[Sandy Hancock]

FA 24-90mm is on rank 14 and F 35-70mm on rank 5

The F35-105 is also be worth a mention, but the DFA28-105 is compellingly good.

[robgski]

new-ish DFA28-104

A very exclusive model, only available in the most southerly part of the southern hemisphere

[normhead]

I own the 18-135, 16-85, a Tamron 17-50, and host of primes.

For a one ons kit supported by primes, I use the DA 18-135.
For two lens kit, I like the DA 16-85 and DA 55-300 PLM.
Beyond that fast 50 and the DFA 100 macro provide features beyond the base kit.
While I agree with the 28-105 in principle, a lot of my 18-135 images are taken at 18mm. It's an option that will cost you images.

Despite what's been said, I've tossed landscapes taken at 135mm that have edges that were to soft, but it's still excellent centre sharpness for portraits, macros etc. If you have a DA 55-300 PLM, a lens change would be preferable for landscapes.

Oh, incidentally, we (my wife and I ) own a K-5 and a K-5ii, and we'd strongly recommend the K-5iis if you can find one.

Sadly the K-5 does not support the later and better 55-300 PLM.

The DA 55-300 PLM on a K-5
If you set the camera at 55, to ƒ/4.5 when you zoom in and out it will maintain the accurate shutter speed throughout.

K-5 and DA 55-300 PLM

Is it the best light weight telephoto option for both the K-1 and K-5? Absolutely.

All images taken with the K-5 (original).









You have to be aware of what you're doing... even though it "doesn't work correctly" compared to manual focus it's awesome. Compared to screw drive noise it's awesome. Does it take good pictures? ... it is still best in class, and best for the K-5 despite it's limitations, in many circumstances.

Disadvantage, can only be shot wide open. -Advantage ƒ/4.5 and ƒ/6.3 are pretty useful Apertures to be stuck on.

Advantage - IQ... easily best in class, 2 more elements and 1 more group than previous 55-300s, and is now considered "best in class." by some third party on-line reviewers.

7 times faster focusing speed in the wide end. 2x more in the long end. A lens that after 8 years or whatever, finally lets you experience what the AF system on this camera can handle.

Collapses into a very small size for transport.


If you have the lens and a K-5, it won't take you more than a few minutes to figure it out.
And if you ever upgrade to a newer body, you'll be ahead of the game.

[Sandy Hancock]

While I agree with the 28-105 in principle, a lot of my 18-135 images are taken at 18mm. It's an option that will cost you images.

I agree with your disagreement For use exclusively on a crop camera, the 18-135 (or 16-85) would be much more versatile.

But the OP was specifically requesting advice about a lens covering 40-135 (full frame equivalent) to accompany the DA21.

[nandystam]

I'm in your boat, rebuilding the Pentax kit after a m4:3 stint.
I picked up a 50-200wr to seal up the body, and have da21 plus elderprimes 50/85/135.

The 50-200 is always available dirt cheap on the market, and really only suffers from not being the 55-300. If you stop short of 200mm with your uses it won't be soft at all, and I've always liked the smaller tele's rendring and bokeh.

If it doesn't work for you, the $65 investment will not hurt much.

I had a look at the 50-200 review posted here and the sharpness tests. At 50mm it was very soft, but at 95mm it was actually very good, even in the corners. It seems the further down the zoom range, the better it gets. However, at what point from 50mm does the sharpness improve to the levels seen at 95mm? If it was good at 60mm onwards for example, I think it's definitley worth considering.

[Photojj]

I have found the 16-85 to have superb image quality, sharpness and autofocus. It also is weather-sealed. If you don't mind a little extra weight, you get a very high quality lens at a very reasonable price.

[normhead]

But the OP was specifically requesting advice about a lens covering 40-135 (full frame equivalent) to accompany the DA21

That's just weird. Inflexibility for the sake of inflexibility.

40 FF equivalent would be 26, if we are talking APS-c 135 would be 90, so 26x90....weird.

But it should then be noted, the 18-135 covers 26-90 with overlap, the DA 16-85 doesn't, if we are going to get literal.

But if we are going to the closest match, the FA 24-90 might be it. It might not be the best lens rated at 8 the DA 18-135 rated at 8.55. The FA would seem to be less sharp than the 21, and I find the 21 handles some landscape poorly. It's not at least for me a general purpose lens. The 18-135 is at it's strongest, at 24 mm, when it is excellent sharpness centre and edge. 21 mm is not an FL I'd take the 18-135 off the camera for very often.

From the same site and camera a body (Optical limits)

The 18-135 at. @ƒ/5.6 and 24 mm posts a resolution of 2683
The 21 ltd @ ƒ/5.6 2536 with weaker borders although the 21 has an acceptable amount fo CA, while the 18-135 while rated acceptable is 1.54, while the 21 ltd is .7.

I'd be tempted to just go with the 18-135 and skip the 21 ltd. much as I like it as a nice small lightweight throw in the bag lens.

---

Last edited by normhead; 11-20-2021 at 07:16 PM.

[robgski]

I own an FA 24-90 IF AL.
I own a DA 18-135 WR
I own a DA 21mm.

I like them all, they each have their place in meeting my needs.

