| Author: | | Junior Member Registered: August, 2019 Location: Woodend, Victoria Posts: 44
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: January 31, 2024 | Not Recommended | Price: $500.00
| Rating: 5 |
| Pros: | | | Cons: | | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 7
Autofocus: 9
Handling: 9
Value: 5
New or Used: New
Camera Used: k 70
| |
Optically this lens is very average. Regardless of aperture the edges get quite soft but my biggest issue is the colour fringing this lens exhibits. In certain situations the colour fringing is horrendous.(see photo) shot at f8. I'll be selling mine.
 | | | | | | | Senior Member Registered: June, 2018 Posts: 131
2 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: January 8, 2020 | Not Recommended
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | Versatile, WR, good quality for a kit lens | | Cons: | Slow, a bit soft | | Sharpness: 7
Aberrations: 7
Bokeh: 5
Autofocus: 9
Handling: 9
Value: 8
New or Used: New
Camera Used: K50, K3ii
| |
Would I recomend this lens? Very hard question. I have one which I very rarely use because the max aperture is slow, there is distortion and CA in the images and softness away from the centre. But, it's weather sealed, has a wide zoom range, handles nicely, gives clean Pentax colours and has quick, quiet autofocus. I'm not a one-lens kind of guy, I'd rather take 21mm and 70mm primes and switch as required. So why haven't I sold it? Because maybe one day I'll be in really tough conditions and I'll need a solid lens that I won't mind getting roughed up. Until then, a nice prime will make me much happier. Should you get one? If you want the best IQ this isn't for you. If you want a lens that'll have a pretty good stab at most things and never let you down, then this is it.
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: October, 2012 Location: Vancouver Posts: 1,207
3 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: October 24, 2017 | Not Recommended | Price: $300.00
| Rating: 5 |
| Pros: | Compact size, weather sealing, price | | Cons: | Image quality outside of the center | | Sharpness: 5
Aberrations: 5
Bokeh: 5
Autofocus: 7
Handling: 8
Value: 6
New or Used: Used
Camera Used: Pentax K-30
| |
I had this lens for a few months, did rigorous testing with it to compare it to another lens for an article.
Pros:
Compact size - For a superzoom, it's actually quite compact, noticeably smaller and lighter than any 18-2xx zoom out there.
Weather sealing - Used it at Burning Man, one of the most demanding environments for an interchangeable lens system. After I got back I literally rinsed it off with a hose in my driveway with no issue.
Price - It's actually a decent price for a lens that covers its focal range.
Cons:
Sharpness outside of the center - Center sharpness is good-great. But edges and corners are blurry and full of distortion, CA, and vignetting. This really limits its use for landscapes or any situation that calls for somewhat decent sharpness across the frame.
* * *
Folks, this is a kit lens. It has its fanboys, but lots of objective reviews of this lens pin it as an overall middling performer. You can see sample images here at PF and other places on the web and make your own call.
Unless you're spending lots of time in a desert or white water rafting, you don't really need the weather sealing, so check out one of the longer superzooms and enjoy more focal range and better image quality. If you must have weather sealing, I suggest taking a look at the newer and higher rated 16-85.
| | | | | New Member Registered: August, 2016 Posts: 7
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: June 19, 2017 | Not Recommended | Price: $365.00
| Rating: 2 |
| Pros: | Good range, tolerable CA | | Cons: | Soft, hazy, indecisive focusing | | Sharpness: 3
Aberrations: 5
Bokeh: 7
Autofocus: 4
Handling: 7
Value: 4
New or Used: New
Camera Used: K-70
| |
Thrilled to read glowing reviews here, I had no problem in picking it as a superzoom of sorts which would cover outdoor action.
Bought it in a kit with a K-70, hoping it would be a decent choice. Boy, was I wrong...
I should say that I have no major complaints at the lower end of the focal; between 18 and 50mm the center is decent, the corners less so, and while the wide end has significant distortion I still don't care too much about surgical precision in rectilinear pictures. The corners are soft and coma plays nasty tricks even when stopped down, and that's the reason I can't recommend it for landscapes or groups of people stretching to the edges of the frame.
