[ZombieArmy]

I think the 18-55 suffers from copy variation. I've gotten better results from it than people seem to show sometimes.

[jeallen01]

FWIW, most (any?) 18-55 DA "whatever" lenses aren't worth bothering with (not good images, not wide/long enough, etc.) when there are better Pentax, Sigma (whatever) lenses "out there" for relative peanuts - both of the two I got with Pentax bodies were rarely/never used for the reasons stated a few lines previously!

[Docrwm]

Given the prices on lenses like the 18-135 (particularly used) and its still a small lens, the idea of using an 18-55 seems a bit silly to me.

[jeallen01]

...I'm tempted to get a 18-55WR as I'm not a fan of the 18-135 which had on the K-30 and I'm not willing to buy the expensive 16-85. ...

If the 16-85 is too expensive, then look for a Sigma 17-70 (any version is pretty good - read the forum reviews!) which will be a lot cheaper - OK, it's not WR and somewhat "weighty" but that should not be the "deal breaker" for a lot less money. My very early version is so good that my 18-135 got sold on PDQ after I got the 17-70 for a "pittance" (£65/$85 in 2017)!

---

Last edited by jeallen01; 01-15-2019 at 03:41 PM.

[Scout]

I think the 18-55 suffers from copy variation. I've gotten better results from it than people seem to show sometimes.

I agree with you +1.
Mine seems good too, but sure 18-55 might not be compared to higher ranked 16-85 hd, 16-45, 20-40 hd ...
Different category, different price too.
The purchase choice that makes you happy is important ...
99% of the time, in every day photo, unless you are obsessed by extreme quality and in this case you could need to think fullframe, lower price lens could be sufficient.
I always say myself the camera doesn't make the photographer ... (Even if it helps)
In my opinion, about 18-135, I have never ever seen a test proving it was better or far better than the 18-55, but I have seen the opposite, so there 's no rule (I don't say 18-135 is bad)
WR is a plus in a lot of wet, sandy, windy ... conditions, and I m less worried to carry a cheap lens at that time.
Thank you

[jgnfld]

If the 16-85 is too expensive, then look for a Sigma 17-70 (any version is pretty good - read the forum reviews!) which will be a lot cheaper - OK, it's not WR and somewhat "weighty" but that should not be the "deal breaker" for a lot less money. My very early version is so good that my 18-135 got sold on PDQ after I got the 17-70 for a "pittance" (£65/$85 in 2017)!

Don't know about the 17-70 as I don't have it, but I can say my Sigma 17-50 fails consistently in cold weather--esp. if humid--at around -5oC or so. My 16-85 WR lens hasn't failed yet in cold down to -15oC which is about as cold as it gets here.

That said, the cold in coastal Newfoundland is almost always quite wet as well. Drier areas might get better results with a nonWR lens.

[VILLAINofOZ]

Well I just bit the bullet and paid for a K70. I will have to wait a few days for delivery.
I bought it with no lens. I have no WR lenses.
I am strongly debating between the 100mm WR macro lens and the 50mm WR macro.. I am sorta thinking get the 50 and get the 100 later down the track.. But I can't decide.

In the meantime.. I can't wait to rest my old K-x.
I have 17 lenses that will do for now lol.
So what do k70 users recommended out of those two for macro??

[clackers]

The 100 is WR.

[jgnfld]

Well I just bit the bullet and paid for a K70. I will have to wait a few days for delivery.
I bought it with no lens. I have no WR lenses.
I am strongly debating between the 100mm WR macro lens and the 50mm WR macro.. I am sorta thinking get the 50 and get the 100 later down the track.. But I can't decide.

...
So what do k70 users recommended out of those two for macro??

Depends. One observation: For doing outdoor work on an ad hoc, target-of-opportunity basis the 100mm due to its greater standoff distance is more convenient for me, at least.

[VILLAINofOZ]

I have been leaning toward the 100mm.. I thank you for your advice.

[DW58]

I've used my 100mm Macro WR on my K-70 a lot. AND quite a bit on my K-1ii. I think it's a great lens.

[gramar]

Thanks for all the suggestions. I've bought a used DA 18-55 WR and here are 3 photos I took recently. I'm pleased with how they've turned out but suspect I'll upgrade the lens sometime.

I don't think the 18-135 would produce anything better.



http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4866/31965529797_fcc14d5c8a_k.jpg



http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7850/46854763882_252baf7e1e_k.jpg



http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4803/46854717532_5c67520f5e_k.jpg

[normhead]

My 18-135 is my most used lens on the K-3. Just saying. Like Docwm, I gave away one 18-55 and sold two after I got the 18-135, after not touching any of the three for 3 years. It might be sad, but if you want better than the 18-135, the 16-85 or one of the various 16/17-50 are your options.

I'm not going to say the 18-55s are bad lenses, they were god enough to garner Pentax some sales when other manufacturers were putting out garbage for their kit lenses, and my first five years I used the 18-55 , Sigma 70-300 and FA 50 1.7 as my only three lenses. The thing for me is, the 18-135 is better than the 18-55, plus it has 55-135 for more flexibility, and pseudo macro. You can do a lot more photography with an 18-135 or 16-85 (which also does decent pseudo macro.)

If you rule out the two best options, I'm not sure what you are hoping folks will say.

I don't think the 18-135 would produce anything better.

The good thing about thinking that way is it saves you money. But at least on paper,
https://www.opticallimits.com/pentax/641-pentax1855f3556wr?start=1
https://www.opticallimits.com/pentax/597-pentax_18135_3556?start=1

By 24mm the 18-135 blows the 18-55 WR away.

[VILLAINofOZ]

If people are interested, this conversation helped sway my decision some what..

I very badly wanted the "smc PENTAX-D FA MACRO 100mmF2.8 WR".... but I have ordered the "Tamron SP AF 90mm f2.8" Macro after some contemplation, consideration & deliberation with myself.