Trusted Reviews is supported by its audience. If you purchase through links on our site, we may earn a commission. Learn more.

Pentax smc DA 50-135mm f/2.8 ED (IF) SDM Review

Verdict

rating-star rating-star rating-star rating-star rating-star
Trusted Reviews Recommended

Pros

  • Weather-resistant, Replicates 70-200mm focal range

Cons

  • Zoom ring should be wider, hefty price

Key Specifications

  • Review Price: £950

When assessing a fixed-aperture zoom it is always worth asking how its maximum aperture compares with those of prime lenses at both ends of the focal-length range. In the case of Pentax’s 50-135mm f/2.8 zoom, the aperture is good for a 135mm lens and just about passable for a 50mm lens. Compared with its 60-250mm f/4 stable-mate, the 50-135mm lens is better specified in this respect but it offers a less than 3x zoom range compared with its peer’s greater than 4x ratio.

In other respects these two zooms are very similar in look and feel. Both benefit from a weather-resistant and dust-resistant construction that includes a rubber ring on the mounting flange and Super Protect (SP) coating on the front element. In addition, both lenses use Pentax’s very quiet Sonic Drive Motor (SDM) AF mechanism to deliver a responsive AF performance.
The reason for comparing these two lenses in some detail is the likelihood that potential purchasers could choose either, as their prices are similar, and the differences mentioned above may therefore be significant.

Slightly more than the rear third of the lens barrel on the 50-135mm lens is given over to the zoom ring and almost the entire front half is occupied by an even wider manual-focusing ring. The space between is home to a focused-distance window and an AF/MF selector switch.
Both rings have a lovely feel but the zoom ring is a shade too far back for its size to be completely comfortable, making handling a touch more awkward than it ought to be on a lens like this. It is a shame that the ring widths weren’t designed in reverse.

The manual-focusing ring can be used to complement the AF system at any time but remains static otherwise so the user is free to adopt any grip desired. Automatic focusing is quiet and reasonably quick: it is also effective under very low light levels but that comment is partly dependent on the host camera used.

Technical testing produced a very solid set of MTF curves that remained above the crucial 0.25 cycles-per-pixel level throughout the range of commonly used apertures. Although f/22 at all focal lengths and wide-open at 70mm slipped below the threshold, peak performances elsewhere were excellent. Chromatic aberration was not an issue but there were a few occasions when the lens caused some pictures to be slightly underexposed: the problem was only observed when the lens was set to its shortest focal-length but that may have been a coincidence.

This is a very nice lens that is well suited to portraiture and mid-range action subjects. But it is also rather costly and some potential buyers may prefer to opt for Pentax’s 55-300mm zoom. While it has a smaller variable maximum aperture, it does offer a wider focal-length range and costs only one-third of the price of the 50-135mm zoom.

Trusted Score

rating-star rating-star rating-star rating-star rating-star

Score in detail

  • Value 9
  • Design 9
  • Image Quality 9
  • Features 9

Why trust our journalism?

Founded in 2004, Trusted Reviews exists to give our readers thorough, unbiased and independent advice on what to buy.

Today, we have 9 million users a month around the world, and assess more than 1,000 products a year.

author icon

Editorial independence

Editorial independence means being able to give an unbiased verdict about a product or company, with the avoidance of conflicts of interest. To ensure this is possible, every member of the editorial staff follows a clear code of conduct.

author icon

Professional conduct

We also expect our journalists to follow clear ethical standards in their work. Our staff members must strive for honesty and accuracy in everything they do. We follow the IPSO Editors’ code of practice to underpin these standards.