K-3 with 18-270 mm?

**tmacdon** · 03-22-2015, 07:34 AM

Hi,

I have a K-3 with the terrific, but heavy, Pentax 16-50 mm and Sigma 70-200 mm lenses. . They are not "fun" to lug around on long multi-stop trips. I would love a lighter zoom for travel, and the 18-270 mm seems perfect for wide range and lighter weight (though clearly not as fine a lens.) However, others have suggested that it's not a good match with the K 3. I wonder why... and then wonder if really makes a difference for travel shots.

Thoughts or experiences?

Ted

Bagga_Txips · 03-22-2015, 07:44 AM

Why not take the 16-50 and buy a 55-300 WR?

**boriscleto** · 03-22-2015, 08:10 AM

Originally posted by Bagga_Txips

Why not take the 16-50 and buy a 55-300 WR?

Because the OP is looking for a single lens solution...

**savoche** · 03-22-2015, 08:24 AM

Originally posted by tmacdon

Hi,

I have a K-3 with the terrific, but heavy, Pentax 16-50 mm and Sigma 70-200 mm lenses. . They are not "fun" to lug around on long multi-stop trips. I would love a lighter zoom for travel, and the 18-270 mm seems perfect for wide range and lighter weight (though clearly not as fine a lens.) However, others have suggested that it's not a good match with the K 3. I wonder why... and then wonder if really makes a difference for travel shots.

Thoughts or experiences?

The only reason I can see for it not being "a good match" must be that there are better quality lenses out there. But you already know that. Some people seem to think that because lens flaws show up more easily looking at pictures coming from a K-3 than from a K-somethingelse at 100 % it means that the lens somehow performs worse on the K-3 than on lower resolution bodies. Of course it doesn't. It just means that you shouldn't look at you pictures at 100 %

I use my 18-135 with the K-3 without hesitation when I need a lightweight do-it-all combination. Very nice for travel; light, flexible, WR. Sometimes that will make it a "better" lens than any other I have.

**UncleVanya** · 03-22-2015, 08:32 AM

Originally posted by savoche

I use my 18-135 with the K-3 without hesitation when I need a lightweight do-it-all combination. Very nice for travel; light, flexible, WR. Sometimes that will make it a "better" lens than any other I have.

Can you crop the 18-135 effectively to compete with the 18-270 on the k3?
How do the two lenses compare in the 18-135 range - does anyone know?

Stavri · 03-22-2015, 08:38 AM

For ultimate quality you cannot beat a set of primes ( 28mm 50mm, 135mm) The Da* 50-135 is smaller than the Sigma Ex 70-200mm, and very sharp. If the 70-200 is being hassle (and you have no interest in the new full frame) sell it and buy the DA* 50-135. I don't recommend leaving your DA* 16-50 at home for a 18-135 or 18-270, if you're used the excellence of the DA* all the others lenses will fall significantly short of your expectations.

the newer Sigma 18-250 seems to be a decent performer according to this thread by a fellow member:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/172-pentax-k-3/291350-sigma-24-105-vs-18-...ml#post3198504

**blackcloudbrew** · 03-22-2015, 08:54 AM

1. I own the DA*16-50, the DA 18-270, and a K3 with base. (I don't have the Sigma but I have other equivalent lenses.)
2. I don't consider any of them really heavy.
3. I haven't looked but the DA*16-50 and the DA 18-270 are both on the heavy side.
4. If and when I travel, and I want to go light, I will drop the base of the K3, and if space and weight are an issue, I'd pack the 18-270 without to much thinking about it.

IMHO, I still own the Tamron 18-250 (the predecessor to the DA 18-270 and I need to get off my rear and sell it off actually) and have had it since 2009. I am well away that these super zooms are 'travel' lenses and while they are 'great' lenses like a * lens (and I do love the DA*16-50), travels lenses are good lenses in most cases. So, for the OP, your wondering about this combo is fair but you've just got to understand that travel lenses aren't top of the line, but...as a one camera/lens solution for going light, it's a good one IMHO.

