Originally posted by Imp I don't think planteater's point is that there is a "natural choice", but rather that the 18-135 would not be the "natural choice" to go out and shoot low-light photography.
Pretty much anything faster.
Yes, that has been conventional thinking. When someone posts a question at a forum like this asking "how do I take pictures at my daughter's / grand daughter's / son's / grand son's basketball game?", the advice invariably has been to buy a $$$$ constant f/2.8 {or even wider} telephoto lens ... and the person leaves somewhat less hopeful than s/he had come in.
As I have commented before, the pictures illustrating this year's "March Madness" Finals on MSNBC seemed to have unusual DOF, so I downloaded a couple of them. To my great joy, the EXIF was still there
F/6.3 {yes, the 18-135 can do that!}. I commented at the time that we may be going into a new era, where one medium-expensive camera provides "insanely high" ISO, instead of having a very expensive long lens providing "insanely wide constant aperture"; this is the same philosophy as using IBIS so each lens doesn't need its own Image Stabilization / Vibration Reduction. When I first saw K-70 specs - and the accompanying new 55-300mm PLM lens - my hopes were raised that Pentax is turning their APS-C product line to be more event / wildlife oriented, with the AF and high ISO needed. These images feed that hope. If I am right, now that the K-1 provides good solid service for landscape photography, a K-3ii followup will be announced around Photokina time, using technology which is being proved in the K-70.
In that view, the new 55-300 PLM lens might have been better for these tests, but the 18-135 is also very natural since it will be kitted with the K-70.
Last edited by reh321; 07-20-2016 at 09:52 AM.