Anyone from from the 18-135 to the 16-85?

**boriscleto** · 11-27-2015, 11:01 AM

Originally posted by normhead

There's some pretty crass consumerism going on here. Comparing an expensive new lens with a popular older much cheaper lens. I'm sure my DA*60-250 is much better than a 55-300, the difference being, I normally wouldn't mention the two of them in the same sentence. The 18-135 and 16-85 don't belong in the same sentence either.

Yeah. The 18-135 should only be compared to the 18-55.

Unfortunately I won't be able to compare the 16-85 with the 18-55. I sold the 18-55 so that I can buy the 16-85. Maybe I can do a comparison with the DA L that my dad still has.

normhead · 11-27-2015, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by boriscleto

Yeah. The 18-135 should only be compared to the 18-55.

Unfortunately I won't be able to compare the 16-85 with the 18-55. I sold the 18-55 so that I can buy the 16-85. Maybe I can do a comparison with the DA L that my dad still has.

The difference being, nowhere does a DA*60-250 fall behind a DA 55-300,

From 18-50 there were places, like 24 mm, where the 18-135 is better, and many other places where it's a saw off. And that's on the test charts. Convince me there's a real world difference.

here is the reality
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/302815-35mm-find-prime.html

There is absolutely no reason that included in a test like this one, people will favour the 16-85 over any other lens. You need to make your decisions based on price, suitability of focal lengths for you needs, and your aperture requirements. One of the most popular lenses in this test )based on the web sized image) is very poorly regarded by the "experts" yet highly regarded in a blind test, and cost me 60 bucks.

People often don't know what they think they know. Others know what's coming, like the 400 who clicked on the test but never offered an opinion. It doesn't take long to dispel these notions of what a "substantial" difference really is.

timb64 · 11-27-2015, 11:15 AM

Originally posted by normhead

The difference being, nowhere does a DA*60-250 fall behind a DA 55-300,

From 18-50 there were places, like 24 mm, where the 18-135 is better, and many other places where it's a saw off. And that's on the test charts. Convince me there's a real world difference.

Bless,the sound of straws being clutched at!!

normhead · 11-27-2015, 11:22 AM

Originally posted by timb64

Bless,the sound of straws being clutched at!!

Keep trying... I'm not biting.

timb64 · 11-27-2015, 11:30 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by normhead

Keep trying... I'm not biting.

A significant proportion of your contribution to this thread say otherwise

normhead · 11-27-2015, 11:33 AM

You mean because my posts are longer than 11 words?

You're either very efficient with words, or you aren't saying anything....

If you don't like the message, attack the messenger. Especially if you have nothing.

cali92rs · 11-27-2015, 11:36 AM - **1 Like**

Here is my 2 cents.
I have had the the 16-85 and the 18-135mm. In real life shooting, the difference in IQ is pretty negligible. The question to be asked is 16mm more important than 86-135mm (in my style, i almost never use the 86-135 but use the 16mm all the time. )
Regarding the 16-50, i thought the IQ got a bad wrap, i liked it alot and the f2.8 came in handy a lot. But the SDM failed and was a big turn off (i eventually converted it to screw drive but i had to get a 100D to do it).

**Rondec** · 11-27-2015, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by normhead

The difference being, nowhere does a DA*60-250 fall behind a DA 55-300,

From 18-50 there were places, like 24 mm, where the 18-135 is better, and many other places where it's a saw off. And that's on the test charts. Convince me there's a real world difference.

here is the reality
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/302815-35mm-find-prime.html

There is absolutely no reason that included in a test like this one, people will favour the 16-85 over any other lens. You need to make your decisions based on price, suitability of focal lengths for you needs, and your aperture requirements. One of the most popular lenses in this test )based on the web sized image) is very poorly regarded by the "experts" yet highly regarded in a blind test, and cost me 60 bucks.

People often don't know what they think they know. Others know what's coming, like the 400 who clicked on the test but never offered an opinion. It doesn't take long to dispel these notions of what a "substantial" difference really is.

I wouldn't say that there is any difference at 24mm. I certainly don't believe I can see a difference to 100 lwph. The biggest thing that I see is that at certain focal length the 18-135 has pretty poor borders that aren't great till you get to f8.