Actually, with the DA 18-270 being an SDM lens, I find that it really is very happy on the the K3.

**savoche** · 03-22-2015, 09:00 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by UncleVanya

Can you crop the 18-135 effectively to compete with the 18-270 on the k3?
How do the two lenses compare in the 18-135 range - does anyone know?

No, I wouldn't try cropping that much. I have never used the 18-270, but my impression from what I have read is that they are about the same in the 18-135 range. Which means that the 18-270 will probably be a better travel lens (except for the lack of WR ~~and quiet focusing~~ [oops, didn't know the 18-270 had SDM]).

My copy of the 18-135 seem to better than many at the long end, but is not the best at 18-20 mm. I have seen claims that this lens is "useless" above 100 mm(or even 70!), however that is not my experience at all. It does indeed indicate too much variation in quality, though! I don't know if the 18-270 suffers from the same variable QC.

**tmacdon** · 03-22-2015, 09:13 AM

Thanks folks for the quick replies. As some have suggested, I will probably travel with/continue to use the excellent 16-50. It's the Sigma 70-200 that gets too heavy and underused. That one is about 3 lbs and bulky, whereas the 18-270 which is about 1 pound and much more compact, it appears. It would also be nice to have a single lens in dusty windy places.

Now I'll try to find a used 18-270.... se to

It also may make sense, as was suggested, to replace the Sigma 70-200 mm with the Pentax 5-135, and get a converter (cannot use the Pentax converter on the Sigma.)

Bagga_Txips · 03-22-2015, 01:39 PM

Wouldn't it be nice to have a 5-135!! I know, you mean 50-135, but isn't that rather heavy too?

**tmacdon** · 03-22-2015, 06:17 PM

Hey, I just bought a 5-135 mm from some guy in Japan or Singapore. it's "in the mail".

Seriously, I just got back from a long and photogenic trip where I carried a K 3 and heavy lenses on/off planes, buses, and onto my shoulders so much that I nearly lost interest. That's a mistake. So now I want to lighten the load, as I get (quite a bit) older, despite regular exercise.

Any lightly-used 18-270 mm lenses out there?

Mr.Leon · 03-25-2015, 09:13 AM

I just bought a K3 with a 18-270mm bundle and I am very happy with the lens. Is not super sharp but only if you are watching at pixel level, or you make your living as a photographer. For the rest of us, traveling light is the perfect solution. My only complaint is that is not weather resistant, but for that price we can't ask too much.
This picture it's at 270mm through a sliding door. Until I can afford a 300mm lens I will be very happy with this combo

sadatoni · 03-25-2015, 12:48 PM

I've used the older brother of the 18-270mm on the K3 - the 18-250mm Pentax lens - with good results. It currently resides on my K5, with the 18-135 WR on the K3.

**tmacdon** · 03-26-2015, 07:07 AM

Thanks folks.. I'm now looking for a good deal on the 18-270.

As others have recommended, I will never dump my excellent Pentax 16-50 but am considering what to do with the Sigma 70-200. It's amazing how much only 3 lbs weighs on long, multi-stop trips. And with the extraordinary ISO range of the K 3, low light problems are diminished.

03-22-2015, 07:34 AM	#1
tmacdon Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Cambridge, MA Posts: 143	K-3 with 18-270 mm? Hi, I have a K-3 with the terrific, but heavy, Pentax 16-50 mm and Sigma 70-200 mm lenses. . They are not "fun" to lug around on long multi-stop trips. I would love a lighter zoom for travel, and the 18-270 mm seems perfect for wide range and lighter weight (though clearly not as fine a lens.) However, others have suggested that it's not a good match with the K 3. I wonder why... and then wonder if really makes a difference for travel shots. Thoughts or experiences? Ted

