Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-05-2013, 12:33 PM   #16
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,211
QuoteOriginally posted by starbase218 Quote
I love being able to shoot at f/4 at 70mm with a standard zoom, and the reviews I read didn't really encourage me to buy an 18-135. So, no, I haven't.



Except that the 17-70 was tested on a K10D, and the 18-135 was tested on a K-5. The difference in center sharpness and the performance at 24mm can easily be attributed by the reduced resolution of the K10D. So I don't subscribe to your statement that the 18-135 "leaves it in the dust in every category" at that FL. Quite the opposite: if the 18-135 really is about as good as the 17-70, it should beat it hands down, since it has the advantage of the increased resolution.

Besides, it is my experience that center resolution for such a lens is almost never something to worry about. It is the corner/edge resolution where the differences are most obvious.

Feel free to disagree, but let me speak my mind, ok?



That's always good advice.



Well, for me it's the variable aperture for one thing. Even forgetting the fact that it's far slower at 70mm, I like to shoot in M mode, and that's best done with a constant-aperture lens.
If you want to build up the 17-70, no problem. Spreading mis-information about the 18-135, a lens you admittedly haven't used, that might need to be corrected. I suspect niether lens is good for everyone.

I've never seen a lens go from very good to excellent when resolution increased, but I guess it could happen. The odds are against it, but it could. I wasn't looking at absolute numbers, I was looking at whether or not the lens was rated as Very Good or Excellent, so no, the 18-135 didn't have an advantage, at least not the way you imply.

You've given a nice description of what kind of shooting preferences might lead one to choose a 17-70 over an 18-135.

Prefers edge to edge consistency over center sharpness.
Prefers constant Aperture.
An Extra mm of wide angle is worth an extra 65mm of telephoto.
You don't plan to shoot images like this where edge sharpness is pretty much irrelevant.



It's all good.

11-05-2013, 02:38 PM   #17
Veteran Member
starbase218's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Planet Earth, Sol system, Milky Way galaxy, Universe
Posts: 1,119
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
If you want to build up the 17-70, no problem. Spreading mis-information about the 18-135, a lens you admittedly haven't used, that might need to be corrected. I suspect niether lens is good for everyone.
Wtf... mis-information?? I simply posted my experience with the 17-70, what I have read and seen of the 18-135, and which conclusions I drew from that. Nowhere did I postulate my opinion as actual fact. Besides, how is it going to help TS if we only sing praise about the 18-135?

And no, I don't think the extra mm wide-angle is not worth an extra 65mm of telephoto. But being faster at 70mm makes for quite a difference, at least to me. And yes, I prefer lenses to be sharp across the frame. Which the 17-70 at 70mm and f/4 isn't, by the way, and nor should anyone expect that. It is a 4x zoom after all. But I think it's good enough. From what I've read and seen, the 18-135 is far worse, at least at telephoto. Which is not surprising, given that it's a 7.5x zoom.

O, and lenses with good corner/edge sharpness are also able to shoot images like the one you posted. Lenses with mediocre corner/edge sharpness, however, are unable to shoot the same image with the flower to the side and retain the same level of detail. Again, see my PPG, except that it's a hand instead of a flower (I'm not that much into flowers). Having said that, it's a very nice photo you posted.

Btw, I read more than just the Photozone review.

@TS:
The 17-70 does macro apparently a little bit better than the 18-135. I use my 55-300 as a semi-macro solution sometimes, but none of them are true macro lenses. What Kozlok says is true though; the Sigma 17-70 version 1 focuses VERY close (it could probably focus on dust on the front element).
For birding, you need the range, and I don't think 135mm will be enough.
For dramatic landscapes, you want to be as wide as possible, preferably wider than the 17mm of the 17-70. I sometimes use my 16-50 as a landscape lens and love the 16mm on it (it's currently battling with my 17-70). I also have the 12-24 which I don't use that much when I'm also carrying the 16-50.
11-05-2013, 04:19 PM   #18
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,211
QuoteOriginally posted by starbase218 Quote
Wtf... mis-information?? I simply posted my experience with the 17-70, what I have read and seen of the 18-135, and which conclusions I drew from that. Nowhere did I postulate my opinion as actual fact. Besides, how is it going to help TS if we only sing praise about the 18-135?