-------------------
The first and foremost real issue is the horrendous softness above 85mm; at 100mm you get to cringe and double/triple check if it was in focus, and at 135mm some pictures are worse than what a phone could manage to take.
Maybe it was decent when cameras had 10-12Mp, still satisfying on 16Mp, but on 24Mp every bit of its flaws is paraded in all the „splendor”.
The problems are amplified by a lack of focus repetability; while my copy on my camera doesn't really require focus microadjustment (tested from 2 to about 45m, using the building across the street from me ), at medium to long focus distances it tends to focus all over the place, just one in 4 or one in 5 images being in focus.
When stoped down, almost nothing gets better; maybe, just maybe a bit more contrast, but not really much more; tried it
Also, even when in focus, the 135mm end is simply atrocious for subjects anywhere further than 20m.
I've been lucky enough to use various other Pentax products and fell in love when using a K-5IIs with the FA100mm Macro F2.8, the old version); also I loved the subtle rendering of the 70DA SMC.
Outside the brand, I used the first version of Sigma 17-70, which got me numerous keepers; I'm enumerating all of these to point out that I know when a lens is merely decent, when it's really good and (from other examples, not gonna name them here) when a lens is cr*p.
Also, the fair bit of warning isn't caused just by using it on a 24Mp APS-C; a lot of the flaws are still present when downsampled by 50% (to 6Mp). Which makes me point out the final recommandation for interested buyers: don't try to buy it under *absolutely* no circumstances if you can't return it or at least without extensive testing before putting your money on the table; my copy is simply junk, I would sell it for half the price at most, and only to someone that gets directly from me the real observations.
-----------
Two different people contacted me to protest the low score I gave in this review. Before anyone else thinks that I'm writting unfair things, please try taking a photo of something with fine detail (a tree with foliage) in the medium-far distance, at least 25 meters, while using some focal length towards the long side (100-135mm). And then try telling me that the lens is sharp.
Now put it side by side with a good lens (100mm Macro for example) and compare the sharpness from both lenses. If the current reviews are right, the sharpness has a score of more than 8.0; in this case the 100mm Macro score should be not just a perfect 10, not even 11 would be enough; a score of 25 would be fair for that (on the same scale where the 18-135DC gets an 8).
| | | | | | | Veteran Member Registered: July, 2014 Location: Nagoya Posts: 577
2 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: August 26, 2016 | Not Recommended | Price: $500.00
| Rating: 6 |
| Pros: | Range, silent focusing, WR | | Cons: | Horrible fringing, corner sharpness | | Sharpness: 6
Aberrations: 4
Bokeh: 7
Autofocus: 9
Handling: 8
Value: 4
New or Used: New
Camera Used: K-S2
| |
When I got this lens in a kit with my K-S2, I wanted to love it but I just can't bring myself to. The silent focusing is nice, the WR is convenient and the range is pretty good. But it is expensive, especially bought on its own, and the lack of corner sharpness and horrific fringing which seems to be a different colour in every photo and is often hard to completely remove in Camera RAW, mean that I look at a lot of photos thinking how good they could have been if I hadn't used this lens - even if I'd had to use a shorter but better lens and crop. It also makes the K-S2 front heavy, and it hangs awkwardly off the strap.
You would expect some compromises in a long range zoom, and I accept that, but my copy of this lens, at least, does badly compared to my Tamron 18-200 Di II. The Tamron also struggles with fringing, but its corners are much better and it cost a third of the price of this lens. My 1st generation 18-55 gives the same quality photos as the 18-135 within that range.