03-22-2015, 08:38 AM	#6
Stavri Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: at a Bean & Leaf Photos: Albums Posts: 1,832	For ultimate quality you cannot beat a set of primes ( 28mm 50mm, 135mm) The Da* 50-135 is smaller than the Sigma Ex 70-200mm, and very sharp. If the 70-200 is being hassle (and you have no interest in the new full frame) sell it and buy the DA* 50-135. I don't recommend leaving your DA* 16-50 at home for a 18-135 or 18-270, if you're used the excellence of the DA* all the others lenses will fall significantly short of your expectations. the newer Sigma 18-250 seems to be a decent performer according to this thread by a fellow member: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/172-pentax-k-3/291350-sigma-24-105-vs-18-...ml#post3198504 Last edited by Stavri; 03-22-2015 at 09:00 AM.

03-25-2015, 09:13 AM	#12
Mr.Leon New Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 15	I just bought a K3 with a 18-270mm bundle and I am very happy with the lens. Is not super sharp but only if you are watching at pixel level, or you make your living as a photographer. For the rest of us, traveling light is the perfect solution. My only complaint is that is not weather resistant, but for that price we can't ask too much. This picture it's at 270mm through a sliding door. Until I can afford a 300mm lens I will be very happy with this combo Attached Images

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Experience with the 18 - 270?	dshombert	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	03-17-2015 02:02 PM
Compatibility Pentax K 3 and vivitar macro 100 mm 1:3,5 diameter 4,9 mm	CJOS	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	6	07-05-2014 11:49 PM
For Sale - Sold: Reduced: Brand New Pentax 18-270 mm, unopened from B&H w. warranty	Dirk	Sold Items	9	01-05-2014 09:56 PM
Replacement for Pentax SMC DA 18-250mm 3,5-6,3 ED AL 18-250 mm ??	Ivo_Spohr	Pentax News and Rumors	14	04-26-2010 10:15 AM

03-22-2015, 07:44 AM	#2
Bagga_Txips Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Waterford Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 454	Why not take the 16-50 and buy a 55-300 WR?

03-22-2015, 08:10 AM	#3
boriscleto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: North Syracuse, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,477	Originally posted by Bagga_Txips Why not take the 16-50 and buy a 55-300 WR? Because the OP is looking for a single lens solution...

03-22-2015, 08:24 AM	#4
savoche Master of the obvious Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Lowlands of Norway Posts: 18,311	Originally posted by tmacdon Hi, I have a K-3 with the terrific, but heavy, Pentax 16-50 mm and Sigma 70-200 mm lenses. . They are not "fun" to lug around on long multi-stop trips. I would love a lighter zoom for travel, and the 18-270 mm seems perfect for wide range and lighter weight (though clearly not as fine a lens.) However, others have suggested that it's not a good match with the K 3. I wonder why... and then wonder if really makes a difference for travel shots. Thoughts or experiences? The only reason I can see for it not being "a good match" must be that there are better quality lenses out there. But you already know that. Some people seem to think that because lens flaws show up more easily looking at pictures coming from a K-3 than from a K-somethingelse at 100 % it means that the lens somehow performs worse on the K-3 than on lower resolution bodies. Of course it doesn't. It just means that you shouldn't look at you pictures at 100 % I use my 18-135 with the K-3 without hesitation when I need a lightweight do-it-all combination. Very nice for travel; light, flexible, WR. Sometimes that will make it a "better" lens than any other I have.

03-22-2015, 08:32 AM	#5
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,459	Originally posted by savoche I use my 18-135 with the K-3 without hesitation when I need a lightweight do-it-all combination. Very nice for travel; light, flexible, WR. Sometimes that will make it a "better" lens than any other I have. Can you crop the 18-135 effectively to compete with the 18-270 on the k3? How do the two lenses compare in the 18-135 range - does anyone know?

