[starjedi]

I sold my DA 18-135 in favor of buying a DA* 16-50, but I am waiting to see the IQ from the new DA 16-85.

The DA 18-135 was always "good enough" for my K-50, but I learned not to expect fantastic or amazing photos from it. Rarely anything to complain about, but rarely anything to make me say WOW also.

After getting my K-3, the next seven lenses I acquired have all been between 10 and 70mm. The only DA lens I still own over 70mm is the DA*50-135, and though I love the IQ, I still find most of its focal length range to be a bit too long for me. If IQ is sufficient in the DA 16-85, it could replace the DA* 50-135 for me.

Wow... I feel you go a wrong way... DA*50-135 is kind of professional grade lens and DA 16-85 is just a consumer lens... Different level...

---

Last edited by starjedi; 11-01-2014 at 09:40 AM.

[lesmore49]

If you have a number of lenses in this approx. focal length, not much need for this lens. I have the 21mm, 18-135, 16-45. The 18-135 I bought was primarily for events and people pix. I used the 16-45 at an award event last year and I felt the high end...45mm...just didn't give me the moderate telephoto that I wished I had at this event.

The 18mm is wide enough for small, tight group shots, but the 50-135 length gives me portrait and reach out shots.

[simon6z]

If the new 16-85 image is not so fab then I rather grab the 17-70

[aleonx3]

I'll have to wait until the tests are complete on this lens to make a judgement of it's abilities to replace the 18-135. It would be hard to justify it in my lineup unless I gave up a couple of lens.

I have the Sigma 17-70C and the Pentax 18-135mm both of whom I'm constantly going back and forth on which one to sell so this lens would have to really spectacular for me to get rid of one of my babies . IMO both of my lens tend to be soft at the wide and tele ends in the corners and sometimes I have to crop to get the sharpness I'm after but only sometimes.

Interesting that you complement the 18-135 with 17-70, I will be interested to see that max aperture at around 50mm, if it is at f4.5, then it will be useful for flash/night shots.

---------- Post added 11-01-2014 at 12:56 PM ----------

If you have a number of lenses in this approx. focal length, not much need for this lens. I have the 21mm, 18-135, 16-45. The 18-135 I bought was primarily for events and people pix. I used the 16-45 at an award event last year and I felt the high end...45mm...just didn't give me the moderate telephoto that I wished I had at this event.

The 18mm is wide enough for small, tight group shots, but the 50-135 length gives me portrait and reach out shots.

For events when I need to use flash, my go to lenses are 16-50 and 50-135. if I can get close to the action, 16-50 gets used, otherwise, 50-135 will be used (for example stage show).

[starjedi]

A lens in this size range is not on my radar at this time and probably not on a lot of peoples. Why? Because many of us already have it covered with an 18-135 or a 17-70. I'll wait for reviews to before I make any comment on the lens but I can certainly see the reasoning in building it. Nikon has a 16-85 in their DX lineup and Canon lists a 15-85 In their EF-S lineup as well as a slightly slower and cheaper 17-85. Ricoh needs to cover this size if it hopes to compete seriously in the APS-C marketplace with the 2 big guys. If you look at the Pentax zoom lens lineup, the 16-85 was a hole that needed to be filled to match the zoom lens lineup of Nikon and Canon. This is called competing and is necessary and it shows that Ricoh is making a serious effort.

If Ricoh really makes a serious effort, they should upgrade FA 31mm/FA 43mm/FA 77mm to modern digital lenses as HD FA 31/43/77mm ED IF AL WR DC... They are all in the same range of 16-85... I think the demand should be high...

[AquaDome]

Wow... I feel you go a wrong way... DA*50-135 is kind of professional grade lens and DA 16-85 is just a consumer lens... Different level...

It is also a very large lens to carry around when I only occasionally use it for its 50-70mm focal range. I don't think the new 16-85 will give the same image quality, but it may give adequate quality (above 18-135). If the IQ is there, this could become a full-time lens for me.

[simon6z]

I hope to see DC motor prime lens though hahaha

[ramseybuckeye]

I did not see any reason for buying 16-85mm as I already have 18-135mm and am satisfied with it.

