[sibyrnes]

I think you should forget about camera reviews and check out this thread instead:

DA 18-135 WR, Show us what it can do - PentaxForums.com

[dbs]

+ 1
Dave

[timb64]

I think you should forget about camera reviews and check out this thread instead:

DA 18-135 WR, Show us what it can do - PentaxForums.com

And this

DA 16-85 WR,show us what it can do. - PentaxForums.com

[Alex645]

My standard all-purpose lens is the DA 18-135 mm which I use on my K50. I like it, but read in a recent British photo magazine that it was a little lacking in edge sharpness.
Is there a "better" lens in this general zoom range that can be recommended?

Agree with all the previous posts, but to add: Did the article mention the camera the lens was tested on? One of the curses of upgrading to higher megapixel sensor is it will begin to require higher quality optics as it will begin to show flaws on lesser lenses.

So on your 16MP K50, the 18-135mm may look excellent, but with a 24MP K-70/K3II/KP the same lens may look worse. If I were you, I'd postpone upgrading until perhaps your K50 is retired and there is a 24MP sensor looking for a lens.

Or if you're willing to go with two lenses but want better sharpness:
a) Have your 18-55mm kits lens? Then just get the Pentax-D FA 100mm f/2.8 WR Macro Lens. That gives you speed, macro, plus it's so sharp, you can easily crop to the equivalent of the 135mm field of view and get superior results.
b) Don't have the 18-55mm kit lens? Then same as above, but just use your 18-135mm in the 18-70mm range with the 100mm Macro. That lens also works for full frame, so if you ever step up to the K1......

[NS_Sailor]

Agree with all the previous posts, but to add: Did the article mention the camera the lens was tested on? One of the curses of upgrading to higher megapixel sensor is it will begin to require higher quality optics as it will begin to show flaws on lesser lenses.

So on your 16MP K50, the 18-135mm may look excellent, but with a 24MP K-70/K3II/KP the same lens may look worse. If I were you, I'd postpone upgrading until perhaps your K50 is retired and there is a 24MP sensor looking for a lens.

There is definately something to the relationship of results between higher MP sensors and lens quality. I switched to the DA 18-135 on my K70 after finding my Tamron 18-200 just wasn't as sharp as it was on my K100, KR, K500 and a friend's K20 and so far I've been very happy with the results I've achieved with the lens. If however under certain circumstances, at least on the K70, where the lens is matched to the camera, recognized by the firmware and allows added corrections in the camera. I have the option of changing the setting in the camera to correct for any lens defects, under certain circumstances utilize Pixel Shift or correct issues in PP.

Outside that, after reading other posts in this thread, it really comes down to how much of a dent you want to put in your wallet to correct a perceived issue based on one person's opinion of tests where not all parameters are known or disclosed

[psoo]

The 'better' lens would be the DA*16-50 plus the DA*50-135. Same focal range, significantly sharper images.

The two lenses would certainly cover the zoom range of my DA 18-135. However, the sharpness of the 16-50 mm disappointed several reviewers in the Pentax Lens Reviews. Also I wouldn't want to have two lenses to replace the 18-135 since I like to travel light. Guess I'd better stick with my 18-135 for the time being.

---------- Post added 11-08-17 at 09:57 AM ----------

Agree with all the previous posts, but to add: Did the article mention the camera the lens was tested on? One of the curses of upgrading to higher megapixel sensor is it will begin to require higher quality optics as it will begin to show flaws on lesser lenses.

So on your 16MP K50, the 18-135mm may look excellent, but with a 24MP K-70/K3II/KP the same lens may look worse. If I were you, I'd postpone upgrading until perhaps your K50 is retired and there is a 24MP sensor looking for a lens.

Or if you're willing to go with two lenses but want better sharpness:
a) Have your 18-55mm kits lens? Then just get the Pentax-D FA 100mm f/2.8 WR Macro Lens. That gives you speed, macro, plus it's so sharp, you can easily crop to the equivalent of the 135mm field of view and get superior results.
b) Don't have the 18-55mm kit lens? Then same as above, but just use your 18-135mm in the 18-70mm range with the 100mm Macro. That lens also works for full frame, so if you ever step up to the K1......

Hi Alex, the magazine that I glanced at was a British publication that I saw in my local Barnes and Noble. I don't remember if the camera used was given. However, your comments above are well taken and matching the lens to a camera is important.Thanks for your insights.

[pres589]

I think I'd rather spend the money covering a focal length that the 18-135 doesn't cover OR a specific focal length where I'd want increased speed. So something wide like the Samyang 14mm or the Pentax 12-24 or the Pentax 55-300 for lengths that the 18-135 doesn't really do. Or get a nice fast prime like the DA 50 1.8 or the FA 35 2.0 or DA 70 2.4.

I find the 18-135 is a great all around lens. The only real fault I have with it is that it's not especially fast which makes low light or portrait photographer harder. And obviously isn't not really that wide on the wide end. It's an great "anchor" lens for my lens collection.

[sibyrnes]

I think I'd rather spend the money covering a focal length that the 18-135 doesn't cover

That is a good idea! I find that the DA15 and DA18-135 are a perfect, compact hiking/travel combo for my KP.

[DeadJohn]

...Yes I have been happy with my 18-135 mm but have noticed some of my pics are not as sharp as I would like ... [SNIPPED AND COMBINED POSTS] ... Guess I'd better stick with my 18-135 for the time being.

Yes, don't give up on the 18-135. It's a good multipurpose lens. I suggest using your lens budget to find a specialty lens that supplements, rather than replaces, the 18-135. Does the perceived lack of sharpness happen mostly at 18mm, or 135mm, or at all focal lengths? What subjects do you most like to photograph?

