[mikesbike]

Short version: I'd keep the 18-35, 18-135, and 55-300 as they all serve different purposes, compliment each other well, and the 18-135 is so versatile that I can't imagine having a crop Pentax system without that lens around.

I absolutely agree. The DA-L 55-300mm you have will do a decent job for now, and you could upgrade to a better one later at some point. Should do well for your tele needs. Every lens has its sweet spot, but one thing about the smart design of the DA 18-135mm for such a large zoom range, going beyond that sweet-spot part of its zoom range, it still maintains excellent sharpness in the central area of the frame. As a general rule, the edges of the frame become less important when zooming more telephoto anyway, while the central subject becomes more the main interest. A much better approach than trying to compromise for less than excellent results overall, and just so-so quality across the whole frame as one zooms beyond a certain point. This lens can deliver very fine results for so many different uses, even beautiful closeups.

---

Last edited by mikesbike; 06-20-2022 at 07:10 PM.

[bschriver11]

So if your lens has a metal mount nothing will break if you drop the camera and lens? Can't say i understand that reasoning? I had the 75-300 for quite some time before purchasing the HD DA 55-300 and while the improved coating made a difference the image quality was surprisingly close and the mount was never ever a problem or even a concern. Don't drop your gear or it will break!!

[mikesbike]

Before anyone makes comments about it: I bought all above package for ~700 USD.

That is an outstanding value! Especially if everything is in very good condition.

As to the DA 18-135mm, you might find another thread in this section interesting- "DA 18-135mm WR Show us what it can do". I think it best to start with the last page first (most recent). You will probably even find some shots taken with the K-3 II. Other models having a 24mp sensor are the original K-3 and the KP. The K-3 III will not deliver visibly improved resolution- you will not be able to see any difference between that from a 24mm and from a 26mm sensor. The K-3 III's main advantages are from faster AF when using certain lenses, faster and better burst shooting, and much improved performance at higher ISO settings over your K-3 II. It also features a viewfinder having even more magnification, though the magnification of the K-3 II's VF is still excellent.

[JohnMc]

Illegal in Canada.

Some "composite" bars are being tested and may replace steel (lighter and more durable).

Quick glance shows that it's readily available at most Hopey Depots up there. And yes, I'm not in Canada, or a bridge, though I do have a bit of spalling going on. That said, I'd rather have a mount of 'plastic' than #12 rebar. ;

[BigMackCam]

It must be because I am an "old-timer" of sorts. All my Minolta MD lenses have chromed brass bayonet mounts and still work like new 50 years later. Of my over 60 Pentax lenses (A, FA, DA, DFA, P645 and P67), only my FA J 18-35 mm and FA J 75-300 mm had plastic mounts. While the 18-35 mm has proven quite good optically and reasonably durable when used very "mildly", the FA J 75-300 mm was a total disaster, optically and mechanically. I just think a plastic mount isn't a good idea as plastic can crack and the lens can separate from the body if dropped.

Bad choice of materials, simply. When you build a reinforced concrete bridge, you use steel rebars, not plastic (just an old engineer idiosyncracy).

Furthermore, I also had the first version of the DA 55-300 mm f/4-5.8 ED lens with a metal mount and, while not too bad on a K5 up to 230 mm FL, it was soft and smeary at 300 mm and a total disaster on my then new K3. I gave it to my daughter with my old K10 and got the latest HD DA 55-300 mm f/4-5.8 WR, a world of difference in rendering on the K3 and now on my new K3 III.

So, no plastic mount for me, please ...

Like you, Richard, I prefer metal to plastic. I have two large shelves full of vintage lenses, over a hundred of them, with barely a dozen plastic parts between them (and that's mostly a few of the front trim rings). I wish all lenses today were built from metal, but that's rarely the case - times, and materials, have changed.

