I mostly use the 50-135 when I need the wider aperture i.e. in low light, I do a lot of low light shooting. However if sharpness across the frame were a major concern I'd be using it over the 18-135 regardless of the light conditions.

As stated earlier the 18-135 is very convenient and the IQ is fine enough if you're not going to make larger prints or do extensive cropping... BUT the 50-135 is in an entirely different league, particularly at the 100mm+ range where the 18-135 is not at it's best (although still acceptable). That purple fringing I mentioned earlier mostly shows up in that 100mm+ range, it's not really an issue in the short to middle range.

I must admit to not having been keen on it at first, as I felt my Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 just produced better images... Well it does and it has corner-to-corner sharpness with which the 18-135 simply does not compare, but the difference is not as great as I thought at first and the sharpness is barely an issue unless you're going to make larger prints or crop excessively. I was accustomed to taking full advantage of the wider aperture of the Tamron and of course it would be unrealisic to expect the 18-135 to compete on that score.

The 18-135 has grown on me a great deal, it really is a pretty decent lens and I now feel it's usefulness outweighs it's drawbacks which are really pretty minor. If anything occasionally still annoys me about it, it's that it does produce a bit more purple fringing than I'm used to from my other lenses in high-contrast, (particularly backlit) situations.

It now actually gets more use than my Tamron in daylight, although of course in low light it comes off the camera and the Tamron goes on. Using it means that 9 times out of 10 I can have the Sigma 8-16 on my second body instead of a telephoto, meaning I take a lot more ultra-wide shots that I would otherwise. This makes me happy as the ultra-wide is developing into something of a passion for me, but not to the exclusion of everything else!

I know it's not really a comparable lens to the Tamron but since that was the only 'standard' focal length zoom I had for a couple of years before it's a comparison that's difficult for me to avoid making. Where the 18-135 scores over the Tamron is in terms of zoom range, weather sealing, quiet autofocus, and build quality is much superior to the Tamron.

It's possible your copy isn't 100%. I've always found mine sharp enough. This shot of a robin is at the full 300mm, aperture wide open (f/5.8 at this focal length). That is pushing the lens to it's limits.

Oooh, I am definitely going to put off buying any lens caps til I see what the new model has to offer!

Or in my terms, a finger wider and fatter and good 'thumb plus' taller. I have small hands. I've held all sizes of camera and found I'm not too comfortable with the larger ones. However I do believe it's rather subjective. Some folks on this forum have said they find the K-5 too small to grip comfortably. Another person might be equally comfortable with the large and the small, and not notice the difference nearly as much.

I don't think you can 'force' the flash to fire in auto mode. It won't fire if not required according to the camera's metering system. It is, after all, auto mode - it's very purpose is to take control away from the user and give it to the camera's firmware. If you want control, don't use auto.

Okay, brutally honest...

The flower in the front dominates, but is out of focus. The flower behind is less dominant but in focus. Unfortunately this doesn't really work, IMO. The dominant subject should be in focus, or the depth of field should encompass both.

The fact that you took the photo without your eye to the viewfinder (or at least the screen) goes some way to explaining this. You need to be careful where the camera's focusing in a shot like this, and you just can't do that without looking, I'm afraid.

If you really want the shot, bite the bullet and get down on the wet ground. You'd be able to create a better composition that way, too.

I'm down on my knees in all sorts of conditions so much these days that I finally gave in and bought a pair of trousers with protective kneepads. I've come home with mud all over my clothes on a few occasions because of my determination to get a shot. Sometimes the resultant shots weren't even worth it, but then you won't know unless you try. It won't stop me the next time, either.

Thanks!

I like it, it's a nice piece of art, rather atmospheric and evocative. It doesn't show enough of the original photograph to comment on it as a photograph, but I don't see why that should stop anybody from commenting on it as a piece of art.

This is always going to vary from individual to individual depending on on people's photographic styles and personal preferences. At the moment I have:

Sigma 8-16
Tamron 17-50 f2.8
DA* 50-135 f2.8
DA 55-300
DA 18-135
Vivtar 100 Macro f3.5

...And this lot really covers everything I need with a 2 body setup. If I shot with only one body my requirements would be different because (with the exception of th emacro lens) my setup is now based on using certain pairs of lenses depending on the situation.

The pairs I use are:

> 17-50 + 50-135 - This 'all f2.8' pair is for night/low light shooting
> 17-50 + 55-300 - Daylight, when a longer reach is needed
> 8-16 + 17-50 - Daylight, when I need to go wider
> 8-16 + 18-135 - Daylight, when I need to wider AND a bit longer

With these combinations I rarely ever feel the need to change lenses in the field.

I intend to upgrade the Tamron to a DA* 16-50 (soon), and the Vivitar Macro to a Pentax 100 Macro WR (eventually). Once I'm there I'll be pretty happy to be honest and probably stick with what I have for a while. I wouldn't mind a Sigma 10-20 f/3.5 to get better wide angle results in low light (I've become quite addicted to ultra wide angle) but I'm not about to trade in the 8-16 for one because I do use it at less than 10mm frequently.