18-55mm or 18-135mm


Link Posted 28/12/2013 - 02:57
Okay I have just upgraded k-r to K3 mainly for weather resistance (living in Cumbria and that) anyway I was going to order the 18-135mm to accompany the k3 when I thought about I already have the 18-55wr. In this range is the 18-135mm any better?

Currently in the zoom range I use the 17-70 and 55-300 and really love the 55-300, so thinking about this would I be better getting the 55-300hd and selling my non-wr version to complement the k3 and the da18-55mm-wr?
Pint o' rough & a game o' darts anyone
Last Edited by InFESTation on 28/12/2013 - 02:58


Link Posted 28/12/2013 - 10:32
Other than the obvious extended zoom range the nicest thing about the 18- 135 DA WR is the fast, whisper quiet DC AF motor. In use its IQ is excellent. List price some places is an absurd 499. SRS did have some unboxed 2 year warranty new for 325 before Christmas. Used hard to find but recently bought one on here for a friend at 215. Bargain!

Be warned, there is no marked manual focus scale on these lenses. The focus ring has quick shift but is continuous.


Link Posted 28/12/2013 - 10:45
These are really questions only you can answer. The 18-135mm is a lovely lens that I use all the time and I wouldn't use the 18-55mm instead. The latter is on the K20D now for eBay images, for which it is excellent.

If you get an 18-135mm you might as well keep the 18-55mm as a spare. The low price these fetch is a tragedy. The 55-300mm will serve very well and the new HD version, although desirable, could perhaps wait for a while? The 17-70mm I have never tried so I'll leave it to others to comment on that one.
Best regards, John


Link Posted 28/12/2013 - 16:46
I am kind of swinging towards holding onto the 18-55, if both lenses are pretty much a muchness in the 18-55 there is no real need to get the 18-135, the 325 price was what was getting me interested.

After looking at how often the K-r stayed in the bag for lousy weather even after getting a few of the covers and using tesco carriers I decided the weather protection was worth the jump, I reckon I should wait a little while see if I need the extra reach in the wet stuff, I may be suffering from a little of the post Christmas sale offers 10% off lenses and that, may just keep the remaining savings and go for one of the DA* next year
Pint o' rough & a game o' darts anyone


Link Posted 28/12/2013 - 17:19
I think you should try the DA18-135 and actually experience the difference in handling compared with the kit lens. As Bill comments the fast silent accurate focusing makes it a delight to use. The kit lens is good as kit lenses go but the AF is slower and much noisier.

As you have upgraded to the K-3 you really should match it with the best general purpose lens that is enjoyable in use. The extra focal length is useful too. I think SRS still have some at 325.


Link Posted 28/12/2013 - 18:04
I started with a K-5 18-55 + 50-200 kit - a complete weather sealed set. Later I did buy an 18-135 and even if it is not always sharp in corners, it is a good lens, very convenient, covers most of what I want, and is the zoom that is left on the camera, with 12-24 and 55-300 in the bag.

However if you were on a tight budget and already have the 18-55 WR, then at least in the short term, you could consider the 50-200 WR to give you a weather proof setup with 18-200mm coverage. If you can stretch to the new HD 55-300 WR so much the better. Were money no object, I'm sure you would be looking at the *60-250. The only catch is weather sealing when changing lenses!

Do let us know how you get on with the HD if you decide to buy it.
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.