And no, I don't think the extra mm wide-angle is not worth an extra 65mm of telephoto. But being faster at 70mm makes for quite a difference, at least to me. And yes, I prefer lenses to be sharp across the frame. Which the 17-70 at 70mm and f/4 isn't, by the way, and nor should anyone expect that. It is a 4x zoom after all. But I think it's good enough. From what I've read and seen, the 18-135 is far worse, at least at telephoto. Which is not surprising, given that it's a 7.5x zoom.

O, and lenses with good corner/edge sharpness are also able to shoot images like the one you posted. Lenses with mediocre corner/edge sharpness, however, are unable to shoot the same image with the flower to the side and retain the same level of detail. Again, see my PPG, except that it's a hand instead of a flower (I'm not that much into flowers). Having said that, it's a very nice photo you posted.

Btw, I read more than just the Photozone review.

@TS:
The 17-70 does macro apparently a little bit better than the 18-135. I use my 55-300 as a semi-macro solution sometimes, but none of them are true macro lenses. What Kozlok says is true though; the Sigma 17-70 version 1 focuses VERY close (it could probably focus on dust on the front element).
For birding, you need the range, and I don't think 135mm will be enough.
For dramatic landscapes, you want to be as wide as possible, preferably wider than the 17mm of the 17-70. I sometimes use my 16-50 as a landscape lens and love the 16mm on it (it's currently battling with my 17-70). I also have the 12-24 which I don't use that much when I'm also carrying the 16-50.
As I said, none of your negative comments are echoed by those who use the lens. WIth that, I have on intention of carrying this on any further. You can push the 17-70, I'm not buying it. One stop difference doesn't make a huge difference one way or the other, and the 18-135 is 3.5 on the wide end.
11-05-2013, 07:09 PM   #19
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Merts's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Bendigo, Victoria, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 131
QuoteOriginally posted by starbase218 Quote
Wtf... mis-information?? I simply posted my experience with the 17-70, what I have read and seen of the 18-135, and which conclusions I drew from that. Nowhere did I postulate my opinion as actual fact. Besides, how is it going to help TS if we only sing praise about the 18-135?
Hmm. The max aperture of the DA18-135 between about 29 and 75mm is F4.5. It doesn't get to 5.6 until longer than 75mm.
So, for the range that the 17-70 covers, the 18-135 varies between 3.5 and 4.5. Hardly a huge disadvantage compared to the 17-70's constant 4.0

Regarding edge sharpness, I've taken plenty of shots at various focal lengths with the DA18-135 and I've found the sharpness to be acceptable across the whole frame. IQ is best between about 35-100mm and F4.5 to 11. Wide open (3.5) at 18mm isn't great.

The attached photo was taken at 48mm, F8, 1/200 and iso800. Edge sharpness looks okay to me????

Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K-5 II  Photo 
11-06-2013, 03:16 AM   #20
Veteran Member
starbase218's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Planet Earth, Sol system, Milky Way galaxy, Universe
Posts: 1,119
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
As I said, none of your negative comments are echoed by those who use the lens. WIth that, I have on intention of carrying this on any further. You can push the 17-70, I'm not buying it. One stop difference doesn't make a huge difference one way or the other, and the 18-135 is 3.5 on the wide end.
For the last time: feel free to disagree. I'm not trying to convince anyone. All I'm doing is giving what I think is relevant information to the topicstarter, who asked for it in the first place. If he disagrees with me, that's fine too. Where do you get the notion that I'm trying to force my opinion onto others?

Also, you hardly ever need a big aperture at the wide end. Again, IMHO, based on my experience.