If this lens was cheaper, I would overlook a lot more of its optical issues. But since it commands such a price premium over other long range zooms and the 18-50, I can't recommend this lens at current prices.
| | | | | Senior Member Registered: January, 2012 Posts: 103
2 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: April 28, 2014 | Not Recommended | Price: $410.00
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | Handling | | Cons: | Not sharp | | Sharpness: 5
Aberrations: 6
Bokeh: 7
Autofocus: 8
Handling: 10
Value: 6
New or Used: New
Camera Used: K-01, K-30
| |
I should have listened to the reviews saying this lens isn't sharp. I had to see for myself I guess. It really isn't very sharp at all, especially considering the relatively high cost of this lens. Image-wise, I'd compare it quite closely to the kit 18-55mm. That is to say, contrast and color are nice, distortion is average, but sharpness and CA control are mediocre at best. I compared it to a range of lenses, including the 18-55, several old primes, and my Tamron 70-300mm F4-5.6 AF Di LD Macro. Every single one of these lenses beat out the DA 18-135 by a significant margin. Granted, some of them were primes, but I'm talking bargain bin old cheap primes, not DA Limiteds! And the Tamron 70-300 handily smoked the DA 18-135 also, in both sharpness and CA control. What's more, the Tammy has significantly more pleasant bokeh and a much narrower depth of field at a given aperture. Side note, I've never quite understood why or how different lenses have wider depth of field than others. We all know that stopping down will expand the DOF, but you'd think different lenses would be roughly the same if they are at the same aperture, right? Not so. This is a perfect example of that phenomenon... The Tammy has a much narrower DOF than the Pentax at the same focal length and aperture. This makes the Tammy a better portrait lens (and arguably makes the Pentax better suited to landscapes, although you wouldn't want to use it as a landscape lens anyway because of the poor resolution).
Handling is great - it is a pleasure to use. The size and weight are modest and it balances nicely on my K-30. The DC autofocus is smooth, though I really don't think it's any faster than screw drive, and may in fact be a little slower. The fit and finish are nice. Everything fits together well and operates smoothly.
18-135mm is such a nice range of focal lengths. It covers about 90% of everyday shooting for about 90% of all photographers. It's really a shame that this lens can't deliver the optical performance we've come to expect from Pentax. If it cost closer to $200 I'd give it a pass, as it would make a nice alternative to the 18-55 in a kit. But at over $400 I expect more.
| | | | | Senior Member Registered: November, 2012 Location: London Posts: 157
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: December 10, 2012 | Not Recommended | Price: $600.00
| Rating: 5 |
| Pros: | wr, range | | Cons: | sharpness everywhere, tiny focus ring, price | | Sharpness: 5
Aberrations: 6
Bokeh: 5
Autofocus: 8
Handling: 7
Value: 4
New or Used: New
Camera Used: K5iis
| |
I haven't owned many lenses but this is by far the worst. I returned it after 2 weeks, and I was stunned how bad it was. Throughout the range you get kit lens sharpness, and 135mm is mush. Distortion is apparent at 18mm and the midrange. Bokeh is harsh. The autofocus and the wr is a plus, but really this is a kit lens with a long end, and is worth around $200. Sharpness is really quite horrible, you need to stop it down to f8 to get any decent iq, and 100-135mm is unusable until f8. 18-24 is OK, but you need to stop it down to f5.6 there to get decent sharpness. I traded it in for the 17-70 and haven't looked back. I admit no wr is a concern, but I get superb sharpness wide open at any focal length, great mfd and bokeh, and semi-wr, for the SAME PRICE! IF this lens was $200, sure I would try it, but at this price range you have so many alternatives. I recently purchased a Tamron 70-200 for $100 more and the sharpness is beautiful and everything about it is awesome, for $100 more. Worst value lens, and I don't recommend it to anyone, but beginners be wary! Get the 18-55 which imo has equal/better iq because of the small focal range and still has wr. Pick up a 50mm prime and you have two good lenses in your bag. Top class? No, but better than this.
| | | | | Forum Member Registered: April, 2010 Posts: 91
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: February 11, 2012 | Not Recommended | Price: $490.00
| Rating: 6 |
| Pros: | build quality, WR, versatile zoom range | | Cons: | image quality | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 6
Bokeh: 5
Autofocus: 7
Handling: 8
Value: 7
New or Used: New
Camera Used: Pentax K-7
| |
On the positive side of things, first I should mention is its build quality. I own DA* 16-50 and the build quality of this lens is comparable. It also looks at its place on the K-7 and balances it good. It is small, lightweight yet sturdy lens.
