[normhead]

Much improved over the 18-135 (miles ahead from reviews)

Sigh... better in some areas, worse in some areas, about the same in most areas. Better control of CA in the 16-85, but a lot more money.

The only question for me with the 16-85 is will I sell my Sigma 8-16 and Pentax 10-17 if I buy it. If I'm still going to buy a lens to cover 15 ltd. territory then I may as well stay put. How many 16mm lenses does a guy need?

I don't think I'd brush off the 18-135mm just because of the extra reach.. what do you think? Samples anyone?

Some one who owns both lenses needs to find an acceptable target, in front of a decent landscape with their pet ( or child) playing in the frame, set up a tripod and use both lenses from the same position to give us some idea of what the numbers, some of which favour the 18-135, mean.

Personally, I'm not prepared to entertain the notion that people who own either Sigma or Pentax 17-70, the 18-135 or 16-85 are going to be able to tell the difference. If I were you I'd choose one of these lenses based on price, and then get the 21 ltd that's listed on the forum for $250.

---

Last edited by normhead; 06-08-2015 at 06:12 PM.

[Wild Mark]

Apparently the wide open performance is very good. Check out the reviews. It would seem you won't lose too much for the perceived sacrifice.

[Wild Mark]

The option just got cheaper .....

Pentax HD DA 16-85mm F3.5-5.6 ED DC WR Lens 21387

[normhead]

That didn't take long... they are getting closer to a reasonable price..... maybe a marketing effort by Pentax to find out what people will pay for it. Although, I still can't see many people with an 18-135 going for it, unless they shoot all landscape.

[FoTom]

Sigh... better in some areas, worse in some areas, about the same in most areas. Better control of CA in the 16-85, but a lot more money.

The only question for me with the 16-85 is will I sell my Sigma 8-16 and Pentax 10-17 if I buy it. If I'm still going to buy a lens to cover 15 ltd. territory then I may as well stay put. How many 16mm lenses does a guy need?

Some one who owns both lenses needs to find an acceptable target, in front of a decent landscape with their pet ( or child) playing in the frame, set up a tripod and use both lenses from the same position to give us some idea of what the numbers, some of which favour the 18-135, mean.

Personally, I'm not prepared to entertain the notion that people who own either Sigma or Pentax 17-70, the 18-135 or 16-85 are going to be able to tell the difference. If I were you I'd choose one of these lenses based on price, and then get the 21 ltd that's listed on the forum for $250.

That didn't take long... they are getting closer to a reasonable price..... maybe a marketing effort by Pentax to find out what people will pay for it. Although, I still can't see many people with an 18-135 going for it, unless they shoot all landscape.

Well, I missed the chance to get either of those lenses at the moment since I bought my sister a graduation present, so on the bright side that means I have some more time to think haha. I'd go for the 16-85 only because of the WR.. constant 2.8 is constant 2.8 in the Sigma. In my opinion, the 18-135 Is to have a single lens with all focal lengths and WR [you wouldn't change a lens in the middle of rain, would you?].

I can't get the 15 Limited before getting a zoom workhorse =[ So to me, the question is how do both lenses fare against each other, and I mean the Sigma vs the Pentax 16-85mm, and is the constant f2.8 significant or not?

Apparently the wide open performance is very good. Check out the reviews. It would seem you won't lose too much for the perceived sacrifice.

I already checked out the reviews and turns out you're right. Its strengths are the UWA view at 16mm and the good sharpness across the range, and one reviewer said exactly what I am afraid about, that when shooting in low light the ISO will have to go up. Still, if all goes well, I'm planning on using this lens with my K-01 which handles noise decently, and when I'm able to, my upcoming K-5 IIs or even a K-3, so I could worry a bit less about the noise.

In conclusion, I think the 16-85mm wins over the 18-135mm. With the 18-135mm out of the game, it's going against the 17-70 from Sigma. Even at a discount, it's almost $200 more expensive. That only means more time to save up, but what I'm more concerned about is, will it be worth it? Would I miss the constant f2.8? Maybe not if I get the 55mm 1.4, to cover normal-short tele territory with fast bokehliciousness for portraits, since my current 85mm 1.4 feels a bit long, and to be honest, manual focusing on a razor-thin DOF on moving subjects *is* kinda hard haha.