Zoom Lenses - platitudes, pontification, pragmatism, perseverance . . . and rape!

[jonoslack]

Well
I've spent much too long anguishing about lens quality, pixel peeping and worrying. I've torture tested lenses, taken them back, taken back the replacements, wondered about selling the whole lot, and then fallen in love all over again.

Recently I've kind of decided that it's the primes that really work, and the zooms just aren't really up to it. The 18-135 has taken a back seat - exacerbated by the excoriating photozone review . . . and the fact that some simple brick wall tests bore out their results.

Today I thought I'd just go out and shoot with the 18-135 and try to get the BEST out of it, rather than fighting with it. Nothing cushy, just trying to make the best of it rather than the worst.

The only torment I arranged was to bring the Leica X1, and to do some comparisons for landscape shots around f5.6 at the equivalent focal length - just to get that out of the way, the 18-135 on the K5, at f5.6 and 24mm is just as good as the X1 at f5.6 (independent 'couldn't care less' witness is my lovely wife - she thought the K5 shots looked slightly sharper). As one might expect, the dynamic range is quite a different issue.

The conclusion I came to is that the 18-135 is really a fine walkabout lens - it's not wonderful at 135mm at the edges (but the centre's fine), the wider end really is quite good stopped down . . . actually, it's excellent. There's quite a large curvature of field, which generally speaking works to your benefit for landscape work (where the immediate foreground is likely to be close to you).

Just to really get a measure of things, I also took some shots with the M9 with the 28 'cron. The difference was pretty obvious (but not the difference between a worthwhile shot and not).

Caspar would probably call all this anguising p1ss1ng into the wind:

and he might be right.

Obviously, the primes are a better bet, but the conclusion I've come to is that this nicely made wide ranging zoom is a great lens - it clearly does have some shortcomings, but if you shoot with those in mind, then you really don't have to make too many compromises.

The other conclusion I've come to is that if you really want to find the bad points in lenses - then you will be able to, they all have them. . . . Even if it's just that they're too expensive :ROTFL:

ps - for those wondering about 'rape' - the yellow crop is called oil seed rape in the UK - I guess it might be called canola in some places, but I'm not sure.

 

[bradhusick]

Yes, and US food manufacturers use tons of "canola" rape seed oil. It was originally used as a fuel and is not good for you. Try to avoid it in the foods you eat.

http://www.hbci.com/~wenonah/new/canola.htm

I have found some zooms to be quite good and very useful - the Canon 17-40L, 24-105L and 70-300 IS L are workhorses for me.

 

[jonoslack]

Yes, and US food manufacturers use tons of "canola" rape seed oil. It was originally used as a fuel and is not good for you. Try to avoid it in the foods you eat.

http://www.hbci.com/~wenonah/new/canola.htm

Hi Brad
No idea what it's used for here - certainly not in any of the food I eat!
Looks pretty though.

 

[ecsh]

You are right on about the primes, as that is the road i went, with the 18-135 the only zoom, but i rarely use it. Most times its the 77 or the 43, even though i have the 31 hanging around waiting for a shot. It just feels like it makes you more aware of what you want in the shot if you have to zoom with your feet.
Joe

 

[Knorp]

Hi there Jono,

I just don't get it: I thought that the Pentax was really wonderful for its WR zooms and perhaps the odd macro or tele lens.
At least that's the way I see it and the reason for having a K5 delivered to me shortly => Update: GOT IT !
As for normal and wide primes, surely you (and I) have the right stuff already, right ?
Therefore the Pentax to me is going to be my primary AWRWA system.

Now I only need to find some AWR gear for myself.
However, looking at the weather forecast, I'm not in a hurry yet ...

And your 18-135 shots posted here are looking every bit the part !

All the very best.

 

[Sapphie]

Jono

Where have you been?!

Fantastic shots. I agree about the 18-135mm. OK, there are probably 'better' zooms out there and possibly for better value for money but I have been happy with most of my shots. I agree that the wide end is really very good, so much so that I wonder if I need to bother with a wide prime, given the relatively bad press that the 15mm and even 21mm sometimes gets.

I have had some 'softness', especially taking shots of things a few feet away with the zoom in the middle of the range but then until recently the weather has been pretty dull, so maybe high ISO and low shutter speeds are to blame. I have recently calibrated it to +5 and it seems better, though perhaps is now softer at 135mm.

That 43mm is really something special though!

Lee

 

[Paratom]

Hi Jono,
what I dont understand: the midrange zoom might be the most used lens of a system for many. How can a manufacturer not pay moire attention to get this lens (16-50) right???

So where does the leave the K5-system?
The smallest? but still nice built optical viewfinder DSLR with a nice walkaround (18-135) zoom in a weather sealed package.
Also the option for nice and small primes (ltd.) - but i this case not weathersealed and kind of slow lenses.
And two tele zooms which are pretty nice and pretty small (and pretty expensive) compared to other brands.
Nice DR and colors from the camera.