QuoteOriginally posted by Merts Quote
Hmm. The max aperture of the DA18-135 between about 29 and 75mm is F4.5. It doesn't get to 5.6 until longer than 75mm.
So, for the range that the 17-70 covers, the 18-135 varies between 3.5 and 4.5. Hardly a huge disadvantage compared to the 17-70's constant 4.0
I read that it goes to f/5.6 after 68mm, but this could be wrong. But even if the camera says it is f/4.5 at 70mm, you probably are going to get an aperture much closer to f/5, because the aperture doesn't close down in steps (e.g. the reported aperture is an approximation). My point is, at 70mm, it's slower than the 17-70, which I already had. And according to the reviews, corner/edge sharpness suffers. So at that FL, you may need to stop down the 18-135 to get the same level of performance as the 17-70 wide open.

QuoteOriginally posted by Merts Quote
Regarding edge sharpness, I've taken plenty of shots at various focal lengths with the DA18-135 and I've found the sharpness to be acceptable across the whole frame. IQ is best between about 35-100mm and F4.5 to 11. Wide open (3.5) at 18mm isn't great.

The attached photo was taken at 48mm, F8, 1/200 and iso800. Edge sharpness looks okay to me????
I would expect it to be quite sharp at those settings (just like the 17-70 is).

If the lens is acceptably sharp for you, that's good. By all means, draw your own conclusions. You are using the lens, I am not. So in the end, what I think of the lens is irrelevant. Make your own choices. Based on reviews (such as Pentax Lens: Zooms - Pentax 17-70mm f/4 AL IF SDM SMC DA (Tested) - SLRgear.com! and Pentax Lens: Zooms - Pentax 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 ED AL [IF] DC SMC DA WR (Tested) - SLRgear.com!), as well as other people's experience, I choose not to bother checking out the 18-135. Also because I was - and still am - perfectly happy with the 17-70. But that's just me.

One thing the 18-135 does seem to do nicely is bokeh. I haven't really compared it to my 17-70 though.

edit: O, and I just remembered, I briefly did play with the 18-135. I liked its size, weight and the fact that it was WR. From my testshots (just a few) I didn't like its sharpness or aperture.

Last edited by starbase218; 11-06-2013 at 03:51 AM.
11-06-2013, 04:26 AM   #21
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Merts's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Bendigo, Victoria, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 131
QuoteOriginally posted by starbase218 Quote
For the last time: feel free to disagree. I'm not trying to convince anyone. All I'm doing is giving what I think is relevant information to the topicstarter, who asked for it in the first place. If he disagrees with me, that's fine too. Where do you get the notion that I'm trying to force my opinion onto others?

Also, you hardly ever need a big aperture at the wide end. Again, IMHO, based on my experience.



I read that it goes to f/5.6 after 68mm, but this could be wrong. But even if the camera says it is f/4.5 at 70mm, you probably are going to get an aperture much closer to f/5, because the aperture doesn't close down in steps (e.g. the reported aperture is an approximation). My point is, at 70mm, it's slower than the 17-70, which I already had. And according to the reviews, corner/edge sharpness suffers. So at that FL, you may need to stop down the 18-135 to get the same level of performance as the 17-70 wide open.



I would expect it to be quite sharp at those settings (just like the 17-70 is).

If the lens is acceptably sharp for you, that's good. By all means, draw your own conclusions. You are using the lens, I am not. So in the end, what I think of the lens is irrelevant. Make your own choices. Based on reviews (such as Pentax Lens: Zooms - Pentax 17-70mm f/4 AL IF SDM SMC DA (Tested) - SLRgear.com! and Pentax Lens: Zooms - Pentax 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 ED AL [IF] DC SMC DA WR (Tested) - SLRgear.com!), as well as other people's experience, I choose not to bother checking out the 18-135. Also because I was - and still am - perfectly happy with the 17-70. But that's just me.

