[domusofsail]

I've recently decided to switch from 18-135 to 16-85, mainly because of greater wide angle and higher IQ, despite the lower tele reach and the higher cost.
I was reading good reviews about 16-85, which made me decide for it.
The cost was not a big issue for me because I sold the 18-135 and 3 manual lenses I was not using, and so I didn't add much money for the 16-85.

When I received the 16-85, before selling 18-135, I did some comparison.

The verdict was that the 16-85 is surely superior, but not as much as I expected.
In the center frame the sharpness is almost the same, at the borders the sharpness of the 16-85 wins.

I did notice some CA, not as much as the 18-135, but noticeable. In many reviews I read of no CA at all, I can't confirm. Mybe my 16-85 copy isn't that perfect.

16-85 color rendering is more neutral and less warm than 18-135.

Again, I've noticed a remarkable difference in exposure: having the same scene, same focal length, same aperture and same shutter speed, the image produced by 16-85 is almost 1/2 stop overexposed than the one taken with the 18-135 (i.e. the histograms are shifted by 1/2 EV). I don't know why, maybe someone could explain the reason...

These are my impressions , I hope could help someone, and please should someone have made similar comparison, let me know if comfirm or not.

[Giklab]

Thanks for your thoughts. They seem to reinforce the majority of the reviews, once you filter out the excitement and bias in them.
Maybe the reviewers are using the CA correction option on the camera? I would assume the lens exhibits some, probably more so at the wide angle. The exposure difference is probably just down to the aperture coding.

[domusofsail]

They seem to reinforce the majority of the reviews, once you filter out the excitement and bias in them

Ok, I was about to think that my copy was flawed

What do you mean with "aperture coding"?
Thank you

[bdery]

In the center frame the sharpness is almost the same,

Yes, the 18-135 is pretty good in the center.

at the borders the sharpness of the 16-85 wins

True, and expected. The 18-135 is not optimal in the corners, the 16-85 is more in line with what you'd expect from a DA limited, a very even performance across the fra,e. It's a good thing for a lens that might serve for landscape a lot (because of the wide angle).

I did notice some CA, not as much as the 18-135, but noticeable. In many reviews I read of no CA at all, I can't confirm. Mybe my 16-85 copy isn't that perfect.

Mine doesn't show much CA. I haven't noticed it anywhere so far.

Again, I've noticed a remarkable difference in exposure: having the same scene, same focal length, same aperture and same shutter speed, the image produced by 16-85 is almost 1/2 stop overexposed than the one taken with the 18-135 (i.e. the histograms are shifted by 1/2 EV). I don't know why, maybe someone could explain the reason...

That's trange, but in line with other reports. I haven't done much side-by-side comparisons with the 16-85, but exposure seems about right most of the time.

[domusofsail]

Yes, the 18-135 is pretty good in the center.



True, and expected. The 18-135 is not optimal in the corners, the 16-85 is more in line with what you'd expect from a DA limited, a very even performance across the fra,e. It's a good thing for a lens that might serve for landscape a lot (because of the wide angle).



Mine doesn't show much CA. I haven't noticed it anywhere so far.



That's trange, but in line with other reports. I haven't done much side-by-side comparisons with the 16-85, but exposure seems about right most of the time.

@bdery Thank you for your comments

Mine doesn't show much CA

Maybe we must agree on what we mean by CA and how much we consider tolerable. Maybe I pretend too much from my lenses, I'm not so expert.
I saw some CA in your sample pictures too, not so much indeed.
Could you please examine this picture of mine: Idroscalo - ado
I consider the fringing around the tree trunk too much. I know it is a very extreme contrast condition, but am I wrong to expect a better lens behaviour?

[normhead]

The 18-135 is a zoom. Statements like the 18-135 is not optimal at the corners... depends on the focal length. At 24mm the 18-135 is actually excellent at the corners and I use it like a prime at that focal length. I'm not sure how you get through a whole analysis of the two lenses without referring to things like that. 16-18 the 16-85 is better. I'm assuming 50-85 the 16-85 is better. 85 to 135, the 18-135 is better. 20-50 I'm assuming from whats been written is pretty much a saw off, but nobody has addressed it, head on. When I look at them, I see the 16-85 as an excellent companion for my 60-260, where the 16-18mm FL is worth more to me than the 85-135. I'm still not seeing how 85 is enough reach for a single walk around lens. They seem to me to be totally different lenses.