Be that as it may, they are really both fine lenses. I think the big reason to get the 16-85 over the 18-135 is if you value border resolution. For a lot of photos, it probably isn't that important and if you are shooting from a tripod and are stopped down to f8, then I doubt you will see a difference.

timb64 · 11-27-2015, 12:55 PM

Originally posted by normhead

If you don't like the message, attack the messenger. Especially if you have nothing.

Exactly!

normhead · 11-27-2015, 05:18 PM

Originally posted by timb64

Exactly!

Completely.

Nicolas06 · 12-06-2015, 06:18 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Rondec

I wouldn't say that there is any difference at 24mm. I certainly don't believe I can see a difference to 100 lwph. The biggest thing that I see is that at certain focal length the 18-135 has pretty poor borders that aren't great till you get to f8.

Be that as it may, they are really both fine lenses. I think the big reason to get the 16-85 over the 18-135 is if you value border resolution. For a lot of photos, it probably isn't that important and if you are shooting from a tripod and are stopped down to f8, then I doubt you will see a difference.

To me the biggest difference is not the better 24mm difference of the 18-135, nobody would ever see that. The difference is border sharpness. It is solved from 18 to 50mm by stopping down.

It is not solved at all at 85mm (see attachment).

From a practical point of view the 16-85 will be a significantly better WA lens due to the 16mm and marginally that in difficult conditions you'll be able to shoot 16-18mm at f/3.5 with significantly better result. I think of all kind of interiors or low light shoots where you'd want to use large appertures where the 16-85 vignette a bit less and has significantly better borders.

The 18-135 should be a significantly better tele due to 135mm reach. This is only partially true due to the weak borders. That's going to work for a portrait and many shoots, but that's not going to work that well for a distant landscape.

This doesn't mean 18-135 is bad, it is great but depending of your priorities, you might prefer on or the other.

What is not said in this comparison is the constrast, flare resistance, bokeh and other attributes. I understood that the 18-85 has great flare resistance I don't know the performance of the 18-135 on this topic. That would be an interresting point. If the 16-85 is significantly better for that kind of shoot it would definitely another edge.

bdery · 12-07-2015, 06:05 AM

Originally posted by boriscleto

Unfortunately I won't be able to compare the 16-85 with the 18-55. I sold the 18-55 so that I can buy the 16-85. Maybe I can do a comparison with the DA L that my dad still has.

I compared them (see the 18-55 and 18-50 comparison review for instance). The 16-85 is several steps above the 18-55, in contrast, sharpness, colours (gradation and richness), AF speed. It's much larger, that its only "flaw"...

normhead · 12-07-2015, 07:17 AM

Originally posted by bdery

I compared them (see the 18-55 and 18-50 comparison review for instance). The 16-85 is several steps above the 18-55, in contrast, sharpness, colours (gradation and richness), AF speed. It's much larger, that its only "flaw"...

Do you have photos?

bdery · 12-07-2015, 10:59 AM

Originally posted by normhead

Do you have photos?

Go see the review for sharpness. for the rest, you'll have to trust my 5+ years of experience with the 18-55, and my 6+ months of heavy usage with the 16-85. I probably shot as many photos with the latter in 6 months than I did with the former in 5 years.

normhead · 12-07-2015, 11:04 AM

Originally posted by bdery

Go see the review for sharpness. for the rest, you'll have to trust my 5+ years of experience with the 18-55, and my 6+ months of heavy usage with the 16-85. I probably shot as many photos with the latter in 6 months than I did with the former in 5 years.

Sometimes people just have a couple of images that illustrate what they are talking about... and sometimes they don't. No biggie.

