DA 18-135 mm lens

**pres589** · 11-08-2017, 01:25 PM

You mentioned taking pictures of family. The one lens I would be interested in would be the Tamron 28-75 f2.8. The Tamron 17-50 is also pretty good stuff but I think I'd rather have the reach than the width, so 28-75 maybe.

The other lens that might be good is the FA35 f2.0. Small, good max aperture for DoF control, I think it represents good value. I don't love 35mm primes on my crop DSLR but others seem to really like it a lot.

**TER-OR** · 11-08-2017, 02:26 PM

I find the 18-135 a nice walkaround lens. It has enough reach for most uses.
Sharpness in the 35-100 range is better than the extremes, though wide open you won't notice most of the time.

As others say, I'd keep it for those walkaround uses and look for a prime or two in your favorite ranges. We all have our favorites, mine's the 21mm.

MrB1 · 11-08-2017, 04:31 PM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by normhead

.....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.....

That's what I did, Norm. On a K-3 the image quality from the D-FA 28-105 looks excellent to me from corner to corner and throughout its range, probably because it is a full-frame lens and APS-C crops the best part, the centre of the image circle. When I want to travel with just the one lens, the wide end is often not a problem - the main subjects of most of the scenes I shoot are things that don't move so, if I need wider than 28mm, I take two or more images at 28mm and make a composite on the PC.

[ Two shots, top and bottom, with K-3 + D-FA 28mm, stitched in Microsoft ICE (free software) ]

Philip

**psoo** · 11-08-2017, 04:48 PM

Originally posted by TER-OR

I find the 18-135 a nice walkaround lens. It has enough reach for most uses.
Sharpness in the 35-100 range is better than the extremes, though wide open you won't notice most of the time.

As others say, I'd keep it for those walkaround uses and look for a prime or two in your favorite ranges. We all have our favorites, mine's the 21mm.

Good advice TER-OR. Thanks.

**jatrax** · 11-08-2017, 08:17 PM

Originally posted by MrB1

probably because it is a full-frame lens and APS-C crops the best part, the centre of the image circle.

Nope. It looks that way on the K-1 as well. Truly a remarkable lens. Had it been a constant f/4 it would be first page in all the camera mags. But since it is variable many dismissed it as a 'kit' lens.

Angel Perez · 11-08-2017, 08:36 PM

Originally posted by DeadJohn

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.

I'm in Dix Hills, We should have a meetup sometime.

---------- Post added 11-08-17 at 08:36 PM ----------

Originally posted by DeadJohn

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.

I'm in Dix Hills, We should have a meetup sometime.

**Des** · 11-08-2017, 09:58 PM

Originally posted by psoo

It's like being satisfied with your girlfriend until you meet someone even better. Then you consider switching.

I hope your girlfriend isn't reading this. She might feel a little insecure - especially if magazines create dissatisfaction and new fancies. ;-)

I see you are happy with the 12-24. I like mine too. But I wouldn't say it is way better than the 18-135 at 18-24. Maybe a little more edge sharpness, maybe the colours are a little better, but more prone to flare and purple fringing. The coatings on the 18-135 are clearly better.

I have toyed with getting the 16-85 but I would miss the versatility. Would gain a very useful 2mm at the wide end but no gain in speed, and more bulk. For the kind of edge-to-edge landscape shot where the 16-85 seems to have the advantage (I find the reviews by @northcoastgreg very helpful), a different kind of lens like a Limited prime or the Limited zoom might offer something else.

Last edited by Des; 11-09-2017 at 01:13 PM.

MrB1 · 11-09-2017, 03:44 AM

Originally posted by jatrax

Nope. It looks that way on the K-1 as well. Truly a remarkable lens.....

That's good to read.....the D-FA 28-105 is quite remarkable and a good recommendation for any Pentax DSLR. It makes a great pair on APS-C alongside a wide zoom, e.g., the Tamron 10-24 or the Pentax 12-24.

Philip

**pres589** · 11-09-2017, 05:16 AM

The 28-105 does seem like a great lens, but, unless he's got a bad copy the 18-135 seems to do everything the 28-105 does and about as well. Normhead might have a better opinion that I do.

normhead · 11-09-2017, 06:18 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by pres589

The 28-105 does seem like a great lens, but, unless he's got a bad copy the 18-135 seems to do everything the 28-105 does and about as well. Normhead might have a better opinion that I do.

The 28-105 just has that pixie dust, I still take my 18-135 on the K-3 out for hikes etc. when I want to travel light. The range is very convenient. But carrying a camera bag, I usually take the K-1 and 28-105. There really is nothing like the 18-135 for APS-c. Tess takes the 28-105 out on her K-5 quite often. It's all about shooting style. If you know you'll be shooing in it's range, it's the lens you use. It's 3D rendering stands out.

