Will any other18-135 owner consider 16-85 for actual usage?

AquaDome · 11-01-2014, 10:57 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by starjedi

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 :-)

Upgrade to FF and these Pentax lens choices won't be options anymore.

**mgvh** · 11-01-2014, 11:19 AM

Read through this thread, but I'm with Heie on this.
I used to have the DA 16-45, and I loved having it go as wide as 16mm. But, I apparently had a bad copy (probably decentered, and I didn't know enough at the time), and 45mm was really too short for the type of shooting I was doing. I ended up needing my DAL 55-300 a lot and switching lens a lot.
The DA 18-135 has really been a great lens for me. WR and the range has been great, but I do miss that 16-17mm, and I wouldn't mind a bit more sharpness on the edges, especially at the wide end.
Hence, I am interested in the 16-85, but I sure hope it has a bit better performance on the edges.
As for the long end, on a recent trip where I took over 1100 pics using the 18-135 almost all the time but supplementing it with a Sigma 10-20 for uwa and the 55-300.
76% of my shots were in the 16-85mm range, 6% wider, and 18% longer. 17% were at 18mm, and I know that for many of those I would have used 16mm if I had it. Of the longer ones, 12% in the 86-135mm range, but some of those were shot using the 55-300.
So, yes, I would miss the longer range on a 16-85, but I really like that 16-17mm possibility. I hope the IQ on the 16-85 makes it worthwhile to trade in my 18-135.

**boriscleto** · 11-01-2014, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by starjedi

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 :-)

Upgrade to FF and the FA J 18-35 is the only Pentax lens you will be using at 18mm. Unless you want to go fisheye, or manual focus.

Conqueror · 11-01-2014, 11:53 AM

The 16-85mm might be quite well complemented by the 100mm DFA WR

**UncleVanya** · 11-01-2014, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by ramseybuckeye

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.

I don't think anyone is trashing the lens. The question asked was, if you like the 18-135 how likely are you to buy it. Then reasons were given for why this seemed an unlikely choice to make - all of which seem pretty rational to me. I can see why the lens will appeal to many and I can see why it may even appeal to those who bought the 18-135 because they needed more than 18-55 but didn't really care about 86-135 all that much.

When all is said and done we have a huge number of options in the wide to modest telephoto range which is a great thing. I for one don't see myself buying this but the lens may win me over in the future.

reeftool · 11-01-2014, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by starjedi

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...

They may well do that if they ever release a FF body but consider that they currently have no zoom lenses in production that are FF capable so updating the FA Limiteds are likely a long way off although just changing the lens coatings and labeling would be fairly simple. With the 16-85, they now have no holes in their zoom lineup compared to Canikons APS-C only zoom lenses. If the rumors are true and an FF rolls out next year, then they will need a lot of new glass. If they never build an FF then those FA Limiteds may go by the wayside as there is too much redundancy with the DA Limiteds. I know this is something nobody wants to hear. The FA Limiteds still sell very well and since they are older designs, the profit margin is very high. Ricoh doesn't have to update them unless they build a FF body.

Paul the Sunman · 11-01-2014, 12:44 PM - **1 Like**

I have been very happy with the 18-135, despite the edge softness and CA at the longer focal lengths. So I'm in no rush to "upgrade". I use the 85-135 range quite a lot, and always carry the DA 15 if I need to go wider than 18, so the 18-135 is just about my perfect walkaround general purpose range.

My shorter term lens-buying priorities are projected more on two other lenses promised on the lens roadmap: the "DA Wide Zoom" and the "High-magnification super-telephoto zoom". Both will surely take us into new territory.

Nevertheless, let's give the DA 16-85 a chance to show its wares. Especially if the IQ is superior, it will be an attractive option for many. Surely a useful addition to the Pentax lineup.

starjedi · 11-01-2014, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by boriscleto

Upgrade to FF and the FA J 18-35 is the only Pentax lens you will be using at 18mm. Unless you want to go fisheye, or manual focus.

I am not worrying the current limited choice of ff compatible lenses for Pentax. Just a new 16-35 f4 can essentially fulfill needs of most people. And the price should be not significant higher than 16-85 we are discussing here.

---------- Post added 11-01-14 at 01:20 PM ----------

Originally posted by reeftool

They may well do that if they ever release a FF body but consider that they currently have no zoom lenses in production that are FF capable so updating the FA Limiteds are likely a long way off although just changing the lens coatings and labeling would be fairly simple. With the 16-85, they now have no holes in their zoom lineup compared to Canikons APS-C only zoom lenses. If the rumors are true and an FF rolls out next year, then they will need a lot of new glass. If they never build an FF then those FA Limiteds may go by the wayside as there is too much redundancy with the DA Limiteds. I know this is something nobody wants to hear. The FA Limiteds still sell very well and since they are older designs, the profit margin is very high. Ricoh doesn't have to update them unless they build a FF body.