 

[jonoslack]

You are right on about the primes, as that is the road i went, with the 18-135 the only zoom, but i rarely use it. Most times its the 77 or the 43, even though i have the 31 hanging around waiting for a shot. It just feels like it makes you more aware of what you want in the shot if you have to zoom with your feet.
Joe

HI Joe
Fine - but as Bart says below, it makes no sense to me to do that - if I want to zoom with my feet, I can do that with the M9, and AF is unnecessary.

Hi there Jono,

I just don't get it: I thought that the Pentax was really wonderful for its WR zooms and perhaps the odd macro or tele lens.
At least that's the way I see it and the reason for having a K5 delivered to me shortly => Update: GOT IT !

Congratulations - I'm sure you'll love it (just don't compare tooooo closely with an M9 with a 50 'lux!).

As for normal and wide primes, surely you (and I) have the right stuff already, right ?
Therefore the Pentax to me is going to be my primary AWRWA system.

Now I only need to find some AWR gear for myself.
However, looking at the weather forecast, I'm not in a hurry yet ...

And your 18-135 shots posted here are looking every bit the part !

All the very best.

Well, as you say, we have other routes to fine primes, but the real point of my post is that a lens is good for you - if it's good for what you use it for!

In brick wall tests, the 16-50 did better than the 18-135, but in the 'real' world it didn't do nearly as well.

I can identify the shortcomings that photozone shows in my copy of the 18-135, but in my use, the edges aren't so important at 135mm, but it is important to get sharp corners at 18mm (but not wide open). I was very surprised how it did in a comparison with the X1 at 24mm and f5.6.

So, as you say, it's for A WR mid zoom, an occasional macro (mostly with the 35mm), and an occasional tele (and here, I'm wondering whether I need the 16-50, or whether I could do with the humble 55-300 - which seems to have good reports).

Thank you for bringing me to my senses!

all the best

 

[jonoslack]

Jono

Where have you been?!

Hi Lee
I was working in Holland last week - and I've also been trying to rescue the garden from becoming completely overgrown!

Fantastic shots. I agree about the 18-135mm. OK, there are probably 'better' zooms out there and possibly for better value for money but I have been happy with most of my shots. I agree that the wide end is really very good, so much so that I wonder if I need to bother with a wide prime, given the relatively bad press that the 15mm and even 21mm sometimes gets.

I think you're probably right about the wide prime - as I said, I compared the 18-135 with the X1 and was not disappointed.

I have had some 'softness', especially taking shots of things a few feet away with the zoom in the middle of the range but then until recently the weather has been pretty dull, so maybe high ISO and low shutter speeds are to blame. I have recently calibrated it to +5 and it seems better, though perhaps is now softer at 135mm.

It seems to me to do pretty well for what I want (I like it for close up too). My calibration attempts seem to make things worse in most cases. I know have a blanket +2, which seems to work really well!

That 43mm is really something special though!

Lee

yes - but not for me (see discussion with Bart above) - in those circumstances I'd be bolting the 75 f2 on to the M9 - I don't need to duplicate that situation (although, I think that is what Ashwin is doing).

all the best

 

[jonoslack]

Hi Tom

Hi Jono,
what I dont understand: the midrange zoom might be the most used lens of a system for many. How can a manufacturer not pay moire attention to get this lens (16-50) right???

Well, the lens won the AP lens of the year award in 2009 - lots of people love it, maybe, I've been unlucky (I had a similar debacle with the Nikon 17-55 a few years ago). Maybe it's just my use of it which finds the weak spot.

So where does the leave the K5-system?
The smallest? but still nice built optical viewfinder DSLR with a nice walkaround (18-135) zoom in a weather sealed package.
Also the option for nice and small primes (ltd.) - but i this case not weathersealed and kind of slow lenses.
And two tele zooms which are pretty nice and pretty small (and pretty expensive) compared to other brands.
Nice DR and colors from the camera.

Well, that sounds like quite a lot to me! As I say, my experience with the 16-50 doesn't seem to be typical, and, to be honest, if I were shooting it for a wedding I don't think I'd have found any problems at all.

all the best

 

[Knorp]

Well, the lens won the AP lens of the year award in 2009 - lots of people love it, maybe, I've been unlucky (I had a similar debacle with the Nikon 17-55 a few years ago). Maybe it's just my use of it which finds the weak spot.

Change of brick wall perhaps, Jono ?
:ROTFL:

On a serious note: against all odds I too opted for the DA*16-50 and its longer sibling the DA*50-135.
And for the heck of it and because I like chrome: the FA77.
That will do I suppose.

Oh well, we'll see but I'll definitely not taking the brick wall route ... :deadhorse:
Promised !

Kind regards.

 

[Armanius]

I ordered the 18-135 today and should receive it in two days. The Photozone review trashed the 18-135, but the photos that I am seeing on this site and others as well, tell me that the lens isn't that bad. In any event, the 18-135 was one of the lenses I originally wanted to get when I first got the K5. I'm finally getting one after trying out half a dozen other lenses. Hoping it will be a keeper!

