Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-06-2015, 07:51 AM - 2 Likes   #16
Site Supporter
jatrax's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,770
So Norm, you like the 18-135 then?

07-06-2015, 09:15 AM   #17
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,247
QuoteOriginally posted by Irfanintekhab Quote
Thank you for the detailed response. So if I get you correct, I can use the 18-135 at say 30mm and it'll be just as sharp and controlled like the 16-50 at 30mm?

The 60-250 looks promising. Cuz I'd have this 135 to cover till 30. I also bought a 50mm 1.8 since it was really cheap just 30 KD here. and someone said it's very sharp. Indeed it's really sharp. But the built is obviously not so good. It's fine until it's giving me those sharp images. And then I can use the 60-250 if I ever need to go that far. 😊
The 16-50 is a stop or two faster throughout its range than the 18-135. If you are shooting landscape, it probably isn't a big deal, as you'll be stopped down quite a bit anyway, but if you want to shoot at f2.8, then it is the only thing in the Pentax line up that covers this set of focal lengths with that aperture.

I've been pretty satisfied with my copy.





This is at f2.8

07-06-2015, 10:34 PM   #18
Forum Member




Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 59
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
The reason for the 16-50 is a waterside ƒ2.8, as afar a I can tell. By 30mm mm, the 18-135 at ƒ4, You need to let in twice as much light, to get to ƒ2.8, so the DA*16-50 needs to be quite a bit heavier and for DoF if you want it, the DA*16-50 is going to open wider and create more pleasing out of focus areas. There are advantages. But, landscape at ƒ5.6 or higher insn't one of them between maybe 22and 30. Personally I've stopped carrying my DA*35 2.4, because the DA 18-135 will give me the image I want, even thought the DA 35 is a very good lens. I'm sure the DA 35 will be marginally better pixel peeping, but as in my 50's example above, any differences will be insignificant. The 18-135 is two lenses, a very high end 18-50 and a centre sharp DA 60-135. Every one of the criticisms I've seen on the forum has been people comparing the 60-135 part of the lens to someone else's 16-50 or 17-50. That's just misrepresentation. And personally, I find it offensive, that after I've taken the time to correct this over and over again, people who support other lenses for this role, continue the malign the 18-135, and proposed other lenses that are no where near what it is at it's strongest.

The only lens I'd recommend over it based on the test charts would be the Tamron 17-50, and I have to put an asterisk on that because so many have had mechanical issues with that lens. I was already at the point of refusing to recommend it, when the AF on mine totally died. It's adjusted to +10 and still won't focus.

IN a way, it's not that the 18-135 is all that great, it's that the other offereings The Sigma 16-50, the Pentax 16-50 and the Tamron 17-50 are rated at the highest , an 8 put of 10.

DA* 16-50mm vs. Sigma and Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 Comparison Review - The Bottom Line | PentaxForums.com Reviews

The DA 18-135 rated at 8.4 is right behind the DA*35 2.4 rated at 8.5 and a half point ahead of any of the above 3.

The people who go on about these other lenses, putting down the 18-135 just shooting off their mouths without doing their home work. At this point there is just no excuse for that. Personally, I'm going to start ramping it up a bit when the OP asks for something top notch and people recommend inferior lenses for the described purpose. The question isn't "What lens did I buy, that I'll stick with no matter what?" The question is, "For the use described by the OP, what is the best lens?" These question turn into cheerleading sessions for one lens or the other.

Even in a football game half the cheerleaders are wrong every game, in that the team they cheer for isn't the best team that day.

There area pile of folks who post here who are nothing but cheerleaders for helens they bought, and absolutely no restraint recommending it over better lens. Accept no advice without supporting links or investigating the forum reviews and Photozone. That would be my advice. These guys who buy on helens and think they know everything, or who got a bad copy of a lens and continuously trash that lens, ignore them. Use multiple sources read what the forum reviews and protozone have to say, and look in the Lens Clubs both for images and for what people say about the lens, and you have a informed decision.

Some jackass saying crap like "the 18-135 is soft at the edges" don't even pay attention to the one liners. They clearly haven't done a stitch of research on the lens, and are just repeating nonsense posted by other posters.

Now if someone wants to make a coherent logical case stating some other people's research and testing, other than joe blow shooting off his mouth, I'll be happy to look at what you come up with. I'e got my case outlined above with relevant quotes. Bring it on.

