[frank]

this 18-135mm extends - with inner tubes - in length while the 16-50mm and 50-135mm do not. I think this is the main difference : you can not make "as much WR" a lens that extends..

The 1650 inner tube extends too ...

[pcarfan]

I look forward to your impressions. If the IQ is at least decent, I will have to let go my DA18-250 for the WR lens and ability to walk a windy, misty beach.

I was wondering whether the IQ of the 18-135 WR could be better than the 18-250?, as that lens is really great below 150mm and is quite decent even higher....I wish someone would compare the two lenses (may be the pending photzone test will shed some light on it).

[r0ckstarr]

I was wondering whether the IQ of the 18-135 WR could be better than the 18-250?, as that lens is really great below 150mm and is quite decent even higher....I wish someone would compare the two lenses (may be the pending photzone test will shed some light on it).

I'm with you and waiting.

[Pentaxor]

I was wondering whether the IQ of the 18-135 WR could be better than the 18-250?, as that lens is really great below 150mm and is quite decent even higher....I wish someone would compare the two lenses (may be the pending photzone test will shed some light on it).

add the 18-55 and 50-200 into the mix. a side to side comparison would be nice to check for distortion and MTF.

anyway, I somehow see the new lens seems to have a slightly better distortion control at the wide end. it seems to have better colors, contrast and sharpness as well compared to the 18-55.