[normhead]

Doesn't that make you a 18-135 zealot?

To each his own. You want reach. When I use my Sigma 17-70 I want aperture (and close focusing, it being v1). When I use my 16-85 I want wide and WR (and silent AF, compared to the Sigma).

Ask anyone on the forum if I'm an 18-135 zealot, i doubt you can find 10 who wouldn't say yes.

SO, ya, guilty as charged.

And proud of it.

Although in all fairness. DA 18-135 plus 21 ltd, 40 XS, FA 50 1.7, Sigma 70 macro , Sigma 8-16 and DA*60-250 zealot. Really looking at one lens by itself can be quite misleading. You might think I was missing something. Well maybe a 31 ltd, but you're not going to convince me a 16-85 will replace a 31 ltd.

---

Last edited by normhead; 05-27-2015 at 11:21 AM.

[Rondec]

I think it is pretty clear that those who have the 18-135 (and have good copies) won't be particularly interested in this lens. I was never particularly interested in the 18-135, because I shoot a lot of landscape and having sharp borders is pretty handy (as is having 16mm). Honestly, there aren't too many times where I would shoot at 85mm where having the ability to go to 135mm would make that much difference either.

[bdery]

Although in all fairness. DA 18-135 plus 21 ltd, 40 XS, FA 50 1.7, Sigma 70 macro , Sigma 8-16 and DA*60-250 zealot. Really looking at one lens by itself can be quite misleading.

I agree. I'm trying not to be a zealot of anything, not even Pentax.

you're not going to convince me a 16-85 will replace a 31 ltd.

Not trying to. For me a 16-85 is more interesting than a 18-135, replaces a 18-55 WR and to some extend the Sigma 17-70.

[NoobOnTour]

I see the points of you both. I'am however not sure which lens to buy ;-)
(even with all the interesting points of view I read)

[GlennG]

Although the on-paper specification of this lens may not set the world on fire with excitement, this lens delivers excellent levels of sharpness, handles well, focuses reasonably quickly and is reasonably priced. As a result, it should win over many fans amongst Pentax camera users.

While I don't have this lens, most ,early pro and user reviews seem to concur that it is quite a good performer, and for many Pentax users it may be an ideal choice. It might be for me; however I have both the DA 17-70 and 16-50, both with replaced, updated SDM's, and I want to maximize my learnings from them before leaping to something else. Both my existing lenses seem very good - some nuances, to be sure - but very good nonetheless. I wonder if this type of lens is an "easy" lens to make and get mostly right? The 15/16-8X variants for Canon, Nikon, and Sony are all very well regarded, too. I'm not really crazy about the variable aperture, as I've really enjoyed he constant aperture of the 17-70, and the 16-50. I also have the 18-55 II, and while good for what it is, it is the variable aperture aspect that I do not like the most.

[normhead]

I see the points of you both. I'am however not sure which lens to buy ;-)
(even with all the interesting points of view I read)

That's why there is LBA. Both lenses do something the other doesn't do....you can buy one and live without it, but sooner or later you think maybe you should have bought the other thing.

But the 18-135, 16-85 and 17-70s are all incarnations of one type of lens. You pick the one that suits you best and you make up for what you are missing with other lenses.

If you want fast.. to my mind, DA 35 2.4 , 40 XS 2.8, DA 50 1.8, my philosophy has been cover your whole focal length with zooms, cover your most used focal lengths with primes. So Sigma, 8-16, Pentax 18-135- Pentax 60-250, But, I could swap in either 17-70 or the 16-85 without a second's thought, because they all do the same thing for me. For me overlapping the 18-135 with the 60-250 saves me a lot of lens changes, and in low light, I'm going to use primes. But that's my plan.


There's a lot of different way you can mix and match. MY studio teacher used to say "Find the lens you love and buy the camera that goes with it." As long as I have my 60-250, I have the lens I love. Everything else is the supporting cast. You have to at some point, figure out what that lens is.

Once you know what your biggie is, it's easy to figure out what you need for a supporting cast. Unfortunately, a lot of us have bought 10 lenses before we find the one that is us.

[drypenn]

Unfortunately, a lot of us have bought 10 lenses before we find the one that it us.

To borrow your words: "That's why there is LBA!"

[GeneV]

I don't see this lens as a real replacement for the kit lens the way I used the kit lens--as a compact, grab and go for a walk or a trip. My 17-70 is not, either. The difference is size. This is where the 18-135 shines and lets me leave the kit lens out of my travel kit.

I still may replace the 17-70 with the new lens for the high quality one lens shoot because of the AF issues with the 17-70, but with a good, reliable copy of the 16-50 in the stable I'm not sure.

[formercanuck]

Only a slightly backhanded compliment here...

Some may argue that the death bells are already ringing for Pentax but the new Pentax HD DA 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 ED DC WR actually shows that the company is still up and kicking

[filoxophy]

Only a slightly backhanded compliment here...

Wow, just slightly. Five years behind the times, anyone?

[GeneV]

Yeah I caught that, too.

[jimr-pdx]

Oops, I meant that at 24 the mm the 18-135 is a better lens, everywhere else the 16-85 is better. Except from 85 to 135. And there in lies the problem. I use the 18-135 as the high end super zoom with much better IQ than your typical 18-200, 18-250 type lenses. It's good enough IQ, until I take it off for a prime. I'm guessing with the 16-85 I'm still going to take it off for a prime.

Wish I'd received a copy like that
I'm now happy above 50mm so either primes or a 17-50ish will supplement the 50-135 going forward.

[Class A]

I use the 18-135 as the high end super zoom with much better IQ than your typical 18-200, 18-250 type lenses.

The 18-135 is not a "high end super zoom“.

It has terrible off-centre performance starting from 85mm upwards and hence does not really provide an extended range compared to the 16-85 for serious shooting.

Where did you get the idea from that the 18-135 is better than 18-250 super zooms in the comparable range? You cannot compare absolute MTF figures from Photozone obtained with different cameras. What the MTF figures do tell you, however, is that the 18-250 superzooms maintain much better off-centre performance when stopped down at 135mm.

The best features of the 18-135 are its size and weather-sealing. It performs well from 18-85 but not beyond, so let's not talk it up to "high end super zoom“ status.

[GeneV]

What would be a "high end super zoom?"

[FantasticMrFox]

What would be a "high end super zoom?"

Fast, weather sealed, very good image quality across the range, fast and precise AF etc. Something like a HD DA 16-140 f/2.8 WR?