As a prime, the DA 21 produces amazing results, as many pictures on PF attest. IF you already own one, keep it.

The FA 24-90 IF AL is a great zoom, I travelled with it for over 3 weeks and used it 90% of the time on a K-1 with no regrets and many keepers.

Of the three however, I've used the DA 18-135 most of all, it is a great multi-purpose walk around lens that delivers great results, I can leave it on my camera and move out to face whatever situation I am in, and rarely wish for another lens. Since it is made for use with APS-C cameras, and you can buy a used copy at a very reasonable price, that's my recommendation. When you tire of it, or hit the lottery, pursue some more expensive specialty lenses ,but don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
More snapping, less yapping, now get out there and take some pictures, I look forward to seeing them.

[UncleVanya]

40 FF equivalent would be 26, if we are talking APS-c 135 would be 90, so 26x90....weird.

But it should then be noted, the 18-135 covers 26-90 with overlap, the DA 16-85 doesn't, if we are going to get literal.

But if we are going to the closest match, the FA 24-90 might be it. It might not be the best lens rated at 8 the DA 18-135 rated at 8.55. The FA would seem to be less sharp than the 21, and I find the 21 handles some landscape poorly. It's not at least for me a general purpose lens. The 18-135 is at it's strongest, at 24 mm, when it is excellent sharpness centre and edge. 21 mm is not an FL I'd take the 18-135 off the camera for very often.

From the same site and camera a body (Optical limits)

The 18-135 at. @ƒ/5.6 and 24 mm posts a resolution of 2683
The 21 ltd @ ƒ/5.6 2536 with weaker borders although the 21 has an acceptable amount fo CA, while the 18-135 while rated acceptable is 1.54, while the 21 ltd is .7.

I'd be tempted to just go with the 18-135 and skip the 21 ltd. much as I like it as a nice small lightweight throw in the bag lens.

Norm, The person you quoted gave the wrong range. The original request was for an apsc equivalent to a 40-120 zoom. The 16-85 (and 18-135) essentially cover this range; with both going wider than requested and longer.

I suspect either lens is a very good fit. The 28-105 is probably a good fit as well. In the end I doubt any of these lenses recommended would be easier to distinguish from the others in simple blind testing.

[mikesbike]

The original request was for an apsc equivalent to a 40-120 zoom.

Right- it is in terms of FF equivalency. And yes, it is a bit unusual to seek out this specific range. Essentially, a zoom range of wide-normal to moderate tele. But when shooting landscapes, one generally has plenty of time for lens-changing if needed. The expressed concern is also for high quality edge-to-edge performance. The DA16-85mm would be a good choice, as would the DA 18-135mm too though not as good in this regard, with one offering a bit more width and the other quite a it more tele. The DA 18-135mm has been shown to have superior AF performance, enough to enhance AF with the K-5 series. My observation with it has been quite good edge-to-edge from 18m to about 70mm if stopped down. Getting a substandard copy seems to be much more rare with this lens, as so far seems to also be the case with the DFA 28-105. This DFA lens has been given very fine reviews for edge-to-edge performance, and since it is a FF design should be even better when used on APS-C. With the DA 12-24mm, which has a very good FL matchup, edge-to-edge excellence will be hard to match with any other setup, along with a very wide zoom range between these two lenses.

[nandystam]

Just an FYI, the 40-120 is merely a ballpark range. The recommendation of an 18-135, for example, is perfectly reasonable in my view. I was just looking for something that was inclusive of that range, or thereabouts.

[UncleVanya]

Just an FYI, the 40-120 is merely a ballpark range. The recommendation of an 18-135, for example, is perfectly reasonable in my view. I was just looking for something that was inclusive of that range, or thereabouts.

Sounds like you have gotten good recommendations then. I don’t think any of the recommendations is a bad one.

[rvandenbrink]

I’ve got the 18-135 and am really happy with it, with the new 55-300 at the top end (this lense is just magic tbh). I keep looking at the 18-85, but can’t seem to find a good excuse to spend the cash for it

[VictorDA]

the terrible FA28-70/4, to me one of those F or FA zooms I'd never even consider anymore

I respectfully disagree; I'm enjoying mine although clearly it is not in the same league as the newer D FA 28-105.
The 35-70 gets good reviews as well indeed.
The F 35-135 I used to have, it was a fun lens but I wouldn't recommend it as an all-purpose walk around (it has strong personnality let's say)

[normhead]

I respectfully disagree; I'm enjoying mine although clearly it is not in the same league as the newer D FA 28-105.
The 35-70 gets good reviews as well indeed.
The F 35-135 I used to have, it was a fun lens but I wouldn't recommend it as an all-purpose walk around (it has strong personnality let's say)

There in lies the issue, lenses with "personality" may not appeal to people even if they are good lenses. I put my FA 35-80 in a 35mm lens test once and it won at reduced size even though it did poorly pixel peeing. I could safely say, if you know you are going to reduce the size even the not as well regarded 35-80 has about a 25% chance of being the lens you prefer of the 7 I tested.

And herein lies the problem in these threads. We don't know what the OP likes, we don't know what quality he shoots for. Is he a pixel peeper, or does he like a specific rendition.