Just bought DA 18-135 WR

I've just bought the DA 18-135 WR, after getting some advice from this forum and reviews from elsewhere, looking to upgrade from the kit 18-55 for something to use as my principal "walk around" lens. I must say that so far I'm very impressed with it.

This image is the JPEG straight out of the camera (K-r), with JPEG settings of 6M pixels and the medium quality setting. It is uncropped. It was taken, handheld, at 135mm, 1/400, F5.6, ISO 200. I always shoot Raw + JPEG, but thought that on this occasion it might be interesting to put up the JPEG straight out of the camera, rather than a RAW image that had been "worked on".

Very nice indeed! I've been forever tempted by this lens, but am focusing on getting primes at the moment.

Very nice image. This lens is my most used, and if it's not on the camera it will be to hand in the camera bag.

You've nailed the butterfly, but those JPEG settings will not get the best out of camera or lens.

Thanks for your comments re the butterfly.

I recognise that these JPEG settings are hardly the best, but I only use the JPEGs so that I have a thumbnail available to view on the computer in Explorer. I always use the RAW image for the ones I want to keep.

John - Thanks for the advice about this lens that you gave in response to an earlier post of mine, I'm pleased that I went with it.

Phil

I shoot Raw + JPEG with the JPEG's at maximum quality and have no problems whatsoever viewing them in Explorer.

Hello John, Swarf's setting for the butterfly shot were: JPEG settings of 6M pixels and medium quality. Taken handheld at 135mm, 1/400, F 5.6, ISO 200.

To get the best out of the camera, what JPEG Settings would you recommend?
I use RAW + JPEG only on ASR basis.
So your point - in quotes above - was very interesting, as I felt the 18-135 has much better capability than that demonstrated in the butterfly shot.
Regards.

For using the JPEG file, then Premium JPEG setting at maximum resolution. We can always downsize but upsizing loses quality. It could be worthwhile increasing the in-camera sharpening if a print-ready result is required, only by +1 should be enough.