With many modern lenses, even if the bayonet is metal, the mount it's fixed to with screws is often plastic. If you drop your equipment, the tabs on a plastic bayonet may break, yes... but the metal bayonet will put a great deal more strain on the camera body's mount, and is more likely to strip the screws from the plastic lens body. Either way, a drop bad enough to cause such problems is likely to require repair work to the lens and/or body, whether the lens bayonet is plastic or metal.

TL;DR - as an isolated component, a metal lens bayonet might give the impression of being more robust, but taken in context of the whole system, that isn't necessarily so.

I haven't used the DA L version of the 55-300, but I own the later screw-drive HD DA55-300, which - aside from the coatings - is, I'm told, the same optically. As consumer telephoto zoom lenses go, it's very good on my K-3. The DA L may be the most inexpensive version, but I've seen incredible photos taken with it, and I don't recall many reports of it falling apart due to poor build quality. Getting rid of it simply because it has a plastic bayonet seems rather like "throwing the baby out with the bathwater". It wouldn't fetch much if sold (less than USD $100, I imagine), and until the OP can upgrade to something better (if they feel the need to do so - they may not), it's a pretty capable tool, assuming correct AF fine adjustment and taking into account possible copy variation (as with any other lens). There are few alternatives that would be much better at the long end without spending at least $300 - $400, which - considering the OP's relatively-modest investment thus far - would be a significant additional spend.

It's worth reading user reviews for the DA L version of the lens and looking at some of the photos other members have taken with it, as they show the excellent results attainable (with a good copy):

https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-DAL-55-300mm-F4-5.8-Zoom-Lens.html

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/samplesearch.php?do=photos&lens=42&sort=likesratio&pp=40

[othar]

I just think a plastic mount isn't a good idea as plastic can crack and the lens can separate from the body if dropped.

Bad choice of materials, simply. When you build a reinforced concrete bridge, you use steel rebars, not plastic (just an old engineer idiosyncracy).

Furthermore, I also had the first version of the DA 55-300 mm f/4-5.8 ED lens with a metal mount and, while not too bad on a K5 up to 230 mm FL, it was soft and smeary at 300 mm and a total disaster on my then new K3. I gave it to my daughter with my old K10 and got the latest HD DA 55-300 mm f/4-5.8 WR, a world of difference in rendering on the K3 and now on my new K3 III.

So, no plastic mount for me, please ...

While not a good idea to do so at all, I've dropped my K-3 with the DA-L 18-55mm WR lens twice now and both are still in working order (with my K-3 taking a third dive with my A 50mm f1.7 lens , which did also survive ), so the plastic mount is not as fragile as one might think.

As for your first DA 55-300 mm lens, I think you got a bad copy of the lens, because as far as I know does it have the same optical formula as your HD version, just a different lens coating.
That said I would also prefer the newer version with a metal mount and WR when bought new, but as the OP already owns the DA-L 55-300mm lens I'd suggest to keep it, as the optics is typically not bad and the lens wouldn't sell for much anyway.

[Papa_Joe]

If I got one of the 40 mm I would keep it despite having a stack of 50 mm lenses and the Sigma 35/1.4 Art. The 40/2.8 are very good to excellent from wide open on and super compact. I think the best of the lenses you aquired.

I would keep the 55-300 as you have nothing in it's range. There are better lenses though (PLM for instance).


The 18-135 is a mixed bag. Performance up to 50 mm very good to excellent. Beyond that a subject of discussion. I own it and will keep it for it is small and sturdy and WR and I have a excellent 70-200 (and a good one as well). So as you allready have the 18-35 it is up to you if you would like to sell it. Here in Germany it would go for about EUR 200,00 if centered well (check that up).


My advice would be to keep them all and use them as much as you can, then you can decide, which to keep and which to sell on your own experience. They will not lose any value, if you treat them well.


Congratulations to your K-3 II !

[RICHARD L.]

Sorry I started this controversy about plastic bayonet mounts ...