Now the bad side. I had only two lenses (DA*16-50 and Fa 77 ltd) before I got that one. I was disappointed by DA* 16-50 performance at large apertures towards its short end. The distortions was very large and soft corners were noticeable even at 10cmx15cm prints. So I thought that I would rather get that versatile weather-sealed all-purpose zoom lens and for the difference (plus some extra) would get DA 12-24 or DA 15 ltd for wide-angle shots. The first day I got the lens I mounted it and went out. The weather was bright and sunny, I took many shots of my dog running, some birds, whatever... Looking at the pictures in Aperture later I noticed lack of something... I guess I should call it "microcontrast". The shots were quite sharp but I couldn't stop feel that they miss some small details. Zooming the image, I could definitely count hairs on my dog's ear but that "lack of details" feeling was still there. Then was event shooting (children) - ambient light, AF 540 flash, DA 18-135 and K-7 to pair them. I'm happy that Fa 77ltd was there too, otherwise the whole session would be completely spoiled. While 77ltd pictures where "alive", clearly 3d and very pleasant, the output from 18-135 seemed like if I took pictures of some magazine article with printed children photos on it. I mean they were completely flat, no 3d, nearly like pictures taken with cheap P&S camera. The white balance was off in very odd way, I couldn't fix it properly in Aperture, no matter how much efforts I put on it.
A few words on autofocus: it is fast enough when you are out in sunny day but in low, ambient light it often couldn't focus at all (Fa 77 and DA* were focusing properly under the same conditions). I believe it would be better with K-5, though I don't have one to confirm.
As a conclusion: I would recommend 18-135 to a person who absolutely needs an all-in-one zoom, otherwise avoid it whenever possible. I reviewed images taken with DA* 16-50 and found that they were way better, not to mention FA 77ltd. Now I'm selling 18-135, keep 16-50 for harsh conditions and ordering FA 31ltd since at the end of the day not number but the quality of images what matters. As for wide-angle.. I would probably buy DA 15 ltd one day or wait until full-frame camera is out.
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: February, 2011 Location: The 'Stoke, British Columbia Posts: 1,678
3 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: September 29, 2011 | Not Recommended | Price: $650.00
| Rating: 6 |
| Pros: | Focal Range, WR, Build Quality | | Cons: | Sharpness, Vignetting, CA's, Distortion, Price/Value | | Sharpness: 6
Aberrations: 7
Bokeh: 8
Autofocus: 8
Handling: 8
Value: 4
New or Used: New
| |
Bought this new in late Feb. 2011, After using it frequently this summer (my better half prefers the versatility and AF), I found myself giving up on this one, it's a nicely built lens and balances out well on the K-5, but the soft corners, and heavy barrel distortion, and vignetting, AND CA's... and and and. Eventually I found myself just taking this lens off when I go shooting and throwing on any of my other lenses.. even my broken Takumar-A 28-80 Macro is better IMHO.
This lens does server a purpose and I will be ok keeping this paperweight.. because on days it's pouring rain outside, it's my only WR option that makes me say "I think I'll go out and shoot today" then have a smirk on my face seeing the Canikoners hiding under tree's with their camer's in their jackets.
If I had the money back to do it over again.. I would get the 18-55 WR and maybe look at the 55-300 to go with it.
| | | | | Senior Member Registered: December, 2010 Location: El Dorado Hills, CA Posts: 191 | | Review Date: April 26, 2011 | Not Recommended | Price: $500.00
| Rating: 5 |
| Pros: | Light, compact, build quality | | Cons: | Distortion, CA, corner softness | | Sharpness: 5
Aberrations: 5
Bokeh: 9
Autofocus: 9
Handling: 9
Value: 5
New or Used: New
| |
Based on the other user's description, I think my copy is not a bad one. It is just what it is.
