Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home

Showing results 1 to 5 of 5 Search:
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 11-13-2018, 10:45 AM  
How 4K looks using 18-135?
Posted By normhead
Replies: 18
Views: 997
plus 1... ^
And that's what it pretty much always come down to. Difference in 3840 x 2160 images between the two are greatly exagerrated by some. I've never seen a lens so bad that after downsizing pixel peeping didn't produce comparable results to much better lenses. Well except for my Vivitar M135 2.8 (from a time when cheap lenses were truly soft) which probably has less resolution than an 18-135 mm edge. Even that one has produced the occasional acceptable image when viewed a with enough size reduction. The truth is, for 4k images, the worst lens Pentax produced in the last 10 years, one of the kit lenses would probably do a great job. The 18-55 and 50-200 package would be both lightweight and up tot he task. An 18-55 and 55-300 would be serous overkill. But the OP seems to be looking for a one lens solution.

People tend to forget. 35mm film images were almost always enlarged at least 10x magnifying lens imperfections.. APS_c digital is almost always reduced, hiding lens imperfections. Despite that, modern designs for the most part have more resolving power, for less money. The lens acquisition requirements should reflect that. The fact that I can get images that look good at 60 inches on my K-3 doesn't mean i actually have the wall space or the inclination to display such images.

The price difference between an 16-85 and 18-135 will go a long way towards getting a great 4k TV to view the images on, just saying. :D

Digtal for the most part breeds excessive overkill in terms of the capability of equipment and actual usage. The OP wants 4k images (8 MP). People recommend lenses capable of razor sharp 6000x40000 (24 MP) images. And then some claim one of them isn't as good for the job. (Sigh.)

And all that means is, they didn't pay attention to what the job was.

It takes all kinds. :D
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 11-13-2018, 07:42 AM  
How 4K looks using 18-135?
Posted By normhead
Replies: 18
Views: 997
Those give up shooting 85-135 for the images it works for, anything centre sharp with an out of focus back ground and who walk around with nothing to take those kinds of images. I understand, some people want whatever their version of perfect is or nothing. SO be happy with your nothing.

What's the difference between an 85mm image with an out of focus back ground and a 135mm image with an out of focus back ground? 50mm.
We all decide what's important to us and go with that. Some people really don't have the discipline to take the lens off the camera when it's not appropriate to the subject. I get that. I shoot snapshots at any FL using this lens, for excellent images with print potential I shoot to the lenses strengths and change to small primes when I need better. But I have to know my gear to do that. The 18-135 has excellent centre sharpness at 135 and all through it's range More measured excellence at more focal lengths than any other lens. Some of us can work with that, some us can't. But it's sad when people blame a lens that is measured either excellent or very near excellent in 19 of 54 metrics (35%). The 16-85 is excellent or near excellent in 16 of 45, (35.5%) I get it, you can work with one, not with the other. I tend to think of that as a skill level kind of thing, not a lens kind of thing. But also on how much you use the extra each.

Someone who is very heavily influenced in their judgement by knowing which lens is which, is going to make those kinds of judgements. And someone who doesn't use the lens to it's strengths is going to have similar issues. The lens can't change your biases, nor can it teach you how to get the most out of it. It's just glass, metal and plastic, About 20% of my images are taken at 135mm. Every one of those images would be worse, taken with the 16-85. I'd give up a lot of images using a 16-85. You choose to forgo those images, I don't, nuf said.

So when are you going to show us this 16-85 "wow"?
You say you've got it, but no one knows what you mean by "wow."
You seem to me like one of those guys who can't evaluate an image without pixel peeping. which is totally irrelevant to 3840 by 2160 images. (You did read what the thread was about didn't you.) That kind of "wow" doesn't impress me much. You can't tell if an image "works" pixel peeping. I suspect your "wow" is much different than my "wow/" I've seen many razor sharp images taken by folks with deep pockets, that didn't work for me as an image. I've seen many images with soft borders that were less than technically perfect that did. The 16-85 can give you things the 18-135 can't, the 18-135 can give you things the 16-85 can't. The imagined conflict between the two is based on different values. Not one lens being spectacularly better than the other. IN the future perhaps, tell us why you like the lens and forget the part where you trash other people's gear. Your preference is a values call, not held up by the numbers.