One thing the 18-135 does seem to do nicely is bokeh. I haven't really compared it to my 17-70 though.

edit: O, and I just remembered, I briefly did play with the 18-135. I liked its size, weight and the fact that it was WR. From my testshots (just a few) I didn't like its sharpness or aperture.
You keep saying the DA18-135 isn't very sharp, but the images I've seen taken by others and those I've taken myself seem quite sharp to me.

I will see if I can find something I've taken wide open at around 70mm.
11-06-2013, 11:34 AM   #22
New Member




Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: NorCal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5
Original Poster
made a choice

Thanks to all of you who responded to my question. In case you are interested, I decided on the DA 55-300 f/4-5.8 ED WR, because of what I photograph. Some the pictures you posted using that lens type helped with the decision. Nice work! My next lens will be the FA 100 f.2.8 macro WR. Thanks again.
11-06-2013, 12:15 PM   #23
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
TER-OR's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Dundee, IL
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,868
I have the FA100 macro - it's not WR. I think you mean the newer DFA version - nitpicking, maybe.
The Pentax 100mm macro lenses are outstanding, if you do insects these lenses are almost mandatory.

You'll like the 55-300 lens' versatility.

11-06-2013, 12:16 PM   #24
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,211
Very cool… when you look at the 100 WR, look at the Tamron 90 macro as well, it's a lot cheaper. I'm also thinking about the 55-300, my ancient Sigma 70-300 broke the other day and doesn't work with my K-3, I miss it. But I'm thinking HD and WR for the 55-300 should I go for it.
11-06-2013, 12:41 PM   #25
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Jean Poitiers's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Lost in translation ...
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 16,582
QuoteOriginally posted by Asahi72 Quote
... My next lens will be the FA 100 f.2.8 macro WR. ...
Just my two cents ... I have a D FA 100/2.8 Macro WR ... a great lens which is more versatile than one might think ... and better overall than my FA 77/1.8 ... never a bad shot with the D FA 100 ... the 77 can be a real pain sometimes ... J

PS - I had the Tamron 90/2.8 before the D FA 100 ... the Tammy is a great value (and I'm an AD2 fan), but the Pentax is better IMHO ...
11-06-2013, 04:35 PM   #26
New Member




Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: NorCal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by TER-OR Quote
I have the FA100 macro - it's not WR. I think you mean the newer DFA version - nitpicking, maybe.
The Pentax 100mm macro lenses are outstanding, if you do insects these lenses are almost mandatory.

You'll like the 55-300 lens' versatility.
TER-OR, you are correct, I did mean the DFA. I come from the old Asahi Spotmatic II days, so the current lens names/designations are new to me. Do you know if there is a "glossary" of these different terms in these forums?
11-06-2013, 11:54 PM   #27
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Merts's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Bendigo, Victoria, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 131
QuoteOriginally posted by Asahi72 Quote
TER-OR, you are correct, I did mean the DFA. I come from the old Asahi Spotmatic II days, so the current lens names/designations are new to me. Do you know if there is a "glossary" of these different terms in these forums?
The lens reviews section has descriptions of all of the different Pentax lenses Asahi. They are separated into the various types with descriptions of each type.
Pentax Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

PS. I just ordered a DA55-300
11-07-2013, 08:07 AM   #28
Veteran Member
starbase218's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Planet Earth, Sol system, Milky Way galaxy, Universe
Posts: 1,119
Congrats on your choice. The 55-300 is a great lens.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
da, lens, lenses, macro, morning, range
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
trying to buy a lens on your market place natgoldhaber Welcomes and Introductions 4 04-01-2012 07:41 PM
Trying to figure out what makes a good lens/picture... mgvh Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 10 01-02-2012 06:59 PM
If you need to choose a macro lens goldenzebra Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 14 01-05-2010 10:43 PM
Well, I have to choose a lens gnaztee Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 28 08-06-2009 06:36 PM
Help needed to choose a lens tobie Welcomes and Introductions 4 02-06-2009 12:42 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:29 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top