MrB1 · 11-09-2017, 08:05 AM

Originally posted by pres589

The 28-105 does seem like a great lens, but, unless he's got a bad copy the 18-135 seems to do everything the 28-105 does and about as well. Normhead might have a better opinion that I do.

The DA 18-135 really is a great lens with a versatile zoom range but, going back to the point in the original post, the evidence suggested by many users here (and I would agree) is that it can be soft at the edges and corners. The difference is that, if one can manage the reduced zoom range, the D-FA 28-105 is sharpness and quality over the whole frame on APS-C. (I don't have a K-1.)

Philip

**pres589** · 11-09-2017, 08:07 AM

The 18-135 is kind of lacking in the pixie dust department, true. I didn't know the 28-105 got some back.

normhead · 11-09-2017, 08:22 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by MrB1

the evidence suggested by many users here (and I would agree) is that it can be soft at the edges and corners.

The evidence suggested by many also suggests it's great lens around 24 mm and it's centre sharp throughout it's entire range, better than any other zoom with it's range or with a higher zoom ratio.

Others will tell you why not to use the lens, some of us tell you how to use the lens. It all depends on whether or not you focus on the negative, or the positive. Invariably, when people talk about lenses they like better, they do so by claiming they can get the same results from lenses with less reach, ignoring the fact that less reach means fewer correctly framed images. If you buy a lens that doesn't do as much, you should expect it to do more things better. But it's still lens that doesn't do as much.

Take along the DA*60-250 and 1.4 TC, and the primes of your choice and you are set for life.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/179869-da-...an-do-143.html

My lenses, Sigma 8-16, Tamron 17-50, FAJ 18-35, DA 18-135, DA 21 ltd.,DFA 28-105, FA 28-200, FA 35-80, DA 35 2.4, 40 xs, FA 50 1.7, FA 50 macro 2.8, DA*60 250, Sigma 70 macro, SIgma 70-300 ,Tamron 90 Macro, DFA 100 Macro, DA*200 2.8, Tamron 300 2.8. On APS_c the DA 18-135 is my walk around lens, it's not like I don't have a choice.

I wish there was a 28-200 for the K-1 with as good or better lens charts. (The 18-135 has 17 metrics rated excellent (or near excellent) through out it's range. By comparison the 16-85 has 15., the 18-55 has 9, including on the edges at the wide end and in the centre at 135mm) You can't find a lens with that kind of zoom range better. You can't find anything for the K-1 that even comes close.

**psoo** · 11-10-2017, 04:39 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Des

I hope your girlfriend isn't reading this. She might feel a little insecure - especially if magazines create dissatisfaction and new fancies. ;-)

I see you are happy with the 12-24. I like mine too. But I wouldn't say it is way better than the 18-135 at 18-24. Maybe a little more edge sharpness, maybe the colours are a little better, but more prone to flare and purple fringing. The coatings on the 18-135 are clearly better.

I have toyed with getting the 16-85 but I would miss the versatility. Would gain a very useful 2mm at the wide end but no gain in speed, and more bulk. For the kind of edge-to-edge landscape shot where the 16-85 seems to have the advantage (I find the reviews by @northcoastgreg very helpful), a different kind of lens like a Limited prime or the Limited zoom might offer something else.

Hi Des, I married my girlfriend 48 years ago and we're still together. We both enjoy travel and the opportunity to take photos. If I found another girlfriend I think my wife would severely punish me by donating my Pentaxes to the Salvation Army

timb64 · 11-10-2017, 05:33 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by psoo

Hi Des, I married my girlfriend 48 years ago and we're still together. We both enjoy travel and the opportunity to take photos. If I found another girlfriend I think my wife would severely punish me by donating my Pentaxes to the Salvation Army

Mine would buy me a Bigma........and use it to give me a colonoscopy

11-09-2017, 06:18 AM - 1 Like	#40
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by pres589 The 28-105 does seem like a great lens, but, unless he's got a bad copy the 18-135 seems to do everything the 28-105 does and about as well. Normhead might have a better opinion that I do. The 28-105 just has that pixie dust, I still take my 18-135 on the K-3 out for hikes etc. when I want to travel light. The range is very convenient. But carrying a camera bag, I usually take the K-1 and 28-105. There really is nothing like the 18-135 for APS-c. Tess takes the 28-105 out on her K-5 quite often. It's all about shooting style. If you know you'll be shooing in it's range, it's the lens you use. It's 3D rendering stands out. Last edited by normhead; 11-10-2017 at 07:50 AM.