 

[Godfrey]

Amuzing stuff, Jono. I just don't get on with the "normal zoom" thing. I'd much rather use a nice fast normal lens any time. I do find an ultrawide zoom and a medium to long zoom useful, the latter only once in a bit.

But I like the rape photos. I have a panorama I took of rape fields taken near Loughboro in about 1999 or so hanging in my office. Made it by stitching three frames taken with a Contax Tix on Fuji F100 film. Wonder if I can find the negs anywhere ... I could do a better job of it now. ;-)

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Excellent green/blue/yellows, Jono. Some of them would make an excellent triptych.

 

[Paratom]

...In brick wall tests, the 16-50 did better than the 18-135, but in the 'real' world it didn't do nearly as well.
...

This sounds as it could have to do something with slight focus problems as well.
Specially the medium distances are the area where I still find the K5 AF unreliable and where I get many "ok-but not great shots".
I dont know whats going on. They dont look really out of focus but they are very slightly out of focus. And they are only that little bit out of focus that you do not mention when taking the image.

Yesterday I tried again to give the K5 a chance in the garden shooting some portraits with the 70/2.4.
Out of 30 images most where ok, but only few were spot on.
Besides the AF which seems not accurate also the metering is far worse than Nikon metering. Sorry-have to say it.
I might do one final comparison between the Nikon and the Pentax and if that prooves what I see in dayly images the Pentax will be for sale.
It feels good, I really like the damped sound, the small primes are nice but thats not enough IMO. Reliable metering, reliable AF is one of the reasons why I would use a DSLR.

 

[Sapphie]

Yesterday I tried again to give the K5 a chance in the garden shooting some portraits with the 70/2.4.
Out of 30 images most where ok, but only few were spot on.

What shutter speeds were you using?
Have you calibrated the lens for fine AF adjustment?

Lee

 

[mathomas]

Screw the lens worrying. I want to live where you live!

 

[Paratom]

What shutter speeds were you using?
Have you calibrated the lens for fine AF adjustment?

Lee

It is not shake, shutter times were short.
I tried to calibrate the 70 - but I dont know if its really optimized.
I somewhat feel that if I calibrate it at 1,5m distance that that doesnt necessarly mean it works great at al distances.
My problem is that I do not see a consistent logical fault/problem, I just find that I get too many shots which are slightly out of focus and I am running out of energy to further expand analyses.
Is it the focus point being (how much?) biggher than indicated in the viewfinder and me focusing on the wrong point? Is lens fine calibration? or is it just less accurate AF? (And if I assume right than a 16MP sensor in DX size compared to a 12MP sensor in ff -size means the AF of the first system needs to work more accurate plus the AF-sensor-size compared to the sensor size for DX is quite a bit larger...all this might effect the result as well)

 

[jonoslack]

It is not shake, shutter times were short.
I tried to calibrate the 70 - but I dont know if its really optimized.
I somewhat feel that if I calibrate it at 1,5m distance that that doesnt necessarly mean it works great at al distances.
My problem is that I do not see a consistent logical fault/problem, I just find that I get too many shots which are slightly out of focus and I am running out of energy to further expand analyses.
Is it the focus point being (how much?) biggher than indicated in the viewfinder and me focusing on the wrong point? Is lens fine calibration? or is it just less accurate AF? (And if I assume right than a 16MP sensor in DX size compared to a 12MP sensor in ff -size means the AF of the first system needs to work more accurate plus the AF-sensor-size compared to the sensor size for DX is quite a bit larger...all this might effect the result as well)

Hi There Tom
I must say, if I had an S2 and an M9 I don't think I'd have much time for the K5 either.
Still - I'm not getting too many shots out of focus.
Incidentally, the problem with the 16-50 really was different - I had one memorable portrait shot of a tree trunk at f5.6 taken from about 20 ft away looking straight at it - the middle was pin sharp, as was the top, the bottom was completely soft - very strange.

Back to 'normal'. There is no question that the focus point is much bigger than it looks - (but the K5 isn't alone in this - it's also true of the D700). I've found that it does mean that on an angled subject the point of most contrast may not be the point in the middle.

The other issue is that when you pixel peep your D700, you're looking at a larger part of the image (but of course you know to take this into account).

I did lots of work fiddling with calibration for different lenses, but in the end I settled for +2 overall, and that does seem to do the trick most of the time.

Do you find that it's mostly backfocus or frontfocus issues (or, indeed, that the subject is just blurred?).

all the best

 

[Paratom]

...
Do you find that it's mostly backfocus or frontfocus issues (or, indeed, that the subject is just blurred?).

all the best

Hi Jono,
it seems to be most often front focus issues, and I feel it happens more often at medium to long distances (>2-3meters). Shorter distances (1-1,5meters) seem pretty good.