts: 1,116	Presumably you'll be using the K70 for the time lapse? If so, I think you'll find its video output is not 4k standard. Far from it in fact.

11-12-2018, 04:47 AM	#4
KoolKool Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2018 Posts: 59 Original Poster	Originally posted by JohnX Presumably you'll be using the K70 for the time lapse? If so, I think you'll find its video output is not 4k standard. Far from it in fact. yes, i know this feature, built in timelapse mode is cool and fun, although i never use it most of us has been taught to use interval shooting and manual post processing at home for freedom editing and maximum quality Originally posted by UncleVanya Soft corners on the 18-135 are mainly seen above 70mm. It really depends on what the subject matter is. When I use the lens I'm above 70 mainly when there is a central subject and the corners are mostly background. So I rarely notice the issue. A point to consider is that the head to head tests of the 16-85 vs the 18-135 gave the nod to the 18-135 over cropping the 16-85 - so what really matter if wider or more telephoto is more useful. well, most of my timelapse will be on wide focal, that's mean i wil go for 18mm and 24mm, when creativity needed, then longer focal i'm just thinking 24MP downsampled to 4K resolution, plus with cropping to 16:9 ratio So it's possible for achieve wow factor!

11-12-2018, 05:56 AM	#5
Kozlok Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Albuquerque Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,148	If you are shooting only wide and want WOW, I would pick up a used 16-50, or the Tamron/Sigma 17-50. The Pentax is WR of course. These all have much better IQ than the 18-135. They are all very inexpensive on the used market right now. If you need more zoom, on a budget I’d get the Sigma 17-70 generation 1. If you have the cash, the 16-85 is better yet. The 18-135 is fine for centered subjects, but not my choice for a landscaper.

11-12-2018, 06:10 AM	#6
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,409	Originally posted by Kozlok If you are shooting only wide and want WOW, I would pick up a used 16-50, or the Tamron/Sigma 17-50. The Pentax is WR of course. These all have much better IQ than the 18-135. They are all very inexpensive on the used market right now. If you need more zoom, on a budget I’d get the Sigma 17-70 generation 1. If you have the cash, the 16-85 is better yet. The 18-135 is fine for centered subjects, but not my choice for a landscaper. I strongly disagree. At 18-24mm the 18-135 is very strong. The lens really shines @24mm, there isn't much room for improvement. (Unless you need wider aperture.)

11-12-2018, 07:05 AM	#7
pentageek Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2016 Posts: 420	Well, my copy was rather weak at every FL:/ I bought 16-85 which is way better (for me) than 18-135.

11-12-2018, 08:10 AM - 1 Like	#9
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,409	Originally posted by normhead Soft edges my derriere... pffft. I bought mine when it first came out roughly 7 years ago, and I've never seen a practical reason to replace it. You said it better than I did... I was hoping you'd pop in.

11-12-2018, 06:26 PM	#11
leekil Pentaxian Join Date: May 2016 Photos: Albums Posts: 2,003	Originally posted by normhead Soft edges my derriere... pffft. Your photos look great, though I was surprised at the lens chart for 135mm. Do you have any examples at that focal length?

11-12-2018, 07:29 PM - 1 Like	#12
Des Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Victoria Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 6,423	Originally posted by leekil I was surprised at the lens chart for 135mm. Do you have any examples at that focal length? I do. Soft corners don't really matter for these sorts of images. Centre sharpness does.

11-12-2018, 10:22 PM	#14
Kozlok Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Albuquerque Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,148	I have, and use, the 18-135. Im not a hater. I quite like the 18-135. The 16-85 or any of the 16/17-50’s are better. Images are more pleasant, and I can tell the difference in the corners. No, it’s not huge, but the OP said he wanted WOW. The 16-85 and 16/17-50’s are terrible from 50/85-135 though.

11-13-2018, 05:39 AM	#15
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,409	Originally posted by Kozlok The 16-85 and 16/17-50’s are terrible from 50/85-135 though. Lol. That's true enough.