11-09-2017, 08:22 AM - 1 Like	#43
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by MrB1 the evidence suggested by many users here (and I would agree) is that it can be soft at the edges and corners. The evidence suggested by many also suggests it's great lens around 24 mm and it's centre sharp throughout it's entire range, better than any other zoom with it's range or with a higher zoom ratio. Others will tell you why not to use the lens, some of us tell you how to use the lens. It all depends on whether or not you focus on the negative, or the positive. Invariably, when people talk about lenses they like better, they do so by claiming they can get the same results from lenses with less reach, ignoring the fact that less reach means fewer correctly framed images. If you buy a lens that doesn't do as much, you should expect it to do more things better. But it's still lens that doesn't do as much. Take along the DA60-250 and 1.4 TC, and the primes of your choice and you are set for life. https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/179869-da-...an-do-143.html My lenses, Sigma 8-16, Tamron 17-50, FAJ 18-35, DA 18-135, DA 21 ltd.,DFA 28-105, FA 28-200, FA 35-80, DA 35 2.4, 40 xs, FA 50 1.7, FA 50 macro 2.8, DA60 250, Sigma 70 macro, SIgma 70-300 ,Tamron 90 Macro, DFA 100 Macro, DA200 2.8, Tamron 300 2.8. On APS_c the DA 18-135 is my walk around lens, it's not like I don't have a choice. I wish there was a 28-200 for the K-1 with as good or better lens charts. (The 18-135 has 17 metrics rated excellent (or near excellent) through out it's range. By comparison the 16-85 has 15., the 18-55 has 9, including on the edges at the wide end and in the centre at 135mm) You can't find a lens with that kind of zoom range better. You can't find anything for the K-1 that even comes close. Last edited by normhead; 11-09-2017 at 11:37 AM.*

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
macro lens filter for my 18 - 50 mm lens or 50 - 200 mm lens?	inzova	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	4	09-28-2016 12:07 AM
For Sale - Sold: 3 ZK Lenses: Zeiss 35 mm F2, Zeiss 50 mm F2 Makro, and Zeiss 85 mm F1.4 Planar	Vantage-Point	Sold Items	10	08-31-2016 08:11 PM
For Sale - Sold: HD Pentax DA 20-40 mm F2.8-4, Pentax DA 16-45 mm f4, Pentax-F 135 mm F2.8 lenses	Vantage-Point	Sold Items	4	07-16-2016 08:20 AM
For Sale - Sold: Brand New FA 31 mm, FA 77 mm, DA* 60-250 mm, DA* 300 mm	ppkkcao	Sold Items	14	11-02-2014 08:42 PM
is my copy ok or??? 16-45's 45 mm vs 50-135 mm' s 50 mm	hll	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	06-20-2008 09:03 AM

11-08-2017, 01:25 PM	#31
pres589 Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Wichita, KS Photos: Albums Posts: 4,529	You mentioned taking pictures of family. The one lens I would be interested in would be the Tamron 28-75 f2.8. The Tamron 17-50 is also pretty good stuff but I think I'd rather have the reach than the width, so 28-75 maybe. The other lens that might be good is the FA35 f2.0. Small, good max aperture for DoF control, I think it represents good value. I don't love 35mm primes on my crop DSLR but others seem to really like it a lot.

11-08-2017, 02:26 PM	#32
TER-OR Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Dundee, IL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,699	I find the 18-135 a nice walkaround lens. It has enough reach for most uses. Sharpness in the 35-100 range is better than the extremes, though wide open you won't notice most of the time. As others say, I'd keep it for those walkaround uses and look for a prime or two in your favorite ranges. We all have our favorites, mine's the 21mm.

11-08-2017, 04:31 PM - 2 Likes	#33
MrB1 Pentaxian Join Date: May 2013 Location: Hertfordshire, England Posts: 845	Originally posted by normhead .....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..... That's what I did, Norm. On a K-3 the image quality from the D-FA 28-105 looks excellent to me from corner to corner and throughout its range, probably because it is a full-frame lens and APS-C crops the best part, the centre of the image circle. When I want to travel with just the one lens, the wide end is often not a problem - the main subjects of most of the scenes I shoot are things that don't move so, if I need wider than 28mm, I take two or more images at 28mm and make a composite on the PC. [ Two shots, top and bottom, with K-3 + D-FA 28mm, stitched in Microsoft ICE (free software) ] Philip

11-08-2017, 04:48 PM	#34
psoo Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Long Island, NY Posts: 485 Original Poster	Originally posted by TER-OR I find the 18-135 a nice walkaround lens. It has enough reach for most uses. Sharpness in the 35-100 range is better than the extremes, though wide open you won't notice most of the time. As others say, I'd keep it for those walkaround uses and look for a prime or two in your favorite ranges. We all have our favorites, mine's the 21mm. Good advice TER-OR. Thanks.