Frankly speaking, I was disappointed by the news that this 16-85 is not FF lens. Despite that this anticipation is highly unrealistic, I thought it should be a ff lens given the fact so far pentax does not have ff zoom lens in prod as you mentioned.

I guess there still might have a tiny chance that it is a ff compatible as the diameter is larger than 18-135 which is a 7.5x lens. If so, it can be a strong signal that a ff is coming. Hehe

reeftool · 11-01-2014, 05:56 PM

Originally posted by starjedi

I am not worrying the current limited choice of ff compatible lenses for Pentax. Just a new 16-35 f4 can essentially fulfill needs of most people. And the price should be not significant higher than 16-85 we are discussing here.

---------- Post added 11-01-14 at 01:20 PM ----------

Frankly speaking, I was disappointed by the news that this 16-85 is not FF lens. Despite that this anticipation is highly unrealistic, I thought it should be a ff lens given the fact so far pentax does not have ff zoom lens in prod as you mentioned.

I guess there still might have a tiny chance that it is a ff compatible as the diameter is larger than 18-135 which is a 7.5x lens. If so, it can be a strong signal that a ff is coming. Hehe

I agree but this is already a very large lens and a FF version would be even bigger and heavier. Also, 16mm on FF is very wide and I think that might cause some issues on a FF zoom. I don't think anybody has made a 16-85 zoom to cover a FF circle. The 16 mm APS-C view is about equal to 24mm in FF and Nikon makes a 24-85. Thinking a little more about it, I'm not sure if it's even feasible.

simon6z · 11-01-2014, 07:01 PM

Originally posted by reeftool

I agree but this is already a very large lens and a FF version would be even bigger and heavier. Also, 16mm on FF is very wide and I think that might cause some issues on a FF zoom. I don't think anybody has made a 16-85 zoom to cover a FF circle. The 16 mm APS-C view is about equal to 24mm in FF and Nikon makes a 24-85. Thinking a little more about it, I'm not sure if it's even feasible.

well there are options for FF like the samyang 16mm f2.0

IchabodCrane · 11-01-2014, 08:24 PM - **1 Like**

I have the DA 18-135 and will consider the DA 16-85 once it's actually out there, likely as a replacement. In no way do I dislike my DA 18-135 but I don't use the long end all that much. As someone else mentioned, you can crop your way to a longer focal length if you want to, especially with the K-3. You can't crop your way to a wider angle.

One other point... the DA 18-135 has a fair amount of distortion at 18mm and digital correction results in a functional minimum focal length more like 19mm. If the new lens, being larger, has less distortion then the real wide angle comparison may be closer to 16 vs 19 mm.

starjedi · 11-01-2014, 08:32 PM

Originally posted by reeftool

I agree but this is already a very large lens and a FF version would be even bigger and heavier. Also, 16mm on FF is very wide and I think that might cause some issues on a FF zoom. I don't think anybody has made a 16-85 zoom to cover a FF circle. The 16 mm APS-C view is about equal to 24mm in FF and Nikon makes a 24-85. Thinking a little more about it, I'm not sure if it's even feasible.

Me too either...

GlennG · 11-01-2014, 08:41 PM

I also tend to align with Heie on this one, though I do not have the 18-135. I have the DA 17-70 and I wonder if I'll want to change. Like the range of the new lens, would really love the 16 wide and the 85 would be useful for me a few times a year. I would miss the constant f/4, though. I am looking forward to a full test.

starjedi · 11-01-2014, 08:57 PM

Originally posted by GlennG

I also tend to align with Heie on this one, though I do not have the 18-135. I have the DA 17-70 and I wonder if I'll want to change. Like the range of the new lens, would really love the 16 wide and the 85 would be useful for me a few times a year. I would miss the constant f/4, though. I am looking forward to a full test.

Ah. If you do not have 18-135, 16-85 can serve you well definitely :-) From what the lens' aspects I saw, it should be an excellent lens (close to pro grades).

Basie · 11-02-2014, 03:22 AM

I am a 18-135 owner and will definitely not consider changing it for 16-85. Miiiight add it if the IQ is really much better, but will rather go with a 15 and keep my 18-135. For me the long end of the 135 is very useful for the type of landscapes that I like and for the wide end go for the a prime as well

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
16-85 vs 18-135 size comparision [image]	pjalves	Pentax News and Rumors	31	09-20-2014 01:52 PM
Any news on the DA* 16-85 zoom?	LIJ	Photographic Industry and Professionals	38	05-05-2014 10:22 PM
Pentax DA 55-300mm for travel? Any alternatives to consider?	Crowsby	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	16	06-15-2012 02:06 PM
Will you consider slower lenses for your K5?	LesMizzell	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	18	11-07-2010 05:45 PM

11-01-2014, 10:57 AM - 1 Like	#31
AquaDome Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: New Carlisle, IN Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,475	Originally posted by starjedi 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 :-) Upgrade to FF and these Pentax lens choices won't be options anymore.