I won't be holding my breath. I've been through the evidence enough times, to know, you have nothing.

My biggest regret is that the first time this trash was tossed out as advice I didn't create a comprehensive file I could just paste into every thread where it cam up , and create a bot to do it automatically. I have continually put the information out there, and people I can only describe as lazy have continued on about how weak the lens is, without actually looking at the tests and reviews.

Lazy, there's no other word to describe those attitudes.

At this point I'm almost certain there's going to be a few people come on and justify their bad advice. Not with reviews, not with test scores, not with side by side comparisons of images, but with a rehash of every poster who's contributed an untruth about this lens.
Thank you for the information


i was testing 18-135 the other day. and it definitely is sharp till about 50mm. I usually don't go wide apertures in the kind of work i do. very few times but then for that id be looking into other lenses. anyway so i felt the sharpness starts to come down a little at 70mm and keeps dropping and unfortunately that's the focal length i am working around 50-70


But in my case more than sharpness i am concerned about CA. and that seems to be the only problem to me with this lens. It is good, by using it for a few weeks i understood its way, and can take that under control. But just cannot be a little care free hahaha. i need to think about CA.


I think what i am looking for is confidence. You know this piece of glass no matter what just click and don't worry, come back home and you will have good sharp images. that kind of confidence i feel is what i am not getting out of this lens. I am zooming in and checking all parts of the image to see if there is CA or blurriness. Or maybe i am just caught up in the worry whether i am losing something with the new system of Pentax moving from Nikon? hahaha. if so any suggestions how do I come out of it? I don't want to turn into a pixel peeper. Id rather prefer shooting photographs than spending time on the screen of the camera peeping every part. Maybe its just that the new switch is all it is, and with time ill be more confident as Pentax serves


thank you for all the great replies. nice to see a pentax community here

---------- Post added 07-06-15 at 10:36 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
The 16-50 is a stop or two faster throughout its range than the 18-135. If you are shooting landscape, it probably isn't a big deal, as you'll be stopped down quite a bit anyway, but if you want to shoot at f2.8, then it is the only thing in the Pentax line up that covers this set of focal lengths with that aperture.

I've been pretty satisfied with my copy.





This is at f2.8

wow! those are some great photos. and a very good lens indeed. thanks for posting btw how do you put images from flick on here?

---------- Post added 07-06-15 at 10:51 PM ----------

Here is one shot i was trying with a controlled studio environment with the 50mm 1.8 lens. its cheap but i was amazed at how sharp it really is.


Last edited by Irfanintekhab; 07-06-2015 at 10:55 PM.
07-07-2015, 07:10 AM   #19
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,864
That's a great portrait.... check out Richard Avedon... you might like his style in his street portraits.

QuoteOriginally posted by jatrax Quote
So Norm, you like the 18-135 then?
Whatever gave you that impression?
It's not so much that I like it. I just hate to see it unfairly maligned. It's an issue of justice and fairness?

I'm as much aware as anyone else, there are times when you just have to take it off the camera. But , those times seem to get greatly exaggerated in importance. I always say you can fake a stop 99% of the time. So the ones stop better the16-50 type 2.8 lenses are is really pretty irrelevant, unless you wish to shoot wide open for smoother DoF. There will be the odd time when ƒ4 is not quite there and ƒ2.8 is good, but unless you are experiencing that on a regular basis, you have to justify carrying the extra glass.

I have never been able to look at the Photozone chart on the DA*16-50 and feel inspired. And owning the Tamron 17-50, in many ways a better lens, hasn't changed that at all.

QuoteQuote:
But in my case more than sharpness i am concerned about CA. and that seems to be the only problem to me with this lens. It is good, by using it for a few weeks i understood its way, and can take that under control. But just cannot be a little care free hahaha. i need to think about CA.
The 18-135 values for CA aren't really bad 50-70, if you don't compare them to the DA 70 or any 50, which is just are stellar lenses for sharpness. That being said, in my day and age we bought portrait lenses that were intentionally soft. IN the portrait above, you definitely lean towards sharpness, and the 70 would suit your style and well as the 50. A more traditional, "soft and dreamy" studio type portrait, you probably want to use the AA filter to soften it up a bit.