CA is even visible at 25% of the actual image size.
The center image quality is good, but the corners are really really soft, especially at wide end.
I really love the range, but cannot live with the poor IQ.
I gave it 4 because I don't think it is even "good".
| | | | | New Member Registered: April, 2011 Location: Calgary, AB Posts: 1 | | Review Date: April 25, 2011 | Not Recommended | Price: $530.00
| Rating: 5 |
| Pros: | Weather sealing, Focal range, Size, Wieght, Color rendering | | Cons: | Soft edges, CA, Cost | |
I don't think a rating of '9' is very realistic for this lens so I'm adding my perspective so that potential buyers are more aware of the issues with it than I was when I researched it.
First of all the positives since I'm a postive person by nature!  - Great build and feels really good on the K-5, very well balanced.
- Weather sealing is awesome and combined with the small form factor makes this a very attractive hiking / walkaround lens, which is exactly what I bought it for. It was the only zoom lens in my Pentax kit - everything else is primes.
- Great color rendition.
- Smooth zoom and manual focus.
I've used a lot of lenses and camera systems over the years. I was hoping that this lens would be something like the Canon 24-105 f/4 IS or the Nikon 16-85 VR lens. Based on the reviews here and the specs I was very disappointed with my first set of images taken while on a ski trip in the Canadian Rockies. After a few more trips I knew I could no longer use this lens. I only shoot RAW (DNG format) so that's what I base this on.
Negatives:- CA is really bad. Honestly, even with Lightroom adjustments I just couldn't clean it up very easily.
- I could probably live with the CA (the FA31mm isn't that great with CA either) but the softness on the edges (especially the right side on my copy) was horrible. The center was reasonable but I want to be able to use the 18mm for a reason! My copy was almost unusable on the edges - especially for larger prints.
Based on the quality of the images my copy of the 18-135mm produced I cannot recommend this lens. For the same money you could get much better performance in the Pentax world, just not quite the same useful zoom range or features - unfortunately.
Pentax could fix the problem by tightening up QC and spending just a bit more time on the edge performance.
This lens will produce decent images - just not what I was expecting for the specs / price.
| | | | | New Member Registered: April, 2009 Location: HAMBURG, GERMANY Posts: 6 | | Review Date: December 17, 2023 | Recommended | Price: $150.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | Sharpness, range, AF | | Cons: | Bokeh | | Sharpness: 10
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 4
Autofocus: 10
Handling: 10
Value: 10
New or Used: Used
Camera Used: PENTAX K-500
| |
Looks like there are sample variations - i have a high serial no. - and my DA18-135WR works simply perfect. For me it is the ultimate lens for holiday trips - good range - not too heavy - and always sharp on spot.
Bokeh is of course (construction!) not as fine as with the FA 31/1.8 - but you can´t have it all in one lens.
| | | | | Site Supporter Registered: July, 2015 Location: Mass a chew sits Posts: 574
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: November 27, 2023 | Recommended | Price: $275.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Extremely versatile | | Cons: | You have to "know" it to get the most out of it. | | Sharpness: 7
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 8
Autofocus: 10
Handling: 10
Value: 9
New or Used: Used
Camera Used: K-50, K-5IIs
| |
I'm not accustomed to using high-end gear, so that may color my review a bit. I'd also suggest also reading other reviews if you want a technical breakdown.
The negative reviews and oft-mentioned shortcomings of this lens used to bother me. And I suppose that if you're after maximum technical image quality, you might look elsewhere.
I've been using this lens for 7 or 8 years now. For creative use (not just for family or vacation snapshots) I have been very satisfied with this lens. Its wide zoom range and somewhat closeup capability means I can go out for the day with this and not really run out of opportunities. Could I get better image quality with a prime? Sure. But compositional flexibility (i.e. zoom with your feet AND the lens for perspective control)? Not really. I think the image quality is definitely good enough for online photo galleries, and definitely good enough for 8x10 prints (even with a K-50). I've dabbled with a few old primes, and while it was fun, honestly and in hindsight, especially with modern raw developers that have lens correction profiles, I should have spent the time using this instead.
