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18-55) are just sharper and contain more details, just see these old full samples of mine, taken with my "cheap" and "outdated" Pentax kit, i.e., the K-m and that DAL 18-55 lens!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
Moritz Schwertner · 749 weeks ago
RiceHigh 110p · 748 weeks ago
http://ricehigh.blogspot.com/2010/11/k-7-wins-ove...
illdefined · 749 weeks ago
RiceHigh 110p · 748 weeks ago
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 · 748 weeks ago
ismellacoward · 748 weeks ago
Moritz Schwertner · 749 weeks ago
illdefined · 749 weeks ago
j viviano · 748 weeks ago
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.
ratkiller · 748 weeks ago
ratkiller · 748 weeks ago
Erika · 748 weeks ago
With rather not so cheap price :]
ratkiller · 748 weeks ago
Erika · 748 weeks ago
Erika · 748 weeks ago
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?
pscl5 · 748 weeks ago
Erika · 748 weeks ago
RiceHigh 110p · 748 weeks ago
Anonymous · 748 weeks ago
RiceHigh 110p · 748 weeks ago
Erika · 748 weeks ago
LOL · 748 weeks ago
Ronny · 748 weeks ago
Slash · 689 weeks ago