[starjedi]

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.

[UncleVanya]

I'm struggling to understand the appeal also. It is wider, 83 degrees vs. 76 diagonally, which may appeal to quite a few people. The lens may also be less soft in the corners, but that isn't much of an issue on the 18-135 until you are above 85mm. I'm stumped.

[Heie]

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.

I certainly am. Hopefully Adam lets me test one for you guys

Reasons for buying:

1) 16-85 is more versatile than 18-135. That 2mm on the wide end trumps 50mm on the long end, especially for landscape/travel and when you can crop from a 24mpx image using the K-3
2) 16-85 is as slow, but because of the extra heft and glass, it's almost guaranteed to be sharper, less CA, distortion, etc.
3) APS-C is all some of us need or want, to include professionally.
4) The DA* 16-50 is too cheap at $600, but hey - we did that to ourselves because Pentax needs to be the Budget Brand even among its pro line of stuff, but let's also conveniently forget that the DA 18-135 was released at even more expensive than the 16-85's MSRP.
5) The 16-85 can certainly compete with the DA 15 limited - 1mm longer and 1/2 stop faster. New HD coating may mean excellent flare reduction too. Size certainly is exclusively won by the DA 15. For the others....no zoom can compete with those except the 18-35 against just the 31 LTD (and even then it's over double the size and weight of the 31), and that's a unicorn lens that theoretically shouldn't exist (but we're glad Sigma made it) - so in other words, are you crazy?

Sure I wanted this to be a pro-grade F2.8-4 just like everyone, but that would have been MAAASSSSIIIVVVEEE and over 1500, and then people would bitch about Pentax once again trying to fleece us dry and to hell with Pentax.

And oh, by the way, Canon's version is $799 and the Nikon version is $620. Oh, and both are over 5 years old, weigh as much or more, and neither are weather sealed.

The same nonsense happened at the release of the DA 560 and continues now with that lens.

This is getting frustrating how we never fail to expect everything for nothing.

-Heie

[Aristophanes]

I agree with Heie.

It has a lot of appeal. It's a trade-off between wide vs. tele compared to the 18-135.

It's good to have choice and Pentax needs zooms to compel sales.

I think the price will fall.

[starjedi]

I certainly am. Hopefully Adam lets me test one for you guys

Reasons for buying:

1) 16-85 is more versatile than 18-135. That 2mm on the wide end trumps 50mm on the long end, especially for landscape and when you can crop from a 24mpx image using the K-3
2) 16-85 is as slow, but because of the extra heft and glass, it's almost guaranteed to be sharper, less CA, distortion, etc.
3) APS-C is all some of us need or want, to include professionally.
4) The DA* 16-50 is too cheap at $600, but hey - we did that to ourselves because Pentax needs to be the Budget Brand even among its pro line of stuff, but let's also conveniently forget that the DA 18-135 was released at even more expensive than the 16-85's MSRP.
5) The 16-85 can certainly compete with the DA 15 limited - 1mm longer and 1/2 stop faster. New HD coating may mean excellent flare reduction too. Size certainly is exclusively won by the DA 15. For the others....no zoom can compete with those except the 18-35 against just the 31 LTD (and even then it's over double the size and weight of the 31), and that's a unicorn lens that theoretically shouldn't exist (but we're glad Sigma made it) - so in other words, are you crazy?

Sure I wanted this to be a pro-grade F2.8-4 just like everyone, but that would have been MAAASSSSIIIVVVEEE and over 1500, and then people would bitch about Pentax once again trying to fleece us dry and to hell with Pentax.

This is getting frustrating how we never fail to expect everything for nothing, and oh, by the way, Canon's version is $799 and the Nikon version is $620. Oh, and both are over 5 years old.

-Heie

I see. I am always admiring your works and like your candid posts. Sounds you have good reasons. My core argument is that 16-85mm is not an upgrade of 18-135mm but a replacement :-)

[Kozlok]

Heie, I'm going to disagree with point one. 16mm is 13% wider than 18, but 135 is almost 60% more than 85.

I do hope the 16-85 is better than the 18-135, but the 18-135 is quite fine for travelling snapshot sort of work. I pop my 15 in the bag for when I need flare resistance, wider FL or close up focusing.

[JinDesu]

Comparing the MSRP of the 16-85 vs used prices of the 16-50 is unfair. For one, the 16-85 will drop by 100-200 in a few months, settling probably around $400 like the 18-135. And the MSRP of the 16-50 is $900-1300 depending on the situation.

[cxdoo]

I might get this lens as a single walkaround WR zoom, provided it's noticeably better than 18-55 and 18-135 in IQ. Other than that, I'm fine with Tamrons.

[UncleVanya]

1) 16-85 is more versatile than 18-135. That 2mm on the wide end trumps 50mm on the long end, especially for landscape/travel and when you can crop from a 24mpx image using the K-3.

This is getting frustrating how we never fail to expect everything for nothing.

-Heie

The original question I think was focused on those who own the 18-135, and if this would be compelling to those users. For me I think not, I'm more likely to get a wide prime or a wide zoom to complement my existing lenses.

[reeftool]

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.

[AquaDome]

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.

[normhead]

My walks almost always have the possibility of encountering wildlife. The 135 part is just as important as the wide end. And even though I carry the Sigma 8-16, it's not very often I change lenses for wide angle, and when I do, I have often lots of time, and I use 8-10-12-14 quite a bit, so I'd still be doing that even if I owned that lens. Those wide angle vistas rarely have features that require an instantaneous response. Wildlife sometimes requires an instantaneous response.

Some things we can't know until we get the lens, but I also treasure the 18-135s ability to be pseudo macro. Once someone gets their hands on the 16-85, we'll have to see how it stacks up.

Now if I was one of those guys always going on about whoever's 17-70, I'd look at this and think, look, more both ends.
But I really don't think it will impact the 18-135. That would imply we really didn't want 135 when we bought the 18-135, or have realized we don't use it. As long as a high proportion of my 18-135 images are shot at 135, I won't be trading it in for the 16-85. And I wouldn't recommend anyone else do that either, unless they've thoroughly examined their exif and found they just don't use 85-135 enough to justify giving up 16-18 for it.

[PabloFP]

16 vs 18 is a big difference when shooting landscapes, so i find this lens as an interesting option to the 18-135. But i think having both is a waste of money

[normhead]

Sheeeesh..... get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?

[bass3587]

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.