Overall, it just works, and works really well in my opinion.
May I submit to you some of the ways I get the most out of this lens:
- As with any piece of equipment, practice with it and know its characteristics. Sometimes those supposed weaknesses can be used to advantage. There are plenty of hints along these lines in the reviews.
- I default to P with P-line set to MTF. I set my control wheels to P-shift (rear) and exposure comp (front) for very versatile control over the exposure settings, while still allowing the camera to pick the best combo when I otherwise don't care.
- I shoot raw and turn off in-camera corrections. I use a raw developer that has a good profile to correct for sharpness, distortion, and aberrations.
Edit: Adding sample photo at the "mushy" end. K-5IIs, 135mm, f/8, 1/200, ISO 1000
 | | | | | Veteran Member Registered: February, 2014 Posts: 421
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: June 8, 2023 | Recommended | Price: $190.00
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | WR, fast AF, compact | | Cons: | image quality | | Sharpness: 6
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 7
Autofocus: 9
Handling: 9
Value: 7
New or Used: Used
Camera Used: K-5IIs
| |
PROS: The lens is weather resistant, auto focus is quick, silent and precise, lens is compact and handles great.
CONS: image quality not better than kit 18-55
I'm not comparing it to star lenses or anything like that. Even my Pentax DA 11-17 fisheye is sharper. I remember my kit lens 18-55 on K-x was producing better images than this, especially stopped down. I remember being very happy with images from the kit lens, but wanted something better (faster, better range, WR).
This lens, on the other hand, performs fair/OK only at maximum aperture (wide open) at focal lengths between ~20-100mm, when looking at the center portion of the image.
You can get away with it for some family photos, perhaps portraits at ~100mm wide open, but more than that, I would not depend on it.
Stopping down to F8 and above does nothing for the image quality. Landscapes look decent only in the middle 50% of the image, everything around is mushy.
| | | | | New Member Registered: July, 2021 Posts: 7
3 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: July 25, 2021 | Recommended
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | WR, small,IQ | | Cons: | creeps a little | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 8
Autofocus: 9
Handling: 10
Value: 10
New or Used: New
Camera Used: K-30
| |
Lens was purchased with K-30. Good pair! WR is good, focusing fast, colors nice, sharpness very good 21-100 / 5.6-11, else acceptable. Jack of all trades. Best lens for beginners.      | | |
![SMC Pentax-DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 ED AL [IF] DC WR Review RSS Feed](https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/images/rss/rss_feeds14x14.gif)
![SMC Pentax-DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 ED AL [IF] DC WR](https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/data/43/Pentax_18-135mm.jpg)
![SMC Pentax-DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 ED AL [IF] DC WR](javascript:update('https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/data/43/Pentax_18-135mm.jpg');)
![SMC Pentax-DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 ED AL [IF] DC WR](javascript:update('https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/data/43/4K-5_cross_with_DA_18-135_WR_x800.jpg');)
![SMC Pentax-DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 ED AL [IF] DC WR](javascript:update('https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/data/43/smc_Pentax-DA_18-135_3_5-5_6_x600_optics.jpg');)
![Buy the SMC Pentax-DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 ED AL [IF] DC WR](https://www.pentaxforums.com/content/camerapics/pentax-button.gif)
![Read our SMC Pentax-DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 ED AL [IF] DC WR in-depth review!](https://www.pentaxforums.com/content/homepage/pflensseal.gif)
![Add Review of SMC Pentax-DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 ED AL [IF] DC WR](https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/images/digitalvb/pentax_red/buttons/addreview.gif)
![Buy the SMC Pentax-DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 ED AL [IF] DC WR](https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/images/digitalvb/pentax_red/buttons/buylens.png)
