Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-19-2014, 08:08 AM   #1
Senior Member
Trawlerman's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Hull, Yorkshire, UK
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 210
Ruminating over the 18-135 WR

So i've been playing it over in my mind for a while now about whether to buy the 18-135 or put money into something else like the Sigma 70 Macro or a Rokinon 85.

Right now I have a K30 with Pentax 16-45, 55-300, A28, DA35, DA50, DA40 Limited, Sigma 10-20.

Would the 18-135 be good buy for me? I think perhaps not but my LBA says to buy it regardless LOL

07-19-2014, 08:14 AM   #2
Pentaxian
Heie's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 953
Yes, absolutely it is, but you will certainly get more use out of it with a weather sealed camera (as I read it from your signature, the K-x is your most recent DSLR). Can you give it about a week though to make a decision? The Pentax Forums' 16 page in-depth review on the 18-135 will be published soon

-Heie

EDIT - just now seeing the K-30 (read too quickly ). In that case, yes, and I would recommend selling the 16-45 since they would be redundant. You wouldn't benefit from having the 16-45's constant F4 since from 18-45mm the 18-135 is F3.5-F4.5 (a 1/3 of a stop faster and 1/3 of a stop slower), but the 18-135 autofocuses silently (if that's important to you) and is a bit more compact than the 16-45 (surprisingly).

Last edited by Heie; 07-19-2014 at 08:32 AM.
07-19-2014, 08:26 AM   #3
Forum Member




Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 56
QuoteOriginally posted by Trawlerman Quote
So i've been playing it over in my mind for a while now about whether to buy the 18-135 or put money into something else like the Sigma 70 Macro or a Rokinon 85.

Right now I have a K30 with Pentax 16-45, 55-300, A28, DA35, DA50, DA40 Limited, Sigma 10-20.

Would the 18-135 be good buy for me? I think perhaps not but my LBA says to buy it regardless LOL

According to you current gear, 18-135 is simple no.

It is same level as 16-45, and shorter than 55-300, less sharp than limiteds
Only you will get is walk around possibility with 2 lens because WR.
unless you have unlimited budget of course
07-19-2014, 08:32 AM   #4
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 3,824
I ruminated over the 18-135 for about a year. I checked out some of the reviews...not all were good. But I bought one in April 2014. I've found the photos to be excellent. I've enlarged some up to 11 X 14 and I'm very pleased.

I'm hard to please too. I have three Limiteds, a Leica rangefinder (film) with an Elmar lens and I'm always going over my prints with a critical eye.

IMO after many photos I would say the 18-135 WR is an excellent lens. It's become my new every day, walk around lens. I like it that much.

After my experience with this lens, I've come to the conclusion that that unfortunately with the internet there are a lot of self appointed 'experts'.

07-19-2014, 08:34 AM   #5
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: East Bay Area
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 775
It's useful, in your case, if you need WR or want just a single lens going out. Sharpness generally is good/great stop down a little and in the 20-70mm range. It's one of my most used lenses unless I have specific needs for wider aperture.
07-19-2014, 09:08 AM   #6
Veteran Member
Imageman's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2013
Photos: Albums
Posts: 461
QuoteOriginally posted by lesmore49 Quote
I ruminated over the 18-135 for about a year. I checked out some of the reviews...not all were good. But I bought one in April 2014. I've found the photos to be excellent. I've enlarged some up to 11 X 14 and I'm very pleased.

I'm hard to please too. I have three Limiteds, a Leica rangefinder (film) with an Elmar lens and I'm always going over my prints with a critical eye.

IMO after many photos I would say the 18-135 WR is an excellent lens. It's become my new every day, walk around lens. I like it that much.

After my experience with this lens, I've come to the conclusion that that unfortunately with the internet there are a lot of self appointed 'experts'.


Absolutely correct, many opinions about lenses are not worth reading. Whose to say mine are anyway, but ill state some of them for the record.