Reasons for not buying:
1) 16-85 is not very versatile comparing to 18-135mm. Especially for a travel walk around, the long end 85mm can be a little of short.
2) 16-85 is as slow as 18-135mm.
3) 16-85 is another APS-C lens. If you buy this one, you add a new APS-C lens...
4) 16-85 is too expensive given that a used 16-50 2.8 is around $600 for an EX/EX+ condition and 18-135mm also costs me only 300$ as a kit lens.
5) 16-85 cannot compete with any good Pentax prime lens in the range as : DA 15/FA 31/FA 43/ DA* 55/FA 77. If I want to buy those prime lenses in future, it will create another duplication...

The only possible buy scenario I can see is that if they can sell K3+16-85mm for $900 in this Thanksgiving. :-) But it definitely will not happen.

You've made up reasons for not buying the lens without anybody even using it. I agree with Alex that the extra 2 mm on the wide end really make it useful. The facts that it is a shorter zoom range and a wider barrel give hopes for extremely good image quality. How do we know it will only fit APS-C (sorry if I've missed someone testing it), many of the DAs cover full frame (but what's wrong with another APC lens anyway?). You're comparing the price with used lens and calling it too expensive? And you are saying it can't compete with those primes? Probably right but how do you know for sure yet? But it certainly cannot compete with the 15 since it starts at 16. We can hope this zoom has amazing IQ.

I have the 18-135 and I admit that there is a lot of overlap in focal lengths with a 16-85. But I think these are two different choices, Pentax doesn't expect the same customer to buy them both. Depending on how well they control distortion on the wide end, along with the IQ, this lens could be a remarkable zoom. Let's hope it is instead of prematurely trashing it.

[starjedi]

You've made up reasons for not buying the lens without anybody even using it. I agree with Alex that the extra 2 mm on the wide end really make it useful. The facts that it is a shorter zoom range and a wider barrel give hopes for extremely good image quality. How do we know it will only fit APS-C (sorry if I've missed someone testing it), many of the DAs cover full frame (but what's wrong with another APC lens anyway?). You're comparing the price with used lens and calling it too expensive? And you are saying it can't compete with those primes? Probably right but how do you know for sure yet? But it certainly cannot compete with the 15 since it starts at 16. We can hope this zoom has amazing IQ.

I have the 18-135 and I admit that there is a lot of overlap in focal lengths with a 16-85. But I think these are two different choices, Pentax doesn't expect the same customer to buy them both. Depending on how well they control distortion on the wide end, along with the IQ, this lens could be a remarkable zoom. Let's hope it is instead of prematurely trashing it.

It seems that everything for this lens depends on the IQ... But no matter what IQ it has, it is still a slow lens :-)

[Undot]

I'm looking forward to seeing some in depth review about this lens. But I was asking myself the same question. I think I made a mistake getting the 18-135 as kit lens, because it's just too good and covers too much a focal range to justify getting anything else.
Since I have a super-wide as well I'm in doubt if the 16-85 would be of use to me.

[c.a.m]

I have a DA 18-135. Although I'm quite satisfied with it, I would consider the 16-85. However - a big however - I think it is premature to talk seriously about the new lens until we have seen sufficient number of sample images and we get a good understanding of its optical qualities. For example, folks are talking about its relatively 'high' price. Would opinions change if the lens is optically stellar?

- Craig

[starjedi]

I'm looking forward to seeing some in depth review about this lens. But I was asking myself the same question. I think I made a mistake getting the 18-135 as kit lens, because it's just too good and covers too much a focal range to justify getting anything else.
Since I have a super-wide as well I'm in doubt if the 16-85 would be of use to me.

Yeah. I am very satisfied with 18-135mm, too. For me, I need an ultra-wide and also a fast portrait lens and am waiting for pentax FF :-).

[pistik100d]

16 mm or 18 mm is a HUGE difference

[AquaDome]

Sometime in February or March, you will start to see discounts on open-box returns from people who bought it over the holidays and decided it wasn't what they wanted.

[starjedi]

16 mm or 18 mm is a HUGE difference

view angle
16mm 72.59° (APS_C) 96.73° (FF)
18mm 66.27° (APS-C) 90°(FF)

6°... If you think it is a huge difference, upgrade to a FF will immediate give you 4x difference :-)