03-22-2015, 08:54 AM	#7
blackcloudbrew Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Cotati, California USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,461	1. I own the DA16-50, the DA 18-270, and a K3 with base. (I don't have the Sigma but I have other equivalent lenses.) 2. I don't consider any of them really heavy. 3. I haven't looked but the DA16-50 and the DA 18-270 are both on the heavy side. 4. If and when I travel, and I want to go light, I will drop the base of the K3, and if space and weight are an issue, I'd pack the 18-270 without to much thinking about it. IMHO, I still own the Tamron 18-250 (the predecessor to the DA 18-270 and I need to get off my rear and sell it off actually) and have had it since 2009. I am well away that these super zooms are 'travel' lenses and while they are 'great' lenses like a * lens (and I do love the DA*16-50), travels lenses are good lenses in most cases. So, for the OP, your wondering about this combo is fair but you've just got to understand that travel lenses aren't top of the line, but...as a one camera/lens solution for going light, it's a good one IMHO. Actually, with the DA 18-270 being an SDM lens, I find that it really is very happy on the the K3.

03-22-2015, 09:00 AM - 1 Like	#8
savoche Master of the obvious Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Lowlands of Norway Posts: 18,311	Originally posted by UncleVanya Can you crop the 18-135 effectively to compete with the 18-270 on the k3? How do the two lenses compare in the 18-135 range - does anyone know? No, I wouldn't try cropping that much. I have never used the 18-270, but my impression from what I have read is that they are about the same in the 18-135 range. Which means that the 18-270 will probably be a better travel lens (except for the lack of WR ~~and quiet focusing~~ [oops, didn't know the 18-270 had SDM]). My copy of the 18-135 seem to better than many at the long end, but is not the best at 18-20 mm. I have seen claims that this lens is "useless" above 100 mm(or even 70!), however that is not my experience at all. It does indeed indicate too much variation in quality, though! I don't know if the 18-270 suffers from the same variable QC.

03-22-2015, 09:13 AM	#9
tmacdon Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Cambridge, MA Posts: 143 Original Poster	Thanks folks for the quick replies. As some have suggested, I will probably travel with/continue to use the excellent 16-50. It's the Sigma 70-200 that gets too heavy and underused. That one is about 3 lbs and bulky, whereas the 18-270 which is about 1 pound and much more compact, it appears. It would also be nice to have a single lens in dusty windy places. Now I'll try to find a used 18-270.... se to It also may make sense, as was suggested, to replace the Sigma 70-200 mm with the Pentax 5-135, and get a converter (cannot use the Pentax converter on the Sigma.)

03-22-2015, 01:39 PM	#10
Bagga_Txips Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Waterford Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 454	Wouldn't it be nice to have a 5-135!! I know, you mean 50-135, but isn't that rather heavy too?

03-22-2015, 06:17 PM	#11
tmacdon Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Cambridge, MA Posts: 143 Original Poster	Hey, I just bought a 5-135 mm from some guy in Japan or Singapore. it's "in the mail". Seriously, I just got back from a long and photogenic trip where I carried a K 3 and heavy lenses on/off planes, buses, and onto my shoulders so much that I nearly lost interest. That's a mistake. So now I want to lighten the load, as I get (quite a bit) older, despite regular exercise. Any lightly-used 18-270 mm lenses out there?

03-25-2015, 12:48 PM	#13
sadatoni Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Photos: Albums Posts: 87	I've used the older brother of the 18-270mm on the K3 - the 18-250mm Pentax lens - with good results. It currently resides on my K5, with the 18-135 WR on the K3.

03-26-2015, 07:07 AM	#14
tmacdon Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Cambridge, MA Posts: 143 Original Poster	Thanks folks.. I'm now looking for a good deal on the 18-270. As others have recommended, I will never dump my excellent Pentax 16-50 but am considering what to do with the Sigma 70-200. It's amazing how much only 3 lbs weighs on long, multi-stop trips. And with the extraordinary ISO range of the K 3, low light problems are diminished.