Web Analytics RiceHigh's Pentax Blog: Ned Bunnell's (Official) K-5 + DA 18-135 Samples

Saturday, November 27, 2010

Ned Bunnell's (Official) K-5 + DA 18-135 Samples

http://nedbunnell.posterous.com/da-18-135mm-sample-photos-part-iv

http://nedbunnell.posterous.com/da-18-135mm-sample-photos-part-iii

http://nedbunnell.posterous.com/da-18-135mm-sample-photos-part-ii

http://nedbunnell.posterous.com/da-18-135-sample-photos-part-i

which are all posted by Ned today. Full size "originals" that are RAW converted via Adobe Photoshop CS4 are available for download. Major EXIF data are preserved. Ned also tells about some of basic shooting settings and conditions in his posts.

The sample pictures were made mostly with the really *expensive* "long kit" lens, which have been carefully stopped down for at least two stops but not smaller than f/11, which usually the diffraction limit for most APS-C lenses, so that maximum sharpness should be obtained.

In fact, the Pentax DA 18-135 is more than doubled the prices of both the Canon and Nikon 18-135 offerings, which are just close enough in cost. If not believed, go check yourself! Does the WR of the Pentax really worth that super extra cost (US300+ difference in my city), if the IQ is not going to be different, or even worse??

Any how, yet once again and repeatedly recently, I am completely "impressed" (in another extreme) with the IQ, even the pics are just produced by expert photographer like Ned. Images are soft, even it is not viewed at pixel level, despite that the shooting condition is actually very favourable, e.g., on a very bright and sunny day. Purple fringing appears commonly and everywhere, even at object borders which are not extremely contrasty, say, they are Not back lit! The colour tone of the images are cool, um, I mean they are too cold and rather blueish and there is no feeling of the warm sunlight of any and I have big reservation on this (unfavourable IMO) colour tendency of this combo, i.e., the K-5 + 18-135.

Anyway, here are just two casual crops from first two samples in the Part IV, the first one is for the centre at 18mm at f/11 and the next one is for the corner at 135, at f/11:-



Inspect all other samples yourself, you will know what I mean. To make fair comparisons and to be even more objective, I have even zoomed out the images down to 10MP so that they are in the same viewing size and then they are compared to those images from my K-m, I am actually really disappointed to learn that the images from my K-m (with a DAL 18-55) are just sharper and contain more details, just see these old full samples of mine, taken with my "cheap" and "outdated" Pentax kit, i.e., the K-m and that DAL 18-55 lens!

In particular, such severe purple fringing at such long focal length (135mm actual focal in this case) is really uncommon, or I would say, strange, actually. 135mm x 1.5 ~ 200mm is not considered as a wide angle, does it? >:-[

Speaking of Ned, he seems to have been back and rather busy with his blog writing. He has been really very diligent recently for posting at his (new) blog. I think maybe he have just received clear instruction and order from the Pentax (actually Hoya) HQs that he should write more to promote new Pentax products (which is his own job anyway), instead of letting that RiceHigh guy shines in the Internet and Blogsphere! ;=)

Btw, keep up the good works, Ned, your posts are really much valuable! They help us to learn the truth and you are just much more trustworthy than most others! :->


Related:-

http://ricehigh.blogspot.com/search?q=K-5+Review+Samples

Comments (24)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
Well, from what I've seen, and tested on my K20D Body, I do agree with you. The sharpness looks non-existend, although the colours seem to be good. I wonder why I haven't been able to spot CA's on my Photokina sample at all... Maybe it is really the K5 Sensor?
1 reply · active 748 weeks ago
Yes, I think it is and it was verified, i.e., its the sensor (and the camera)!
http://ricehigh.blogspot.com/2010/11/k-7-wins-ove...
illdefined's avatar

illdefined · 749 weeks ago

as usual, you're judging the 7.5x zoom lens at it's very longest (and weakest) focal length. once again, you only report the bad.
3 replies · active 748 weeks ago
The 18 and 135mm are the most useful focals for using this lens and that's why one would like to buy it!

And, the two crops are from the first two samples posted at the Ned's blog's front page. You should blame why Ned used such "weakest" focals and posted them at the top of his page instead of blaming me!