11-08-2017, 08:17 PM	#35
jatrax Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Washington Cascades Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,991	Originally posted by MrB1 probably because it is a full-frame lens and APS-C crops the best part, the centre of the image circle. Nope. It looks that way on the K-1 as well. Truly a remarkable lens. Had it been a constant f/4 it would be first page in all the camera mags. But since it is variable many dismissed it as a 'kit' lens.

11-08-2017, 08:36 PM	#36
Angel Perez Senior Member Join Date: May 2015 Posts: 158	Originally posted by DeadJohn 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. I'm in Dix Hills, We should have a meetup sometime. ---------- Post added 11-08-17 at 08:36 PM ---------- Originally posted by DeadJohn 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. I'm in Dix Hills, We should have a meetup sometime.

11-08-2017, 09:58 PM	#37
Des Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Victoria Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 6,423	Originally posted by psoo It's like being satisfied with your girlfriend until you meet someone even better. Then you consider switching. I hope your girlfriend isn't reading this. She might feel a little insecure - especially if magazines create dissatisfaction and new fancies. ;-) I see you are happy with the 12-24. I like mine too. But I wouldn't say it is way better than the 18-135 at 18-24. Maybe a little more edge sharpness, maybe the colours are a little better, but more prone to flare and purple fringing. The coatings on the 18-135 are clearly better. I have toyed with getting the 16-85 but I would miss the versatility. Would gain a very useful 2mm at the wide end but no gain in speed, and more bulk. For the kind of edge-to-edge landscape shot where the 16-85 seems to have the advantage (I find the reviews by @northcoastgreg very helpful), a different kind of lens like a Limited prime or the Limited zoom might offer something else. Last edited by Des; 11-09-2017 at 01:13 PM.

11-09-2017, 03:44 AM	#38
MrB1 Pentaxian Join Date: May 2013 Location: Hertfordshire, England Posts: 845	Originally posted by jatrax Nope. It looks that way on the K-1 as well. Truly a remarkable lens..... That's good to read.....the D-FA 28-105 is quite remarkable and a good recommendation for any Pentax DSLR. It makes a great pair on APS-C alongside a wide zoom, e.g., the Tamron 10-24 or the Pentax 12-24. Philip

11-09-2017, 05:16 AM	#39
pres589 Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Wichita, KS Photos: Albums Posts: 4,529	The 28-105 does seem like a great lens, but, unless he's got a bad copy the 18-135 seems to do everything the 28-105 does and about as well. Normhead might have a better opinion that I do.

11-09-2017, 08:05 AM	#41
MrB1 Pentaxian Join Date: May 2013 Location: Hertfordshire, England Posts: 845	Originally posted by pres589 The 28-105 does seem like a great lens, but, unless he's got a bad copy the 18-135 seems to do everything the 28-105 does and about as well. Normhead might have a better opinion that I do. The DA 18-135 really is a great lens with a versatile zoom range but, going back to the point in the original post, the evidence suggested by many users here (and I would agree) is that it can be soft at the edges and corners. The difference is that, if one can manage the reduced zoom range, the D-FA 28-105 is sharpness and quality over the whole frame on APS-C. (I don't have a K-1.) Philip

11-09-2017, 08:07 AM	#42
pres589 Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Wichita, KS Photos: Albums Posts: 4,529	The 18-135 is kind of lacking in the pixie dust department, true. I didn't know the 28-105 got some back.

11-10-2017, 04:39 AM - 1 Like	#44
psoo Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Long Island, NY Posts: 485 Original Poster	Originally posted by Des I hope your girlfriend isn't reading this. She might feel a little insecure - especially if magazines create dissatisfaction and new fancies. ;-) I see you are happy with the 12-24. I like mine too. But I wouldn't say it is way better than the 18-135 at 18-24. Maybe a little more edge sharpness, maybe the colours are a little better, but more prone to flare and purple fringing. The coatings on the 18-135 are clearly better. I have toyed with getting the 16-85 but I would miss the versatility. Would gain a very useful 2mm at the wide end but no gain in speed, and more bulk. For the kind of edge-to-edge landscape shot where the 16-85 seems to have the advantage (I find the reviews by @northcoastgreg very helpful), a different kind of lens like a Limited prime or the Limited zoom might offer something else. Hi Des, I married my girlfriend 48 years ago and we're still together. We both enjoy travel and the opportunity to take photos. If I found another girlfriend I think my wife would severely punish me by donating my Pentaxes to the Salvation Army

11-10-2017, 05:33 AM - 1 Like	#45
timb64 Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: /Situation : Doing my best to avoid idiots! Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,510	Originally posted by psoo Hi Des, I married my girlfriend 48 years ago and we're still together. We both enjoy travel and the opportunity to take photos. If I found another girlfriend I think my wife would severely punish me by donating my Pentaxes to the Salvation Army Mine would buy me a Bigma........and use it to give me a colonoscopy