P.S. I see you are from Long Island, NY. I'm in Huntington.

[psoo]

That is a good idea! I find that the DA15 and DA18-135 are a perfect, compact hiking/travel combo for my KP.

Hi Sybyrnes: My favorite lens pair is the DA 12-24 and the DA 18-135. The 12-24 is extremely sharp and is a great lens for those panoramic views.

---------- Post added 11-08-17 at 12:19 PM ----------

Yes, don't give up on the 18-135. It's a good multipurpose lens. I suggest using your lens budget to find a specialty lens that supplements, rather than replaces, the 18-135. Does the perceived lack of sharpness happen mostly at 18mm, or 135mm, or at all focal lengths? What subjects do you most like to photograph?

P.S. I see you are from Long Island, NY. I'm in Huntington.

Hi John, I like to take pics while on travel, historic buildings and sites, infrastructure, as well as my family (especially the grandkids). I live in S. Setauket. That makes at least two Pentaxians on Long Island. Cheers!!

[DeadJohn]

Hi John, I like to take pics while on travel, historic buildings and sites, infrastructure, as well as my family (especially the grandkids). I live in S. Setauket. That makes at least two Pentaxians on Long Island. Cheers!!

For architecture, especially in NYC or other crowded cities where it's difficult to back up without hitting something, consider a wider lens as your next upgrade. The DA 15 Limited is great for that, and it has legendary flare resistance if you do any photos of buildings at night. The Tamron 10-24 is also good; you sacrifice flare resistance in exchange for the versatility of zoom.

[mee]

The 'better' lens would be the DA*16-50 plus the DA*50-135. Same focal range, significantly sharper images.

I've owned both of these and the 18-135 WR. I'll say stopped down I noticed the difference in sharpness is very minimal to about 70 or 75mm when the 18-135 starts to soften a bit. I'd pick the 16-50 only for the extra speed and the 2mm on the wide end.. otherwise I would just use the 18-135mm, its a competent lens.


my 50-135mm was quite sharp even at f/2.8 though. And the rendering is gorgeous. I hope they update that lens with a new drive system and coatings. It is a lens I think all Pentaxians should experience... truly worthy of the DA* nomenclature.


Though this brings up an interesting point.. once you get into large focal ranges, sharpness CA and contrast tend to take a dive to some degree.. so there is no silverbullet all-in-one lens if you value image quality. One has to pick either IQ or utility with their lens selection as their primary factor.. 18-135mm on crop is about as wide of a Focal Range as I'd want to get.

[jatrax]

However, the sharpness of the 16-50 mm disappointed several reviewers in the Pentax Lens Reviews.

And again, don't read read so much into a 'few reviewers'. I used the DA*16-50 professionally for 4 years and was very happy with the results and more importantly so were my clients. If you really want a step up from the 18-135 then the 16-85 will be a marginal step and the 16-50 / 50-135 is a significant step. Sort of like moving from a biplane to an F/A-18 . But nothing else in Pentax land is going to give the quality / focal length that the 18-135 does in a single lens.

---------- Post added 11-08-17 at 10:58 AM ----------

And the rendering is gorgeous. I hope they update that lens with a new drive system and coatings.

I am hopeful, now that the DA*11-18 has been announced that we will see a DA*16-50II and DA*50-135II to match it. The DA*16-50 is an amazing lens, but there seems to be enough love/hate out there that I suspect some sample variation. I really loved mine, nothing else I have shot with comes close. Changed it to screwdrive when the SDM died and only sold it when I got the DFA 24-70 and K-1. But there are a fair number of folks that were disappointed, hard to reconcile those opinions unless there was significant sample variation.

[mee]

I had two copies of the 16-50. The first one was much softer at f/2.8 than the latter.. even with adjustment in body and on a tripod with a timer. But the biggest issue I have with the 16-50 is CA.. and the SDM failed..


An updated 16-50 and 50-135 f/2.8 would be excellent. I think one of the bigger issues holding back AF in Pentax bodies is actually the lenses..

[normhead]

The 18-135 is very sharp at 24mm edge to edge, if you shoot in the 20mm to 50mm range you didn't notice the corners weren't sharp because they they aren't. From about 60mm to 135 mm, the edges are quite soft, but I think it was anticipated it would be a portrait lens in this range, so even though it has excellent centre sharpness the borders are weak.

SO the first issue is, the 18-135 may not be sharp at all, depending on the way you sue it.
At 24mm the 16-85 will be about the same, a bit weaker but not noticeably so, by 50 mm the 16-85 will be stronger on the edges and weaker in the middle, but probably not noticeably so, at 85 mm the 16-85 kicks the 18-135's but, but it doesn't go any further. In the centre at 135mm at ƒ5.6 the 18-135 is still excellent for centre sharpness, but the edges are so bad, most reviewers just take an average and trash the lens, even though it still produces absolutely stunning centre sharp images.

Unfortunately the 16-50 has fairly weak edges until ƒ8, but has amazing centre sharpness. So it's all about how you use these lenses.

If you are like me, and the 18-135 suits your style of shooting, you have no reason to switch. You won't get better from other lenses. You're going to give up range to get what the other lenses offer. The only all purpose lens I'd consider taking it off the camera for would be the new DFA 28-105, which is excellent on a K-1, K-5 or K-3. But the 28 low end instead of 18 limits it's use on APS-c cameras.

But if I owned the 16-85 I wouldn't take that off either. And the various 17-70 lenses also offer some unique features in their faster apertures, for that type of lens.