11-01-2014, 11:19 AM	#32
mgvh Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: MD Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,029	Read through this thread, but I'm with Heie on this. I used to have the DA 16-45, and I loved having it go as wide as 16mm. But, I apparently had a bad copy (probably decentered, and I didn't know enough at the time), and 45mm was really too short for the type of shooting I was doing. I ended up needing my DAL 55-300 a lot and switching lens a lot. The DA 18-135 has really been a great lens for me. WR and the range has been great, but I do miss that 16-17mm, and I wouldn't mind a bit more sharpness on the edges, especially at the wide end. Hence, I am interested in the 16-85, but I sure hope it has a bit better performance on the edges. As for the long end, on a recent trip where I took over 1100 pics using the 18-135 almost all the time but supplementing it with a Sigma 10-20 for uwa and the 55-300. 76% of my shots were in the 16-85mm range, 6% wider, and 18% longer. 17% were at 18mm, and I know that for many of those I would have used 16mm if I had it. Of the longer ones, 12% in the 86-135mm range, but some of those were shot using the 55-300. So, yes, I would miss the longer range on a 16-85, but I really like that 16-17mm possibility. I hope the IQ on the 16-85 makes it worthwhile to trade in my 18-135.

11-01-2014, 11:33 AM	#33
boriscleto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: North Syracuse, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,475	Originally posted by starjedi 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 :-) Upgrade to FF and the FA J 18-35 is the only Pentax lens you will be using at 18mm. Unless you want to go fisheye, or manual focus.

11-01-2014, 11:53 AM	#34
Conqueror Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: UK Posts: 440	The 16-85mm might be quite well complemented by the 100mm DFA WR

11-01-2014, 11:58 AM	#35
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,400	Originally posted by ramseybuckeye 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. I don't think anyone is trashing the lens. The question asked was, if you like the 18-135 how likely are you to buy it. Then reasons were given for why this seemed an unlikely choice to make - all of which seem pretty rational to me. I can see why the lens will appeal to many and I can see why it may even appeal to those who bought the 18-135 because they needed more than 18-55 but didn't really care about 86-135 all that much. When all is said and done we have a huge number of options in the wide to modest telephoto range which is a great thing. I for one don't see myself buying this but the lens may win me over in the future.

11-01-2014, 12:13 PM	#36
reeftool Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Upstate New York Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,553	Originally posted by starjedi 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... They may well do that if they ever release a FF body but consider that they currently have no zoom lenses in production that are FF capable so updating the FA Limiteds are likely a long way off although just changing the lens coatings and labeling would be fairly simple. With the 16-85, they now have no holes in their zoom lineup compared to Canikons APS-C only zoom lenses. If the rumors are true and an FF rolls out next year, then they will need a lot of new glass. If they never build an FF then those FA Limiteds may go by the wayside as there is too much redundancy with the DA Limiteds. I know this is something nobody wants to hear. The FA Limiteds still sell very well and since they are older designs, the profit margin is very high. Ricoh doesn't have to update them unless they build a FF body.

11-01-2014, 12:44 PM - 1 Like	#37
Paul the Sunman Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Melbourne Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,843	I have been very happy with the 18-135, despite the edge softness and CA at the longer focal lengths. So I'm in no rush to "upgrade". I use the 85-135 range quite a lot, and always carry the DA 15 if I need to go wider than 18, so the 18-135 is just about my perfect walkaround general purpose range. My shorter term lens-buying priorities are projected more on two other lenses promised on the lens roadmap: the "DA Wide Zoom" and the "High-magnification super-telephoto zoom". Both will surely take us into new territory. Nevertheless, let's give the DA 16-85 a chance to show its wares. Especially if the IQ is superior, it will be an attractive option for many. Surely a useful addition to the Pentax lineup.

11-01-2014, 01:00 PM	#38
starjedi Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Location: New Jersey Posts: 932 Original Poster	Originally posted by boriscleto Upgrade to FF and the FA J 18-35 is the only Pentax lens you will be using at 18mm. Unless you want to go fisheye, or manual focus. I am not worrying the current limited choice of ff compatible lenses for Pentax. Just a new 16-35 f4 can essentially fulfill needs of most people. And the price should be not significant higher than 16-85 we are discussing here. ---------- Post added 11-01-14 at 01:20 PM ---------- Originally posted by reeftool They may well do that if they ever release a FF body but consider that they currently have no zoom lenses in production that are FF capable so updating the FA Limiteds are likely a long way off although just changing the lens coatings and labeling would be fairly simple. With the 16-85, they now have no holes in their zoom lineup compared to Canikons APS-C only zoom lenses. If the rumors are true and an FF rolls out next year, then they will need a lot of new glass. If they never build an FF then those FA Limiteds may go by the wayside as there is too much redundancy with the DA Limiteds. I know this is something nobody wants to hear. The FA Limiteds still sell very well and since they are older designs, the profit margin is very high. Ricoh doesn't have to update them unless they build a FF body. Frankly speaking, I was disappointed by the news that this 16-85 is not FF lens. Despite that this anticipation is highly unrealistic, I thought it should be a ff lens given the fact so far pentax does not have ff zoom lens in prod as you mentioned. I guess there still might have a tiny chance that it is a ff compatible as the diameter is larger than 18-135 which is a 7.5x lens. If so, it can be a strong signal that a ff is coming. Hehe