1 No lens is bad, they just have different characteristics
2 Kit lenses are fine lenses
3 The lens performance depends partly on the camera, 12 megapixel and below sensors will not show the details that the very best lenses can resolve so kit lenses perform excellently when paired with these sensors. The higher the pixel count the more worthwhile it is to use high resolution lenses.
4 Kit lenses can produce 11x14 prints of high quality ive produced excellent 11x14 prints from a 2 megapixel point and shoot with a crappy little fixed lens, with careful post processing.
5 Poor opinions about lens resolution are often due to a lack of contrast and poor post processing rather than true resolution issues.


Different lens and sensor combinations can deliver markedly different results, a lens perceived as poor on a low pixel count sensor can really shine on a higher pixel count sensor.
07-19-2014, 09:51 AM   #7
Moderator PEG Judges
Kerrowdown's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Highlands of Scotland.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 30,593
QuoteOriginally posted by Trawlerman Quote
Ruminating over
I had to check that this wasn't contagious.
07-19-2014, 10:11 AM - 1 Like   #8
Pentaxian
Heie's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 953
QuoteOriginally posted by Kerrowdown Quote
I had to check that this wasn't contagious.
Don't worry - LBA isn't contagious...

07-19-2014, 10:46 AM   #9
Pentaxian
RoxnDox's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Gig Harbor, Washington, USA, Terra
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,096
I bought a K-30 and the 18-135 WR for our Alaska cruise, specifically to have weather sealing and a single walkabout lens. I have been more than happy with it. See https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/12-post-your-photos/266685-travel-look-ou...ml#post2862099 for an example.
07-19-2014, 11:06 AM   #10
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,724
QuoteOriginally posted by Heie Quote
Don't worry - LBA isn't contagious...
Then how did so many of us get it so bad?

Some random thinking here, thoughts are not ordered in terms of importance.

I'm going to do the usual thing... people who put down the 18-135 IQ either don't know what they're talking about or shoot brick walls most of the time, and they almost all don't or never owned one.

I mean, Photozone while giving it a crappy rating, if you read their numbers, it's simply the shapest super zoom, ever, nothing else comes even close. It's a perfect walk around lens. It's biggest downfalls are edge sharpness after 50mm, and CA that can be problematic.

Here's how I use a walk around lens. I use it for everything, but, If I think and image has potential, then I get out the appropriate * lens, or DA prime, and make use of the superior CA. Given that you have a 16-45 and Sigma 10-20, you've got 16-18 covered. I'd sell the 16-45 and get the 18-135. The overlap with the 55-300 won't matter, it will save you lens changes 80% of the time.

Owning the primes you do you have some excellent options to go to, when you decide the quality of your light warrants it.

That being said, for me because your longest prime is 50mm, my next choice would be the Tamron 90 macro. That lens will blow your 55-300 out of the water at 90mm, as well as the 18-135.

Then I'd get an 18-135, go to photo zone and look at the 55-300 an the 18-135 at 50mm, there's no way you'd use the 55-300 in place of the 18-135.

I have a DA 35 2.4 , a 21 ltd, an FA 50 1.7 a 40 XS and Sigma 70 macro , when I'm out for a walk none of them stays on the camera, my 18-135 does. But I probably have them along in my bag in case needed. That's just saving yourself a pile of trouble in lens swaps and dirt in your camera housing.

Your 16-45 is a better option than the 18-135, for resolution, and it's a big difference, but to me, it's not enough range in FL to be a walk around lens.. and it's CA is out of sight, as in so far out as to seriously degrade IQ, until 45mm, even stopped down. The 18-135 is bad for that too, but nothing like the 16-45. In my experience the more CA, the more unreliable a lens is. CA like the 16-45s can ruin an otherwise perfect image, you're taking a gamble. And every time you increase the number of Mps your camera records, the CA is worse. Something barely noticeable on a 12 MP K-x may be more than noticeable on a K-3.

QuoteQuote:
At 16mm and 24mm CAs can be quite extreme with an average pixel width around 2.5px at the image borders. This is plain bad although the issue can be corrected via imaging tools thanks to its very symmetrical characteristic (see the 100% sample crop below). To be fair the CAs are of the less hostile blue-yellow type (rather than red-cyan).
Final decision... convenience - 18-135 and sell the 16-45, it can't compare to primes in terms of CA.
Going for the IQ juggernaut- Tamron 90 (or Sigma 70, or DFA 100) macro and keep the 16-45.