The 16-85 is a kit, and in fact that's what Pentax markets it as, a step up from kit. The 18-135 is an improved IQ version of the 18-200, or 18-250 super zooms. It blows away the optics in those zooms with the compromise being less reach. I don't see the 16-85 filling the same gap. From my perspective, even if I buy the 16-85 as part of a two lens kit with the 60-250, I still need the 18-135 for days I want to go out with one lens.

[Dlanor Sekao]

My Neighbor and Photography friend got a K-S2 and a 16-85 so I got to try it out for a week. We swapped my 18-135WR for his 16-85.
Not taking much pixel peeping , CA , corners , or any other factors other than simply viewing images on our laptop computers here is our thoughts. A week later I wanted my 18-135 back and he didn't want to give it to me and liked it better !
Long story short .... I like the slightly richer colors of my 18-135 and couldnt find any real reason to upgrade for his 16-85 at all. He now has bought a 18-135 for his K5II as a second travel lens for his wife to use.
I noticed no real world advantage to the 16-85 that I couldn't get with the 18-135 and vice versa short of a 2mm advantage of the 16-85 "VS" extended reach of the 18-135. Just my thoughts from real world use of what we call a "travel lens"........ I would say its about a draw ! Either is a very good lens , and regardless what you would choose between the two will not disappoint at all.

[rawr]

Again, I've noticed a remarkable difference in exposure:

Out of curiosity, which camera you are using? And which exposure mode and AWB setting do you normally use?

It may also be worth making sure you are running the latest camera firmware. New firmware often incorporates lens information about recently released lenses that the camera may use for it's aperture, program line, MTF, distortion, CA, vignetting etc calculations, which could directly impact exposure results.

[bdery]

Could you please examine this picture of mine: Idroscalo - ado
I consider the fringing around the tree trunk too much. I know it is a very extreme contrast condition, but am I wrong to expect a better lens behaviour?

I saw it when looking at 100%. To me it's acceptable, because even then it's very thin (a little over a pixel) and it's not garish purple fringing, but a dark red. for me it's perfectly acceptable.

depends on the focal length. At 24mm the 18-135 is actually excellent at the corners and I use it like a prime at that focal length. I'm not sure how you get through a whole analysis of the two lenses without referring to things like that.

Of course even the worst zoom is optimized at one specific focal length. Of course there are ranges where a zoom performs better or worse. It's still possible to draw general conclusions about the behaviours of zooms.

When I look at them, I see the 16-85 as an excellent companion for my 60-260

To me, it's exactly that.

[domusofsail]

16-18 the 16-85 is better. ... . 85 to 135, the 18-135 is better

LOL

At 24mm the 18-135 is actually excellent at the corners and I use it like a prime at that focal length. I'm not sure how you get through a whole analysis of the two lenses without referring to things like that

Maybe your copy is phenomenal. My tests has been taken at 18, 35, 50 and 85mm, at different apertures. At all those focal lenghts the 16-85 is clearly sharper in the corners. That said, as I stated before, I don't rate 16-85 a step forward than 18-135, just a slight improvement.

---------- Post added 04-30-15 at 12:36 PM ----------

Not taking much pixel peeping , CA , corners , or any other factors other than simply viewing images on our laptop computers here is our thoughts. A week later I wanted my 18-135 back and he didn't want to give it to me and liked it better !

I agree, real world pictures don't take so much advantage of the improved quality of the 16-85, apart from the 2mm wider.

which camera you are using? And which exposure mode and AWB setting do you normally use?

K-5, the firmware is updated at the latest version 1.16.
White balance was fixed to, say, daylight. All tests taken in manual mode, setting aperture and shutter speed manually the same values.

I saw it when looking at 100%. To me it's acceptable, because even then it's very thin (a little over a pixel) and it's not garish purple fringing, but a dark red. for me it's perfectly acceptable.

Great to hear that it is acceptable for you, maybe I'm demanding too much from this lens. Moreover it is easily removable in PP.