Last edited by normhead; 07-07-2015 at 07:30 AM.
07-08-2015, 12:38 AM   #20
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 451
normhead, why so serious? I get the idea that you think people may be misguided in their opinions, but they are in fact merely their opinions, to which they are fully entitled. You come across as someone who feels that certain gear is being unjustly maligned, and so you must "fight the good fight" on its behalf! As a result it seems confrontational, and I reckon it weakens your argument, even though I often agree with your basic points.

But I don't like to see other PF members referred to as jackasses talking crap, Joe Blow shooting off his mouth, or (especially) demands from a few people on this forum that people have to prove their opinions by posting proof, and so on.

Anyway, to return to talking about lenses . I think the 18-135 is one of the best value and most versatile walkabout lenses on the market for Pentax users. HOWEVER, the reviews of the 16-85 seem to suggest that it gives slightly better IQ, but I wouldn't buy one, the 18-135 is more useful to me.

HOWEVER, I prefer to use my primes, or my Sigma 17-50 f2.8 coupled with my Penny 100 WR, because for me they give better results - that is to say, results I like better, and I also like using them more. (nb, my 18-135 IS softER at the corners from 100 up, but not enough to bother me, and it may be user error anyway! Softer than what, you may ask. Softer than ITSELF - on my copy, and in my opinion, the corner sharpness above 100ISH falls off too much compared to the rest of the range, so I prefer the greater consistency of sharpness offered by 2 different lenses. This is no problem, as it frees up the 18-135 to be almost permanently mounted on my wife's K30.)

---------- Post added 07-08-15 at 03:42 PM ----------

If I could afford it, I would buy a 60-250 to go with my Sigma 17-50, but there are two problems - it is far too heavy for lazy old me, and my wife has almost lusted for the 60-250 since she first saw one three years ago, so if I buy one, I have to buy two, or I still wouldn't get to use it! (I bought her a Tamron 70-200, but it fails in too many ways, lol - it's heavy, it's noisy, and it doesn't look impressive enough for her!)

Last edited by Bagga_Txips; 07-08-2015 at 12:55 AM.
07-08-2015, 07:07 AM   #21
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,864
QuoteOriginally posted by Bagga_Txips Quote
normhead, why so serious? I get the idea that you think people may be misguided in their opinions, but they are in fact merely their opinions, to which they are fully entitled. You come across as someone who feels that certain gear is being unjustly maligned, and so you must "fight the good fight" on its behalf! As a result it seems confrontational, and I reckon it weakens your argument, even though I often agree with your basic points.

But I don't like to see other PF members referred to as jackasses talking crap, Joe Blow shooting off his mouth, or (especially) demands from a few people on this forum that people have to prove their opinions by posting proof, and so on.

Anyway, to return to talking about lenses . I think the 18-135 is one of the best value and most versatile walkabout lenses on the market for Pentax users. HOWEVER, the reviews of the 16-85 seem to suggest that it gives slightly better IQ, but I wouldn't buy one, the 18-135 is more useful to me.

HOWEVER, I prefer to use my primes, or my Sigma 17-50 f2.8 coupled with my Penny 100 WR, because for me they give better results - that is to say, results I like better, and I also like using them more. (nb, my 18-135 IS softER at the corners from 100 up, but not enough to bother me, and it may be user error anyway! Softer than what, you may ask. Softer than ITSELF - on my copy, and in my opinion, the corner sharpness above 100ISH falls off too much compared to the rest of the range, so I prefer the greater consistency of sharpness offered by 2 different lenses. This is no problem, as it frees up the 18-135 to be almost permanently mounted on my wife's K30.)

---------- Post added 07-08-15 at 03:42 PM ----------

If I could afford it, I would buy a 60-250 to go with my Sigma 17-50, but there are two problems - it is far too heavy for lazy old me, and my wife has almost lusted for the 60-250 since she first saw one three years ago, so if I buy one, I have to buy two, or I still wouldn't get to use it! (I bought her a Tamron 70-200, but it fails in too many ways, lol - it's heavy, it's noisy, and it doesn't look impressive enough for her!)
QuoteQuote:
I get the idea that you think people may be misguided in their opinions, but they are in fact merely their opinions, to which they are fully entitled.
Ya, I just can't seem to get that "let everyone say whatever they want no matter how wrong it is" attitude. To me that's kind of goofy. If I were to say that I'd have to say "yuck. yuck, yuck" right after it.

Other people may come here for the touchy feely lets all share and treasure each others opinions. I tend to value those opinions a little more if they actually have some useful information.