Last edited by normhead; 07-19-2014 at 11:13 AM.
07-19-2014, 02:23 PM   #11
Site Supporter
Kozlok's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Albuquerque
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,667
I use the 18-135 when I'm with the family or on the move. The IQ is good enough that I almost never find myself wishing I had taken the shot with my Limiteds. I prefer primes, but more for the way they make me think than for IQ. I take my Sigma 30/1.4 or a fast 50 along too, for low-light or shallow DOF, and I'm all set.

For me, I hated the 18-55 because I often shoot between 35 and 70, and it was too much lens changing. The only thing I don't like about the 18-135 is I wish it focused closer at wide angles, but the limiteds are brilliant at that.
07-20-2014, 04:05 AM   #12
Forum Member




Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 56
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I'm going to do the usual thing... people who put down the 18-135 IQ either don't know what they're talking about or shoot brick walls most of the time, and they almost all don't or never owned one.
Bad habit to make assumptions on topic what other people "may think" when no details given.
Saying no- simply as answer if it is good choice or best choiche, depends on contekst and may be result more thorough and less controversial thinking than whole of your own expressed opinion.
What you long story actually added? result -Same long WR coverage with less lenses in bag. And NO- it was not said because lens is "bad" in any means.

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I'd sell the 16-45 and get the 18-135
and here is exactly failure point. 16-45 if also WR and covers wide side. It is worth to give away only if range is not in use by shooting habits or covered better, like with smcDA15 limited prime, what he currently do not have. So you loose a little in quality and possibility to go much wider with good quality and do that just for being lazy?
Long macro is qood suggestion as he has only 50mm macro, but having this kind of gear already means that person is not very into macro, as got so many other lenses without it. he didn't ask is it good choice to add Macro-Elmar-M 90mm f/4 or WR100 macro to my gear. And 18-135 does not add anything in means of macro capability.




So from my point of view - add this lens to gear would 18-135 only after covering 14-16 mm range well before selling 16-45. Only in this case i would say, 18 -135 is good choice to go. I consider good if there is improvement in quality and additional features, not widening my zone of comfort. Comfort and best are often excluding each other.

So 18-135 is good overall ease of use and for coverage with 2 WR lenses as i said, but not rise in performance of gear.

There is even one even better option: get DA 15 ltd, get DA 50-135 WR- much better lens on long end than 18-135 and additionally 60-250 and tele-converter if last is not long enough. But these are already more serious considerations and then one do not ask, if 18-135 is good to go. Here you really improve, not get just same level lenses you already have. But did original author asked that??
One of the most stupid reasoning is to do something- only because one can do, not concentrated doing what is really needed to do.

Last edited by Vihmameister; 07-20-2014 at 04:12 AM.
07-20-2014, 04:19 AM   #13
Site Supporter
savoche's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 7,707
The DA16-45 is not wr.
07-20-2014, 04:28 AM   #14
Forum Member




Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 56
QuoteOriginally posted by savoche Quote
The DA16-45 is not wr.
if is not is
07-20-2014, 04:42 AM   #15
Site Supporter
savoche's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 7,707
QuoteOriginally posted by Vihmameister Quote
if is not is
Well, it still isn't.

As for giving up image quality "for being lazy", isn't that exactly what we do the moment we mount a zoom on the camera? Including the 16-45? And I'm not convinced that the 16-45 is vastly superior to the 18-135.

But I agree, only the OP knows if trading 16-18 for 45-135 is worth it. The rest of us can only bring to the table what works for us.

Which is what we do
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!
camera, dslr, photography, sigma
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
pentax 18-135 WR vs Sigma 18-250 pmolina Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 17 03-07-2015 12:04 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax DA 18-55 WR, DAL 55-300, and DA 18-135 WR lenses Elliot Sold Items 4 11-07-2013 02:46 AM
Replacing the 18-135 WR? JayX2A Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 26 04-03-2013 09:02 AM
Pentax 18-135 WR - Is it worth the $400-500? reivax Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 43 03-24-2013 10:10 AM
K5 II - 18-135 WR or 15-55 & 50-200 WR JayX2A Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 5 02-11-2013 08:11 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:03 PM. | See also: NikonForums.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