|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
05-25-2017, 06:10 PM
|
| |
One thing to note, the 18-135 and 16-85 are very fast focusing, silent, DC motors.
I don't know if the others are screw drive, but I suspect they all are. You can check them in the lens data base if no one pipes up.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
05-24-2017, 09:54 AM
|
| |
If you can find a 17-70 at a good price, they also have a great reputation, regardless of manufacturer. The 2.8 at the narrow end might make it more desirable for your purposes as well, although my preference would be the 50 1.8 or 35 2.4 for low light situations, couple with whatever zoom you decide on.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
05-24-2017, 08:52 AM
|
| |
Actually this needs serious clarification.
The 18-135 has better centre sharpness throughout it's entire range than any other zoom lens with it's range. In fact at every focal length, it's has measured excellent centre sharpness. It's edge sharpness falls off considerably after 50mm. It's rating is brought down by how soft the edges are from 85mm to 135mm. But when you consider neither the 17-50 or 16-85 don't include 85-135 in their range, I'm not sure how that should be held against the 18-135.
It's rated excellent or near excellent in 17 of 53 measured FL and apertures.
By comparison the DA 16-85 which folks are always comparing it to is excellent or near excellent in 17 of 45 measured categories, and it has more range. The 16-85 tends to be stronger edge to edge but not always.
At 24 mm the lenses are pretty close to even.
You can't make a direct comparison but it appears the Tamron 17-50 exceeds them both at 24mm as des the Sigma 17-50, but they are constant aperture 2.8 lenses, so sort of a different class.
So as i said before, go for the best deal you can find. You aren't going to be unhappy with the sharpness of any of these lenses. The weakest premium lens in this category on the test charts is probably the Pentax DA*16-50, and many people love that lens. Worrying about the sharpness of an 18-135 is just crazy. Why not worry about that lack of range in it's competitors instead? It's truly a one stop solution. With other lenses, there will be times you wish you had the extra reach and may even end up buying a second lens to cover it. I would really only consider a 17-50 type lens if i was also getting the 55-300 PLM. 50mm or even 85mm is just to short to be an everything all the time type of lens.
Any of the mentioned lenses will be great for flowers, the 16-85 and 18-135 are pretty good pseudo macro lenses, but for birds the 55-300 is pretty much the bare minimum. But you have the 70-300 so you're covered for now. You'll probably want to look for something a bit sharper in the future.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
05-24-2017, 07:28 AM
|
| |
The 18-135 is still my favourite lens. If it worked on my K-1 as well as it worked on my K-3 I'd use it all the time. But if I were going on a hike with one body and one lens, it would be the K-3 and 18-135. To match it on the K-1 I need two lenses.
I gave my step-daughter-in-law a Sigma 18-250 to go with the white K-x we also gave her. She loves it, and we have some great images taken with it. But it's another level of sharpness below the 18-135.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
05-24-2017, 07:15 AM
|
| |
The Tamron 17-50 can be had at a great price right now. I always seem to go with best bang for buck. I'd tell you about it, but my wife has taken to this lens, and I get a dirty look if I even touch it.
|