Thanks all for replying!

[mgvh]

Thanks to domusofsail and dlanor for the reports. I have the 18-135, and like normhead, I very much enjoy it.
- My 18-135 tends to underexpose regularly by about 1/3 or so
- I tend to shoot wide a lot, and for a lot of my pics, I would like my edge sharpness, so that's why the 16-85 is especially appealing to me. In practice, is anyone finding the benefit of the extra 2mm and extra edge quality at the wide end of the 16-85 to offset the lack of 86-135mm?

[RGlasel]

is anyone finding the benefit of the extra 2mm and extra edge quality at the wide end of the 16-85 to offset the lack of 86-135mm?

Since you already have the 18-135, why not add the DA 15 Limited instead of the 16-85? Prices are very similar. My wish list is on hold due to a short-term disability issue, otherwise that was the route I was going to go. I also end up taking a lot of pictures at 18mm and not only would I like to get a little wider, but I have always been amazed at how well the DA 15 captures light. WR would be nice, but I try to pay more attention to the composition of my widest photos and the landscape isn't going to run away while I arrange a cover for the camera and lens.

Like Norm has said before, the 16-85 is a premium kit lens with a focal length range that Canon and Nikon users might be familiar with. The best comparison is against the Sigma 17-70 Contemporary zoom, which is a little faster at the expense of 15mm of reach at the long end, isn't WR and is significantly less money. Based on in depth reviews on this site, the differences in IQ between the 17-70, 16-85 and 18-135 can only be observed at the nit-picking level. Any of these three zooms are good examples of modern mid-range lenses and the choice should come down to which lens gives you the most utility for your money.

[normhead]

Maybe your copy is phenomenal. My tests has been taken at 18, 35, 50 and 85mm, at different apertures. At all those focal lenghts the 16-85 is clearly sharper in the corners. That said, as I stated before, I don't rate 16-85 a step forward than 18-135, just a slight improvement.

It's not just me, it's the Photozone test, and they had a bad copy of the lens. Those are actually pretty amazing numbers for a kit lens. It's unfortunate Photozone hasn't done any testing on Pentax product recently. I'd love to see some tests that would give you a head to head. Though you still have to worry about sample variation etc. I don't think mine is phenomenal. Go to the DA 18-135 image club.. there are lot's of amazing images, and my copy I'd say is pretty average.

[mgvh]

Since you already have the 18-135, why not add the DA 15 Limited instead of the 16-85? Prices are very similar. My wish list is on hold due to a short-term disability issue, otherwise that was the route I was going to go. I also end up taking a lot of pictures at 18mm and not only would I like to get a little wider, but I have always been amazed at how well the DA 15 captures light. WR would be nice, but I try to pay more attention to the composition of my widest photos and the landscape isn't going to run away while I arrange a cover for the camera and lens.

Like Norm has said before, the 16-85 is a premium kit lens with a focal length range that Canon and Nikon users might be familiar with. The best comparison is against the Sigma 17-70 Contemporary zoom, which is a little faster at the expense of 15mm of reach at the long end, isn't WR and is significantly less money. Based on in depth reviews on this site, the differences in IQ between the 17-70, 16-85 and 18-135 can only be observed at the nit-picking level. Any of these three zooms are good examples of modern mid-range lenses and the choice should come down to which lens gives you the most utility for your money.

Thanks. I started w/ the 18-55 kit on a K-x and was not particularly impressed. Went next with the 16-45. Maybe it was the lens and maybe me, but I never could get good results at the wide end and 45 was just too short for an all-around lens. Then went w/ a Tamron 24-135. Very nice lens (and will be wonderful on full frame), but I really needed more at the wide end. So then I finally got the 18-135. As you suggest, the DA 15 has been on my list, but they have been so expensive. So, my solution was the Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6. That works, but it's a little big, and if I want to use just one all-around lens, I'm still keeping my eye on the 16-85.

[arv]

It's unfortunate Photozone hasn't done any testing on Pentax product recently. I'd love to see some tests that would give you a head to head.

Klaus promised to test 16 - 85mm and DFA 50mm f2.8 on K-5 II (and maybe 18 - 50 and DA 50mm), so we will see new tests soon.


A.