[normhead]

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.

Those give up shooting 85-135 for the images it works for, anything centre sharp with an out of focus back ground and who walk around with nothing to take those kinds of images. I understand, some people want whatever their version of perfect is or nothing. SO be happy with your nothing.

What's the difference between an 85mm image with an out of focus back ground and a 135mm image with an out of focus back ground? 50mm.
We all decide what's important to us and go with that. Some people really don't have the discipline to take the lens off the camera when it's not appropriate to the subject. I get that. I shoot snapshots at any FL using this lens, for excellent images with print potential I shoot to the lenses strengths and change to small primes when I need better. But I have to know my gear to do that. The 18-135 has excellent centre sharpness at 135 and all through it's range More measured excellence at more focal lengths than any other lens. Some of us can work with that, some us can't. But it's sad when people blame a lens that is measured either excellent or very near excellent in 19 of 54 metrics (35%). The 16-85 is excellent or near excellent in 16 of 45, (35.5%) I get it, you can work with one, not with the other. I tend to think of that as a skill level kind of thing, not a lens kind of thing. But also on how much you use the extra each.

Someone who is very heavily influenced in their judgement by knowing which lens is which, is going to make those kinds of judgements. And someone who doesn't use the lens to it's strengths is going to have similar issues. The lens can't change your biases, nor can it teach you how to get the most out of it. It's just glass, metal and plastic, About 20% of my images are taken at 135mm. Every one of those images would be worse, taken with the 16-85. I'd give up a lot of images using a 16-85. You choose to forgo those images, I don't, nuf said.


So when are you going to show us this 16-85 "wow"?
You say you've got it, but no one knows what you mean by "wow."
You seem to me like one of those guys who can't evaluate an image without pixel peeping. which is totally irrelevant to 3840 by 2160 images. (You did read what the thread was about didn't you.) That kind of "wow" doesn't impress me much. You can't tell if an image "works" pixel peeping. I suspect your "wow" is much different than my "wow/" I've seen many razor sharp images taken by folks with deep pockets, that didn't work for me as an image. I've seen many images with soft borders that were less than technically perfect that did. The 16-85 can give you things the 18-135 can't, the 18-135 can give you things the 16-85 can't. The imagined conflict between the two is based on different values. Not one lens being spectacularly better than the other. IN the future perhaps, tell us why you like the lens and forget the part where you trash other people's gear. Your preference is a values call, not held up by the numbers.

And I'd take either of them off the camera to use one of my primes or a DA*/DFA* zoom, so there's no real advantage in terms of sharpness. You still have better in your bag, no matter which you choose. You are nit picking mid level lenses, based on very similar IQ.

My advice for these two lenses is, forget the user biases (including mine). Buy the focal length that best suits you. Slightly better IQ in some cases, for less versatility in some cases. 16-18 or 85-135. They were both designed to fill the same niche, slightly better than kit, not up to DA* standards. It's shouldn't be that hard.

---

Last edited by normhead; 11-13-2018 at 08:15 AM.

[UncleVanya]

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.

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?

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

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!

OK - breaking this down. The OP said he wanted WOW from downsampling 24mp to 4K, he's also cropping to 16:9 which means far corners are likely going bye bye. He also said his main use will be between 18-24mm, but he also indicated a desire to do wide to tele. So far so good.

I think either the 16-85 or 18-135 can peform these miracles given the baseline info. The data is being downsampled to 4K, the extreme corners are going to be cropped away most of the time, the main focal lengths (not the only ones) of interest are 18 and 24mm. On APSC 85mm is tele, but 135 is more tele - and it isn't clear how much tele is needed here.

[normhead]

OK - breaking this down. The OP said he wanted WOW from downsampling 24mp to 4K, he's also cropping to 16:9 which means far corners are likely going bye bye. He also said his main use will be between 18-24mm, but he also indicated a desire to do wide to tele. So far so good.

I think either the 16-85 or 18-135 can peform these miracles given the baseline info. The data is being downsampled to 4K, the extreme corners are going to be cropped away most of the time, the main focal lengths (not the only ones) of interest are 18 and 24mm. On APSC 85mm is tele, but 135 is more tele - and it isn't clear how much tele is needed here.

plus 1... ^
And that's what it pretty much always come down to. Difference in 3840 x 2160 images between the two are greatly exagerrated by some. I've never seen a lens so bad that after downsizing pixel peeping didn't produce comparable results to much better lenses. Well except for my Vivitar M135 2.8 (from a time when cheap lenses were truly soft) which probably has less resolution than an 18-135 mm edge. Even that one has produced the occasional acceptable image when viewed a with enough size reduction. The truth is, for 4k images, the worst lens Pentax produced in the last 10 years, one of the kit lenses would probably do a great job. The 18-55 and 50-200 package would be both lightweight and up tot he task. An 18-55 and 55-300 would be serous overkill. But the OP seems to be looking for a one lens solution.

People tend to forget. 35mm film images were almost always enlarged at least 10x magnifying lens imperfections.. APS_c digital is almost always reduced, hiding lens imperfections. Despite that, modern designs for the most part have more resolving power, for less money. The lens acquisition requirements should reflect that. The fact that I can get images that look good at 60 inches on my K-3 doesn't mean i actually have the wall space or the inclination to display such images.

The price difference between an 16-85 and 18-135 will go a long way towards getting a great 4k TV to view the images on, just saying.

Digtal for the most part breeds excessive overkill in terms of the capability of equipment and actual usage. The OP wants 4k images (8 MP). People recommend lenses capable of razor sharp 6000x40000 (24 MP) images. And then some claim one of them isn't as good for the job. (Sigh.)

And all that means is, they didn't pay attention to what the job was.

It takes all kinds.

[mikesbike]

Most zoom lenses are not as good at their extreme zoom length or sometimes width. But Norm's excellent demonstration proves the DA 18-135mm is not as bad for edge performance as the chart based on lab equipment indicates. My experience parallels Norm's. The central area remains sharp throughout the range, in fact exceptionally so for such a zoom range. The softening towards the edge at longer FLs is gradual, and not all that bad, especially since central-based subject matter at that FL often benefits from it anyway, where it blends into a defocused background. The bokeh in fact is quite good. I don't pay too much attention to corner evaluation. Not much in the extreme corners of most photos is worth talking about, except vignetting.

This well-built lens is also remarkably compact for such a zoom range, and its AF performance is exceptional also.

---

Last edited by mikesbike; 11-13-2018 at 11:37 AM.