Once I bought a tool to remove the oil filter from my Ford 460 c.i.d. V8. It was a brilliant invention, going over the end of the filter like a box-end from a ratchet set. You simply used a ratchet with a 1/4 inch extension and you could torque the filter to remove it and replace it with a new one when changing the oil. Only problem was it was made of plastic. As soon as I tried to turn the used filter in place, the device split in two ...

So, brilliant invention, wrong material ! I found another such tool made of metal and I still use it 40 years later. This may explain my "disdain" for plastic devices.


Regards to all, please receive my Apologies

[BigMackCam]

Sorry I started this controversy about plastic bayonet mounts ...

No apology necessary, Richard. It's good to address these things

Once I bought a tool to remove the oil filter from my Ford 460 c.i.d. V8. It was a brilliant invention, going over the end of the filter like a box-end from a ratchet set. You simply used a ratchet with a 1/4 inch extension and you could torque the filter to remove it and replace it with a new one when changing the oil. Only problem was it was made of plastic. As soon as I tried to turn the used filter in place, the device split in two ...

So, brilliant invention, wrong material ! [/B][B]I found another such tool made of metal and I still use it 40 years later. This may explain my "disdain" for plastic devices.

Yes, it's about picking appropriate materials - and, if that includes plastic, using the most appropriate type (there are so many - plastic isn't just plastic). The front bumper on my car is plastic. Someone backed into me in my doctor's car park a couple of months ago. The only thing that was damaged was the bumper itself, which bent, buckled and split such that the wing (fender), headlight and grill weren't affected. It looked a bit ugly, but the guy at the repair shop told me it had done exactly the job it was designed for. If it had been a steel or aluminium bumper, the outcome would probably have been quite different...

I don't like the look or feel of plastic compared to metal - but it's a mistake to think all types of plastic are inferior to all types of metal. Depending on the application, they can be as strong or stronger, as temperature stable or more so... and those that break more easily can end up causing less overall damage. It's all about the design...

[UncleVanya]

Sorry I started this controversy about plastic bayonet mounts ...

I found another such tool made of metal and I still use it 40 years later. This may explain my "disdain" for plastic devices.


Regards to all, please receive my Apologies

No need to apologize, it sparked a nice civil discussion about the reasons people like or dislike these mounts.

For the record, I’m on “team ambivalence”, I own several lenses with plastic mounts that have worked well for me, but I like metal mounts better for reasons that are all about preferences without any real need or data.

[RICHARD L.]

Thanks for your kind words !

Regards

[cdw2000]

Back to the original topic. Since, you already have the lenses, take them out and shoot with them. You'll soon decide for yourself which ones you want to keep and which ones you'll want to sell (if any). BTW, it sounds like you got a fantastic deal!

[ilpostino]

Sorry I started this controversy about plastic bayonet mounts

it's totally fine, and I loved your pictures.

[MaineNative]

I have both lenses. I do mostly landscape photography, so I don’t use the 55-300 very often, but I’m happy with the image quality when I do. The screw drive on the DAL version is a little annoying.

The 18-135 is a great lens when I travel because it is fairly compact, it covers a useful range for a walk around lens and the image quality is decent. It doesn’t replace the 55-300 though because at 135mm you really aren’t getting a lot of telephoto zoom length.

[Des]

You definitely got a bargain. They are both good lenses. There's a place in your kit for both.

I had the DA L 55-300 for 5 years. I never had a problem with the plastic mount. It wasn't supplied with a hood; if your copy doesn't have one, you can get a cheap aftermarket one on ebay.

It's been surpassed by the DA 55-300 PLM, but there's plenty to like about the old one (except for the noisy autofocus).




It's quite good for landscapes too:


My detailed review is here: SMC Pentax-DA L 55-300mm F4-5.8 ED Reviews - DA L Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

As for the DA 18-135, it has excellent centre sharpness, good colour and contrast and fast and quiet AF, and the versatility makes it a great travel lens. Corners are soft, particularly at the long end, but it is quite good stopped down. It is prone to purple fringing though.

My detailed review of this lens is here: SMC Pentax-DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 ED AL [IF] DC WR Reviews - DA Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database