Other people are entitled to their opinions, and I'm entitled to my opinion of their opinion. If you don't want your opinions bumping up against other people's opinions don't post them on the internet. That's really simple.

I've never once gone into someone's house, listened to their opinions and criticized them for it. This is not your house.

If someone asks for lens advice, and you want to promote your lens, feel free to do so. If you want to talk crap about a lens I own, I'm going to correct you. Expect that. If everyone sticks to what they know, we'll all do just fine.

What is that attitude that says "In order to tell people why I like my lens, I have to misrepresent someone else's." Wat wid dat?

I quite appreciate it when people talk about why they like a lens they use. I really dislike it when they talk crap about a lens I own. Deal with it.

My question would be, why do you feel it's OK to come on a site like this and disseminate misleading information? Shouldn't you have to do at least a little bit of research before you trash someone else's lens?

For myself, I've learned a lot because I do research before I open my mouth. Find out what's true, then give your take on it, that's an opinion I can respect. There's lot's o fuse for opinion based on that actual characteristics of a lens and who it can be made use of. If you believe it, you can use reviews and test sites to explain what you've observed. Just repeating the nonsense that's been repeated by others, to the point where it's true because it's been said so many times. That's just sheep going baa, baa ,baa. That's someone else's opinion, and you're a believer. Have a short fuse with believers.

Last edited by normhead; 07-08-2015 at 07:57 AM.
07-08-2015, 07:57 AM   #22
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 451
Basically, normhead, you are just plain rude. In my opinion.
07-08-2015, 07:59 AM   #23
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,864
I try not to get into name calling.. myself....

But, let's make a deal, I put you on my ignore list, you put me in your ignore list, we never have to interact again. No sweat of my back.

I'm not for everybody, your mistake is, you think your opinion is somehow better than mine. If you could respect my opinion you would't even be saying anything. So, in the same thread you want opinions respected, you say mine is rude... cute.

07-08-2015, 08:06 AM   #24
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 451
Naah, I have often respected your opinion, I just wish you would phrase it more politely. And I would be kinda weird if I respected your or anyone else's opinion more than my own, surely?
07-08-2015, 08:14 AM   #25
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,686
QuoteOriginally posted by Irfanintekhab Quote
But in my case more than sharpness i am concerned about CA
If you're shooting jpegs, set the camera up to remove CA. If you're shooting raw, this is easily done in post.
07-08-2015, 10:53 PM   #26
Forum Member




Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 59
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
That's a great portrait.... check out Richard Avedon... you might like his style in his street portraits.



Whatever gave you that impression?
It's not so much that I like it. I just hate to see it unfairly maligned. It's an issue of justice and fairness?

I'm as much aware as anyone else, there are times when you just have to take it off the camera. But , those times seem to get greatly exaggerated in importance. I always say you can fake a stop 99% of the time. So the ones stop better the16-50 type 2.8 lenses are is really pretty irrelevant, unless you wish to shoot wide open for smoother DoF. There will be the odd time when 4 is not quite there and 2.8 is good, but unless you are experiencing that on a regular basis, you have to justify carrying the extra glass.

I have never been able to look at the Photozone chart on the DA*16-50 and feel inspired. And owning the Tamron 17-50, in many ways a better lens, hasn't changed that at all.



The 18-135 values for CA aren't really bad 50-70, if you don't compare them to the DA 70 or any 50, which is just are stellar lenses for sharpness. That being said, in my day and age we bought portrait lenses that were intentionally soft. IN the portrait above, you definitely lean towards sharpness, and the 70 would suit your style and well as the 50. A more traditional, "soft and dreamy" studio type portrait, you probably want to use the AA filter to soften it up a bit.
thanks for the suggestions appreciate it

---------- Post added 07-08-15 at 10:54 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
If you're shooting jpegs, set the camera up to remove CA. If you're shooting raw, this is easily done in post.
But its always RAW hahah i figured it out a bit
07-08-2015, 11:46 PM   #27
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,703
QuoteOriginally posted by jatrax Quote
Pentax lenses in order of image quality (and cost):
The 18-135 is a consumer walk around lens. It is in fact very good for what it is, my wife uses it 80% of the time. However, as already noted corner sharpness is not great and it is rather slower. The somewhat newer DA 16-85 is reputed to be sharper and a good lens but I've no experience with it.

