[Unregistered User 8]

Is this lens worth it?

For me Bill, definitely. As the others have mentioned, it is a very good all round lens. The zoom range is wide enough and tele enough to get most shots. It is very sharp, so cropping an image from the K-3II would not be an issue I think. I made up my mind to get this lens from the review and users thoughts. Just in case you have not read the review on the forums, here it is for you. Good luck.


Pentax-DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 Review - Introduction | PentaxForums.com Reviews

[surfar]

I would have to spend way too much on new lenses

Like I haven't, not a cent and I don't own a DFA lens

[Des]

It is a bit pricey for an 18-135

Seriously? It's priced similarly to the Canon and Sony equivalents, and they are not WR: http://www.adorama.com/als.mvc/nspc/revisedsearch?category=3721+4294950532&r...rchTerm=18-135

Have you seen the price of the Fujifilm 18-135, which is WR? It's roughly double.

As everyone has said the DA 18-135 is a very good lens for what it is. Don't expect corner to corner sharpness, but for most real world use it works very well. Sharp enough, nice colours, pleasant bokeh, quiet, compact, well built.

[mattb123]

I took this pano with mine tonight on a bike ride.

[Cruisers1]

So I've been away from Pentax for a while and I want to get back in. I'd love the K-1 but maybe by the end of the year. I still think the build of the k-3ii is what I want but I was also wondering about the 18-135 WR lens. Is this lens worth it? Should I have it? It is a bit pricey for an 18-135.

Also, I hate that the lens comes with the K-70 for $250 more for the kit vs $476 by itself. Is there a better way to get the lens with a K-3ii?

Thanks,
Bill

I too have decided to pick up a new K-70 and got the body only. Would love to get one of these, but the price without buying a kit is prohibitive right now...

[SeaRefractor]

Very nice lens. I'm very satisfied with the lack of focusing noise at venues that need to be quiet.

[Pioneer]

It is a nice lens. For a zoom it is quite good in my opinion. They all have their own strengths and weaknesses.

It is what it is. A nice, inexpensive, light, weatherproof, 28-200mm equivalent zoom with very good image quality. It is not a prime, it is not my "walk around" lens, it does not stay on my camera all the time. I use it for exactly what I bought it for. Like you, I wanted a good, weatherproof lens to match with K5iiS when the weather gets grumpy, or I am going hiking and don't want to pack a lot of gear. I consider it to be absolutely perfect for that purpose. At least 80% of the time I do not need a weatherproof lens so I use other lenses.

Since I am just now becoming comfortable with my own K5, and have no need for the K-1, I suspect this lens will remain in my arsenal for quite some time. Would I keep it if I had to cut way back on my equipment? I don't know, maybe I would. It gives very good results and it is very flexible. The worst photographs you will ever get from it will come from the wide end, and those aren't really bad. They just are not as good as the rest. If the wide end is a critical factor in your photography than this might not be the right lens for you. For me, I use it most of the time from 24 on up. I find no fault with it at those focal lengths.

[Eagle94VT]

I think it is a great outdoors all purpose lens. Its probably my most used lens with my K3 - skiing, biking, hiking, etc. My largest prints were from my K3 + 18-135 combo. Another 16x20 print should arrive next WED to go next to a pair of 20x30 prints I posted on here somewhere a while back. This print will be interesting - it was shot at ISO 3200. I'll post a picture when I mount it on the wall.

Is it perfect? I am sure there is a soft spot somewhere on the left side about 1/4 way in frame. I'm not much of a pixel peeper and don't really give a sh...Over the years I found I prefer the all purpose zooms + primes combos.

And I also own the K-1. Here is what I had printed 16x20 - I tweaked the one getting printed a bit more.

[normhead]

Isnt everyone who hasn't got it yet?







Which is a real shame that the 18/135mm vignettes for the whole FL on FF.

Mine regularly vignettes on APS-c. But I love it anyway. Today and many days I'm out with the 18-135 and DA*200 ƒ2.8 and a couple TCs. If I had a 50 macro that would be all I needed, 99% of the time.

even though it's getting on, the 18-135 was the first fast DC type lens, really the firs electric drive lens that competed with screw drive for speed. It's also still a good at anything at 24mm for landscape, easily outperforming the Pentax 24 mm prime and pretty much indistinguishable from the Tamron 17-50 or DA 16-85. It has it's good points.

To me, an 18-135 and the new 55-300 PLM on a K-70 would be the perfect walk around situation.

[Scorpio71GR]

Like others have said, it is a good at many things however it is not for pixel peepers. My 18-135 is usually stuck on my K50. From 18-24~28mm it is not the greatest but have my 16-50 for that. For landscapes I tend to stick above 28mm.
36mm


18mm


135mm same spot.


If you want an affordable all around weather sealed zoom the 18-135 is hard to beat. If you are pixel peeping and looking at sharpness then maybe the 16-85 would be better. When going camping my 18-135 and HD 55-300 are my kit.

[jbmiller]

Thanks for all the feedback. About to try it out if I can get out today.