11-27-2015, 11:12 AM	#32
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by boriscleto Yeah. The 18-135 should only be compared to the 18-55. Unfortunately I won't be able to compare the 16-85 with the 18-55. I sold the 18-55 so that I can buy the 16-85. Maybe I can do a comparison with the DA L that my dad still has. The difference being, nowhere does a DA60-250 fall behind a DA 55-300, From 18-50 there were places, like 24 mm, where the 18-135 is better, and many other places where it's a saw off. And that's on the test charts. Convince me there's a real world difference. here is the reality https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/302815-35mm-find-prime.html There is absolutely no reason that included in a test like this one, people will favour the 16-85 over any other lens. You need to make your decisions based on price, suitability of focal lengths for you needs, and your aperture requirements. One of the most popular lenses in this test )based on the web sized image) is very poorly regarded by the "experts" yet highly regarded in a blind test, and cost me 60 bucks. People often don't know what they think they know. Others know what's coming, like the 400 who clicked on the test but never offered an opinion. It doesn't take long to dispel these notions of what a "substantial" difference really is. Last edited by normhead; 11-27-2015 at 11:24 AM.*

12-06-2015, 06:18 AM - 1 Like	#41
Nicolas06 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 4,854	Originally posted by Rondec I wouldn't say that there is any difference at 24mm. I certainly don't believe I can see a difference to 100 lwph. The biggest thing that I see is that at certain focal length the 18-135 has pretty poor borders that aren't great till you get to f8. Be that as it may, they are really both fine lenses. I think the big reason to get the 16-85 over the 18-135 is if you value border resolution. For a lot of photos, it probably isn't that important and if you are shooting from a tripod and are stopped down to f8, then I doubt you will see a difference. To me the biggest difference is not the better 24mm difference of the 18-135, nobody would ever see that. The difference is border sharpness. It is solved from 18 to 50mm by stopping down. It is not solved at all at 85mm (see attachment). From a practical point of view the 16-85 will be a significantly better WA lens due to the 16mm and marginally that in difficult conditions you'll be able to shoot 16-18mm at f/3.5 with significantly better result. I think of all kind of interiors or low light shoots where you'd want to use large appertures where the 16-85 vignette a bit less and has significantly better borders. The 18-135 should be a significantly better tele due to 135mm reach. This is only partially true due to the weak borders. That's going to work for a portrait and many shoots, but that's not going to work that well for a distant landscape. This doesn't mean 18-135 is bad, it is great but depending of your priorities, you might prefer on or the other. What is not said in this comparison is the constrast, flare resistance, bokeh and other attributes. I understood that the 18-85 has great flare resistance I don't know the performance of the 18-135 on this topic. That would be an interresting point. If the 16-85 is significantly better for that kind of shoot it would definitely another edge. Last edited by Nicolas06; 01-31-2017 at 02:03 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
16-85 vs 18-135 my impressions	domusofsail	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	21	04-13-2020 10:32 PM
Architecture Last Photo From the 18-135	monoloco	Post Your Photos!	8	11-24-2015 08:43 PM
16-85 vs 18-135 size comparision [image]	pjalves	Pentax News and Rumors	31	09-20-2014 01:52 PM
Move from 18-135 to 16-50 + 50-135 DA* Lenses	brosen	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	34	11-08-2011 05:11 PM
Anyone with the DA 18-135 and the DA 16-45?	gazonk	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	12-10-2010 05:26 AM

11-27-2015, 11:01 AM	#31
boriscleto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: North Syracuse, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,475	Originally posted by normhead There's some pretty crass consumerism going on here. Comparing an expensive new lens with a popular older much cheaper lens. I'm sure my DA*60-250 is much better than a 55-300, the difference being, I normally wouldn't mention the two of them in the same sentence. The 18-135 and 16-85 don't belong in the same sentence either. Yeah. The 18-135 should only be compared to the 18-55. Unfortunately I won't be able to compare the 16-85 with the 18-55. I sold the 18-55 so that I can buy the 16-85. Maybe I can do a comparison with the DA L that my dad still has.

11-27-2015, 11:15 AM	#33
timb64 Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: /Situation : Doing my best to avoid idiots! Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,510	Originally posted by normhead The difference being, nowhere does a DA*60-250 fall behind a DA 55-300, From 18-50 there were places, like 24 mm, where the 18-135 is better, and many other places where it's a saw off. And that's on the test charts. Convince me there's a real world difference. Bless,the sound of straws being clutched at!!

11-27-2015, 11:22 AM	#34
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by timb64 Bless,the sound of straws being clutched at!! Keep trying... I'm not biting.