The da*16-50 and da*50-135 are the premium combination that cover roughly the same focal lengths as the 18-135. I use da*16-50 for perhaps 50% of my work. It is excellent, with the only issues being some distortion at 16mm and the SDM drive has in the past been unreliable. That seems to be largely fixed as we do not see many complaints these days. The same with the da*50-135. They are both big, heavy professional lenses that deliver as good as you can get in zoom lenses.

And last, for the ultimate sharpness you need to go with primes. Whether a particular shot will be better with a prime or a da* lens is hard to say. The da* lenses are close but most still give the primes an edge. The classic Pentax Limited set would be the FA 31mm, FA 43mm and FA 77mm. The DA set is 15mm, 21mm, 40mm, 70mm. These are even smaller and lighter but a little slower.

So based on your post I would suggest trying a DA*16-50 or taking a look at several of the FA or DA Limited primes.

+1, to me this give a good summary.
07-08-2015, 11:57 PM   #28
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,703
I'll also say to contradict norm (politely, we don't need to agree !) that while this 18-135 is great for the price and good compromize that it will not render that great, in particular at the long end (50-135mm) and is not that great at 18mm neither. Even in the middle of the range, say 35mm, it does't achieve say DA35 ltd sharpness and does't provide the same constrast, the same feeling a high end prime could provide. And no sharpness it not only resolution but contrast and micro constrast too.

The good thing is the great price, in particular bundled to a body, the high quality build of the lense and the great range, WR thing. That a great lense overall.


But, even for landscapes, I continuously surprized but how much better some prime do perform... That's DA35 ltd, even basic FA50 or DA50 or FA77... And we speak of range near to that 50-70mm you use a lot.

I'd say the DA50 f/1.8 or DA35 are great lenses to go to the next level. They are not expensive and bring quality. In a zoom the new 16-85 look better overall and if you are not that interrested in performance past 85mm it might be a better deal than the 18-135. In zoom the alternative would be the 50-135 in addition to either a 16-50 or with the 18-135.

normhead want to put the 18-135 as an excelent lens, this a great or excelent compromize lense. Not excelent in optical quality. It may have great resolution at 24mm and be acceptable for most shoot in general, but that's the end of it. Even for this 24mm I'll choose DA21 instead of DA18-135 because while the DA21 might not offer more resolution, it does offer better colors and constrast and better flare resistance too.

Honestly you may not have to be that concerned by ultimate sharpness or performance neither so this is really not that bad. The lense can get you very far.

But this is still average in optical quality. You'll not get the rendering of better zooms or primes. Even for landscape it will show and you don't even need to go 100% to spot the difference in rendering with say DA35 ltd or FA77. Looking at pictures full screen is enough to the see a visible difference.

Is it worth the money while post processing can likely remove half of that difference? Depend of what you are after. If you love great dynamic range, constrasty picture and shoot a lot in backlight. Yeah sure. If you like shallow deph of field, 18-135 is simply not in the game any range with it apperture and counting you better of with f/8 with it. For many shoots easy shoots, you'll not see any difference once you managed the post processing.

Last edited by Nicolas06; 07-09-2015 at 12:04 AM.
07-13-2015, 12:26 AM - 1 Like   #29
Forum Member




Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 59
Original Poster
Wanted to share with you guys how sharp i could go with the 18-135 at 135mm. And i was really impressed and satisfied. The 50mm 1.8 is much sharper however



Rolex by Irfan Intekhab on 500px
07-13-2015, 02:46 AM   #30
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,703
Difficult to say anything from this shoot. Only the heart of center is in focus and you provide a websize picture.
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!
18-135, advice, camera, da, da*16-50, distortion, dslr, fa, glass, k-3, k-3 new user, k3, lengths, lens, lenses, nikon, pentax, pentax k-3, people, photography, portrait, primes, range, sharpness, sigma, tamron
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New K-3 User-Image Corrupted in Computer cfbuck Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 15 03-18-2015 04:32 PM
New Zealand K-3 user bepperNZ Welcomes and Introductions 5 12-09-2014 04:59 AM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax K-5iis or K-3 (NEW w/2yr extended warranty and receipt) black-kx Sold Items 5 11-03-2014 05:57 PM
New K-01 User - some lens questions and advice mikeodial Pentax K-01 7 08-09-2014 05:15 AM
K-3 and New Pentax Flashes pghwarrior23 Pentax K-3 6 11-07-2013 01:16 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:04 AM. | 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