Reading mode: Light Dark

18-135 Seems Good

Go to last post
ozdean

ozdean

Forum Pro
Messages
28,893
Solutions
9
Reaction score
7,401
Location
Toowoomba, AU
I have just done my first day of real testing with the 18-135 and it is looking very good for walk a round lens. I handles well is heavier than the kits we are used to giving it a more solid feel. Flare resistance seems good as does contrast, colour, resolution and depth rendering. all in all it looks very capable and WR to boot.









--
Regards Dean - Capturing Creation
 
Some very good shots Dean!

I think you will like that lens, seems versatile, looking forward to see more!
--
Leopold
Pentax forever
http://smarcoux.zenfolio.com/
 
Nice collection of shots - certainly gives the lens a work-out. Tempting as a single walk-around item.
--
Simon
 
Great shots. It does indeed look to be a good lens but I'm interested whether it is better than the 18-250 (I'm not concerned about WR) - are you able to compare the two?

I'm very tempted to get the 18-135 to go with my K20 but it's a lot of money unless it's going to be an actual improvement over the 18-250 I already have. I would welcome any thoughts.

--
Confused of Malvern
 
I agree.
It's a great lens, but too much expensive in Italy (it costs more or less 600€)
 
Thanks Steeve it looks to be a nice versatile range.
--
Regards Dean - Capturing Creation
 
Thanks eesH its a very handy lens.
--
Regards Dean - Capturing Creation
 
CM I cannot compare directly but I suspect it is better. It looks to me to be at least on a par with the sigma 17-70 which I owned but renders colour better.
--
Regards Dean - Capturing Creation
 
Ben if you stop down a bit wide open its good enough for me and pretty good really.

I did see your night shots and they are very good indeed. Only disadvantage for me against the 1770 is it's not as fast but that won't be a worry the WR more than makes up for it IMO.
--
Regards Dean - Capturing Creation
 
Confused of Malvern said:
Great shots. It does indeed look to be a good lens but I'm interested whether it is better than the 18-250 (I'm not concerned about WR) - are you able to compare the two?

I'm very tempted to get the 18-135 to go with my K20 but it's a lot of money unless it's going to be an actual improvement over the 18-250 I already have. I would welcome any thoughts.

--
Confused of Malvern
Click to expand...
I have both the Pentax 18-135 and the 18-250 I use the 135 on my K-5 and the wife uses the 250 on her K-R and I don't see any difference in quality, I'm just working on getting a good set of WR lenses.
--
Cameras & Lenses listed in Plan.
 
That's good Pete, re tree lines are you comparing same apertures?
--
Regards Dean - Capturing Creation
 
Gulfer WR is very handy, I guessed the 135 might be sharper than the 250?
--
Regards Dean - Capturing Creation
 
Thanks Poco.
--
Regards Dean - Capturing Creation
 
Hi Dean,

I am actually trying to figure this out lately. I've owned the 18-250 for quite a while and it's a decent travel lens. I am wondering if the 18-135 is a visibly better lens on the K-5 but so far I haven't had a chance to actually test one. I did try the 18-250 on my K-5 over the weekend and I found it to produce quite acceptable image quality too, and my copy of the lens doesn't need any AF fine-tuning on my K-5. Here's a quick portrait I took with the 18-250 on a very difficult lighting, the bright sunlight shining directly on my son's hands:



Peter
ozdean said:
Gulfer WR is very handy, I guessed the 135 might be sharper than the 250?
--
Regards Dean - Capturing Creation
Click to expand...
--
Peter Fang - Pentax user for more than 25 years: K-5 / MZ-S / Z-1 / SFX / LX
My Online Gallery: http://petefang.smugmug.com/
 
Hi Pete as always from you a great shot roughly mid way through the zoom range where you would normal expect the best resolution.

I have not yet tried the the 18-135 for portraiture but it should be good; midrange is around 70 it has rounded blades so bokeh should be good and diffraction kept minimal.
It would be nice to put these 2 up against each other.

Because it is not a light lens I think there is some pretty good glass in there; mind you it could also be the weight of the DC motor I guess.

Photozone should have it up soon so we should see some figures but from my fiddling so far it looks as good as either of the 17-70 which are both good lenses.
--
Regards Dean - Capturing Creation
 
Confused of Malvern said:
Great shots. It does indeed look to be a good lens but I'm interested whether it is better than the 18-250 (I'm not concerned about WR) - are you able to compare the two?

I'm very tempted to get the 18-135 to go with my K20 but it's a lot of money unless it's going to be an actual improvement over the 18-250 I already have. I would welcome any thoughts.
Click to expand...
I do not and did not have the Pentax 18-250 so I cannot compare. I do have the Tammy 18-250....

I also have the 18-135 WR as for me WR did matter.... If it did not, I doubt if I'd ever get me the 18-135 as the 18-250 is more versatile and allright in performance and the 18-135 is not a very huge leap warranting a second lens in the same range. OTOH, if you want back - up I do suggest getting the 18-135 instead of another 18-250.

--




Confused of Malvern said:
The difference between genius and LBA is that genius has its
limits.
  • Janneman ( adaptation of the Kings quote from Albert Einstein)
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top