11-27-2015, 11:30 AM - 1 Like	#35
timb64 Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: /Situation : Doing my best to avoid idiots! Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,510	Originally posted by normhead Keep trying... I'm not biting. A significant proportion of your contribution to this thread say otherwise

11-27-2015, 11:33 AM	#36
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	You mean because my posts are longer than 11 words? You're either very efficient with words, or you aren't saying anything.... If you don't like the message, attack the messenger. Especially if you have nothing.

11-27-2015, 11:36 AM - 1 Like	#37
cali92rs Veteran Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Long Beach, CA Posts: 3,354	Here is my 2 cents. I have had the the 16-85 and the 18-135mm. In real life shooting, the difference in IQ is pretty negligible. The question to be asked is 16mm more important than 86-135mm (in my style, i almost never use the 86-135 but use the 16mm all the time. ) Regarding the 16-50, i thought the IQ got a bad wrap, i liked it alot and the f2.8 came in handy a lot. But the SDM failed and was a big turn off (i eventually converted it to screw drive but i had to get a 100D to do it).

11-27-2015, 12:19 PM	#38
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,653	Originally posted by normhead The difference being, nowhere does a DA*60-250 fall behind a DA 55-300, From 18-50 there were places, like 24 mm, where the 18-135 is better, and many other places where it's a saw off. And that's on the test charts. Convince me there's a real world difference. here is the reality https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/302815-35mm-find-prime.html There is absolutely no reason that included in a test like this one, people will favour the 16-85 over any other lens. You need to make your decisions based on price, suitability of focal lengths for you needs, and your aperture requirements. One of the most popular lenses in this test )based on the web sized image) is very poorly regarded by the "experts" yet highly regarded in a blind test, and cost me 60 bucks. People often don't know what they think they know. Others know what's coming, like the 400 who clicked on the test but never offered an opinion. It doesn't take long to dispel these notions of what a "substantial" difference really is. I wouldn't say that there is any difference at 24mm. I certainly don't believe I can see a difference to 100 lwph. The biggest thing that I see is that at certain focal length the 18-135 has pretty poor borders that aren't great till you get to f8. Be that as it may, they are really both fine lenses. I think the big reason to get the 16-85 over the 18-135 is if you value border resolution. For a lot of photos, it probably isn't that important and if you are shooting from a tripod and are stopped down to f8, then I doubt you will see a difference.

11-27-2015, 12:55 PM	#39
timb64 Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: /Situation : Doing my best to avoid idiots! Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,510	Originally posted by normhead If you don't like the message, attack the messenger. Especially if you have nothing. Exactly!

11-27-2015, 05:18 PM	#40
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by timb64 Exactly! Completely.

12-07-2015, 06:05 AM	#42
bdery Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Quebec city, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,357	Originally posted by boriscleto Unfortunately I won't be able to compare the 16-85 with the 18-55. I sold the 18-55 so that I can buy the 16-85. Maybe I can do a comparison with the DA L that my dad still has. I compared them (see the 18-55 and 18-50 comparison review for instance). The 16-85 is several steps above the 18-55, in contrast, sharpness, colours (gradation and richness), AF speed. It's much larger, that its only "flaw"...

12-07-2015, 07:17 AM	#43
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by bdery I compared them (see the 18-55 and 18-50 comparison review for instance). The 16-85 is several steps above the 18-55, in contrast, sharpness, colours (gradation and richness), AF speed. It's much larger, that its only "flaw"... Do you have photos?

12-07-2015, 10:59 AM	#44
bdery Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Quebec city, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,357	Originally posted by normhead Do you have photos? Go see the review for sharpness. for the rest, you'll have to trust my 5+ years of experience with the 18-55, and my 6+ months of heavy usage with the 16-85. I probably shot as many photos with the latter in 6 months than I did with the former in 5 years.

12-07-2015, 11:04 AM	#45
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by bdery Go see the review for sharpness. for the rest, you'll have to trust my 5+ years of experience with the 18-55, and my 6+ months of heavy usage with the 16-85. I probably shot as many photos with the latter in 6 months than I did with the former in 5 years. Sometimes people just have a couple of images that illustrate what they are talking about... and sometimes they don't. No biggie.