Honestly speaking, if we are not going to use 18 and 135 with this lens, why not just use the old FA 24-90, I am quite sure that it performs quite well on Pentax DSLRs throughout the whole range!
http://ricehigh.blogspot.com/2010/03/standard-zoo...
ismellacoward's avatar

ismellacoward · 748 weeks ago

So there is nothing between 18 and 24mm or 90 and 135? Did you "test" this lens yourself? And off course you know nothing about CA correction in postprocess, right?
ismellacoward's avatar

ismellacoward · 748 weeks ago

So there is nothing between 18 and 24mm or 90 and 135? Did you "test" this lens yourself? And off course you know nothing about CA correction in postprocess, right?
At 18mm this lens is clearly inferior to what I expect from a lens in this price range. And, as Rice points out, it is (from what I'm used to with my 18-55 II) clearly inferior. Just look at the CA's and the extreme border. That's where my Kit-Zoom shines in this respect (compared to the 18-135)...
1 reply · active 749 weeks ago
illdefined's avatar

illdefined · 749 weeks ago

18mm is the other extreme, and therefore weak, focal length of this 7.5x superzoom lens. the 18-55 is not close to a 'superzoom' lens
j viviano's avatar

j viviano · 748 weeks ago

The 18-55 performs similarly to this lens, with much less range.

The Nikon and Canon lenses are criticized similarly on similar grounds as this lens. You cannot have 7.5x convenience and top-quality performance. That is why no pro-zooms are made with this kind of range.

Price difference can be attributed to WR and internal focusing, which I do not believe are worth ignoring, Rice.

Plus, these crops are very small sections of the actual scene... this is also not CA you are observing but purple fringing. PF is lens-dependent, not sensor dependent. I would be very surprised if you could substantiate the claim that PF is sensor dependent.
1 reply · active less than 1 minute ago
ratkiller's avatar

ratkiller · 748 weeks ago

It is CA, not PF and PF is partially sensor dependent.
ratkiller's avatar

ratkiller · 748 weeks ago

Rice, just learn some basics finally (you should after 30+ years of being "a photographer" LOL). F/11 IS diffraction limited on 16 megapixels APS-C sensor - optimum should be obtained around f/8. 2nd crop you've shown is from extreme corner of 18mm shot (which IS considered wide angle however you define it) and clearly shows lateral CA, not "purple fringing" as you claim. You can get rid off CA pretty easy in raw converter, but it wouldn't be honest for Ned to show CA corrected samples, would it? And finally - it is just a cheap plastic all around lens, so nobody expects it to be good for any serious work.
3 replies · active 748 weeks ago
"And finally - it is just a cheap plastic all around lens, so nobody expects it to be good for any serious work. "
With rather not so cheap price :]
ratkiller's avatar

ratkiller · 748 weeks ago

It's still cheap in my book...
But it is not cheap in comparison to equivalent lenses of competition.
Seeing that I will not be able to afford the new Pentax DA 18-135mm very soon I bought Sigma 28-135mm. I will see how it performs. Some of the things (price especially - I paid 100 euro for it) look good enough(for a consumer grade lens, that is).

What I think of Pentax DA 18-135mm? Well it looks like a nice consumer grade lens, and as for that level it is grossly overpriced. I doubt that it is really that much better than Canon or Nikon analogues (both - optically and speed wise) to justify the price, so why the price is twice more expensive thenn?
In this review we can compare 18-55 and 18-135 and it is evident that the 18-135 is clearly better than the 18-55 http://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/pentax_18-135...
2 replies · active 748 weeks ago
Sample variation?
It says both sharpness and aberration are the worse, only 7 marks out of 10.
Anonymous's avatar

Anonymous · 748 weeks ago

Oh dear, that CA is horrendous. Considering it's twice the price over the Canon equivalent here in the UK, I really was expecting something special. But no, the usual Pentax faux pas. They never quite get it right.
2 replies · active 748 weeks ago
I was wishfully thinking that the DA 18-135 could be obviously better than the Canon and Nikon equivalents owing to its high price but my wishful thinking has been proven to be wrong, once and once again, until recently all those sample pictures have been out! :-(
So the price must come down for this lens eventually. Otherwise it does not make much sense to buy it.
This is ridiculous. If you become upset by the posts on this blog, you're ridiculous. I have to continue visiting this blog. This is so ridiculous that it is entertaining.
1 reply · active less than 1 minute ago
Couldn't have said it better
Pentax hire Hitman to take out RiceHigh ;-0!

Post a new comment

Comments by