11-01-2014, 05:56 PM	#39
reeftool Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Upstate New York Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,553	Originally posted by starjedi I am not worrying the current limited choice of ff compatible lenses for Pentax. Just a new 16-35 f4 can essentially fulfill needs of most people. And the price should be not significant higher than 16-85 we are discussing here. ---------- Post added 11-01-14 at 01:20 PM ---------- Frankly speaking, I was disappointed by the news that this 16-85 is not FF lens. Despite that this anticipation is highly unrealistic, I thought it should be a ff lens given the fact so far pentax does not have ff zoom lens in prod as you mentioned. I guess there still might have a tiny chance that it is a ff compatible as the diameter is larger than 18-135 which is a 7.5x lens. If so, it can be a strong signal that a ff is coming. Hehe I agree but this is already a very large lens and a FF version would be even bigger and heavier. Also, 16mm on FF is very wide and I think that might cause some issues on a FF zoom. I don't think anybody has made a 16-85 zoom to cover a FF circle. The 16 mm APS-C view is about equal to 24mm in FF and Nikon makes a 24-85. Thinking a little more about it, I'm not sure if it's even feasible.

11-01-2014, 07:01 PM	#40
simon6z Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2014 Posts: 84	Originally posted by reeftool I agree but this is already a very large lens and a FF version would be even bigger and heavier. Also, 16mm on FF is very wide and I think that might cause some issues on a FF zoom. I don't think anybody has made a 16-85 zoom to cover a FF circle. The 16 mm APS-C view is about equal to 24mm in FF and Nikon makes a 24-85. Thinking a little more about it, I'm not sure if it's even feasible. well there are options for FF like the samyang 16mm f2.0

11-01-2014, 08:24 PM - 1 Like	#41
IchabodCrane Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,728	I have the DA 18-135 and will consider the DA 16-85 once it's actually out there, likely as a replacement. In no way do I dislike my DA 18-135 but I don't use the long end all that much. As someone else mentioned, you can crop your way to a longer focal length if you want to, especially with the K-3. You can't crop your way to a wider angle. One other point... the DA 18-135 has a fair amount of distortion at 18mm and digital correction results in a functional minimum focal length more like 19mm. If the new lens, being larger, has less distortion then the real wide angle comparison may be closer to 16 vs 19 mm.

11-01-2014, 08:32 PM	#42
starjedi Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Location: New Jersey Posts: 932 Original Poster	Originally posted by reeftool I agree but this is already a very large lens and a FF version would be even bigger and heavier. Also, 16mm on FF is very wide and I think that might cause some issues on a FF zoom. I don't think anybody has made a 16-85 zoom to cover a FF circle. The 16 mm APS-C view is about equal to 24mm in FF and Nikon makes a 24-85. Thinking a little more about it, I'm not sure if it's even feasible. Me too either...

11-01-2014, 08:41 PM	#43
GlennG Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 824	I also tend to align with Heie on this one, though I do not have the 18-135. I have the DA 17-70 and I wonder if I'll want to change. Like the range of the new lens, would really love the 16 wide and the 85 would be useful for me a few times a year. I would miss the constant f/4, though. I am looking forward to a full test.

11-01-2014, 08:57 PM	#44
starjedi Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Location: New Jersey Posts: 932 Original Poster	Originally posted by GlennG I also tend to align with Heie on this one, though I do not have the 18-135. I have the DA 17-70 and I wonder if I'll want to change. Like the range of the new lens, would really love the 16 wide and the 85 would be useful for me a few times a year. I would miss the constant f/4, though. I am looking forward to a full test. Ah. If you do not have 18-135, 16-85 can serve you well definitely :-) From what the lens' aspects I saw, it should be an excellent lens (close to pro grades).

11-02-2014, 03:22 AM	#45
Basie Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Windhoek, Namibia Photos: Gallery Posts: 989	I am a 18-135 owner and will definitely not consider changing it for 16-85. Miiiight add it if the IQ is really much better, but will rather go with a 15 and keep my 18-135. For me the long end of the 135 is very useful for the type of landscapes that I like and for the wide end go for the a prime as well