And I'd take either of them off the camera to use one of my primes or a DA*/DFA* zoom, so there's no real advantage in terms of sharpness. You still have better in your bag, no matter which you choose. You are nit picking mid level lenses, based on very similar IQ.

My advice for these two lenses is, forget the user biases (including mine). Buy the focal length that best suits you. Slightly better IQ in some cases, for less versatility in some cases. 16-18 or 85-135. They were both designed to fill the same niche, slightly better than kit, not up to DA* standards. It's shouldn't be that hard.
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 11-12-2018, 08:14 PM  
How 4K looks using 18-135?
Posted By normhead
Replies: 18
Views: 997
I'm pretty sure there was something wrong with Klaus' copy. He sent it back to Pentax, they said it was in spec. And I've never noticed it to be as bad as the spec sheet said. But who knows?

At 100 mm
2018-10-05-forest[dog-walk-9 by Norm Head, on Flickr

At 135mm
2018-10-05-forest[dog-walk-4 by Norm Head, on Flickr

Mid-Jan-forest-walks-11 by Norm Head, on Flickr

2018-10-09-forest-walk-5 by Norm Head, on Flickr

2018-10-11-forest-walk-2 by Norm Head, on Flickr

2018-09-09-Moose-3 by Norm Head, on Flickr

Somehow things are not as bad as they are made out to be on the test chart. The centre sharpness at 135 is to die for, the edge sharpness if better than what you'd expect reading the test chart. The way the test chart is structured the edges were measured at over 1000 lw/ph, less than half the resolution of the centre. But it still renders nicely if you aren't expecting macro or DFA 50 1.4 type edges. The chart is misleading in that a resolution or 1000 lw/ph is portrayed as if it's close to the zero axis. But the bottom line is 1000lw/ph. not zero.
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 11-12-2018, 09:52 AM  
How 4K looks using 18-135?
Posted By normhead
Replies: 18
Views: 997
Force of habit. every time this lens is mentioned, the haters come out of the woodwork. :D

It's like a hater magnet. :D

Haters are like moths to a flame. They can't stop themselves. :D

But the real reason I'm here is to promote the viewing of images on a 55 inch 4k screen. You'll probably never do a print this big and the viewing experience from the Lazy Boy is awesome. But don't buy a recliner with a power reclining mechanism. It takes way to long to get out of it on your way to the fridge for another beer. :D
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 11-12-2018, 07:12 AM  
How 4K looks using 18-135?
Posted By normhead
Replies: 18
Views: 997
Any image you take with the 18-135 will be fine on 4k. Even my K20D, K-5, and even my 6MP *ist and K100D images look fine on 4k. 4k is 8MP but that doesn't mean it can't upscale nicely.

Do you know how to read a lens chart?

My second piece of evidence....
2018-01-25-Whitney-winter-sunse-3 by Norm Head, on Flickr

The 18-135 will be fine for what you want, even overkill. You are going to be reducing the image from 6000 pixels wide, to 3850 wide. Most documented weaknesses in the lens will be hidden by reducing the size of the image. An 18-135 reduced to 4k is as good as any ones out there. Because of the field curvature at 18mm, I wouldn't use it for panos, but by 24 mm, that's cleaned up.

2018-03-19-new by Norm Head, on Flickr

I look at over 600 images every time I sit down with a beer. I have never once said to myself "that image has soft edges it must be the 18-135."

K-3 and 18-135 at 24mm
2018-10-14-K3-forest-walk-1 by Norm Head, on Flickr

Soft edges my derriere... pffft.

I bought mine when it first came out roughly 7 years ago, and I've never seen a practical reason to replace it.
Search took 0.00 seconds | Showing results 1 to 5 of 5

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:53 AM. | See also:, 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?
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]