[6BQ5]

There was a lot of talk in the forum about how much better (or worse?) the DA 16-85 lens would be than the DA 18-135. A lot of us who own the 18-135 said that we would not switch over to the 16-85. The jump in IQ, if any, would be negligible considering the initial high cost of the 16-85.

The DA 16-85mm lens has been out for a while now. A lot of the initial excitement about the lens has worn off and prices have started to come down. Is there anyone here who owned the 18-135 that jumped ship to the 16-85? Tell us your experience. Was it worth it? Do you miss the 85-135mm zoom range? How is the AF performance compared to the 18-135? Etc, etc.

Thanks!

[WPRESTO]

Did that, and sold the 18-135 but the 16-85 was not really replacing the 18-135. I purchased the 18-135 as a travel lens, but it wasn't quite long enough so it had largely been retired in favor of a Sigma 18-250. My usual when-you-can-take-anything normal range zoom had been a Sigma 17-70 (original version) which had very good IQ but was a little short on range. I like the slightly greater WA and tele of the 16-85 and notice a slight improvement in IQ, nothing startling or amazing, over both the 17-70 and the 18-135. The 18-250 remains a travel lens depending on where we're going. If it's Europe with cathedrals, palaces, Museum and street photography, it's 8-16, 18-250, and 35 macro. But to Iceland it was 8-16, 16-85, 60-250, 150-600 (Tammy on a Nikon, plus N 18-140) and 90mm macro (bugs & flowers more than museum close-ups). Iceland was more diversified & challenging: small birds far away, interior of a church, sweeping landscapes, some museum exhibits, quaint farmhouses, horses in a corral, whales potentially from a pitching boat (turned to be exceptionally calm). Least used lens in Iceland was the macro.

[timb64]

Went down that route and have been very happy with the results,sharper edge to edge,extra 2mm at the wide end very useful(I know you can stitch but it's a faff) and loss at the long end is overcome by cropping.
AF no detectible difference.
Some say the 16-85 is bigger/ heavier, marginally so,but it's hardly Bigma territory.
Paired with the 55-300 it's a brilliant two lens WR solution.
Was it worth it?Absolutely.

[Paul the Sunman]

I have the 18-135, and am very happy with it, though with the understanding that it's soft on the edges. I tried to buy the 16-85 yesterday, but everyone seems to be out of stock in Melbourne. The more even sharpness and wider angle of view are the main attractions for me. I've done a lot of reading and nearly everyone finds it optically superior to not only the 18-135 but also the well-regarded Sigma 17-70, so I was sold (though unfortunately the lens wasn't).

[ScooterMaxi Jim]

I don't have either lens, but they have been compared directly so often that it is pretty clear that their attributes differ markedly.

The 18-135 appeals based on its range and compactness, not to mention a fine step up from kit. As a travel lens, it excels.

No doubt, the 16-85 is optically among the best variable aperture Pentax lenses ever produced; possibly the best. However, it is large for such a slow lens.

What is best is a matter of need. These lenses aren't readily comparable. If you have some nice UWA primes, then a zoom with 16mm coverage isn't as much of a priority. If you like your 55-300, then the marginal coverage between 85 and 135 isn't going to be much of a priority.

It's all a matter of what fits best in your kit, as well as your shooting priorities.

[timb64]

I have seen several references to the 16-85 being bigger/heavier than the 18-135.
Some perspective here.

The relative specs are:

16-85 weight 488 gms Dimensions (DxL)78mmx94mm
85-135 " 405 " " 74mmx76mm

In the field these differences (less than the weight of two Snickers bars!)make negligible difference.

[Rondec]

I have seen several references to the 16-85 being bigger/heavier than the 18-135.
Some perspective here.

The relative specs are:

16-85 weight 488 gms Dimensions (DxL)78mmx94mm
85-135 " 405 " " 74mmx76mm

In the field these differences (less than the weight of two Snickers bars!)make negligible difference.

I find it interesting that people say this so much too. I shoot with f2.8 zooms all the time and both of these lenses seem relatively light and compact in comparison. I also have felt along the way that a lot of the issues people had with the 16-85 were from 18-135 owners who were trying to convince themselves that their lens was good enough and they didn't need a new one (LBA is tough) and from those who were upset that the 16-85 was priced so much higher than the 18-135 (even now it is a couple of hundred more).

[bdery]

Is there anyone here who owned the 18-135 that jumped ship to the 16-85? Tell us your experience. Was it worth it?

I've tested heavily the 18-135, and own the 16-85. Does that qualify?

The 16-85 is visibly sharper in the corners, and more even across the range of focal lengths. The 18-135 gets softer near 100mm, while the 16-85 is excellent wide open on the whole range. What impresses me the most is that it has very even results. It's just as reliable at any aperture and focal length. In that regard it compares well to the Sigma 17-70 it replaced.

Do you miss the 85-135mm zoom range?

Can't say I've ever wanted it, but I have the 60-250 and 100 macro WR for tele. The 16mm is MUCH more useful in my opinion than the 135mm. Even coming from the Sigma 17-70, I see the difference with the extra 1mm at the wide end.

How is the AF performance compared to the 18-135?

At least as good. Both are excellent, so it's hard to really pick a winner. It's clearly a step above everything else I own, especially in live view.

[audiobomber]

I have seen several references to the 16-85 being bigger/heavier than the 18-135.
Some perspective here. The relative specs are:

16-85 weight 488 gms Dimensions (DxL)78mmx94mm
85-135 " 405 " " 74mmx76mm

In the field these differences (less than the weight of two Snickers bars!)make negligible difference.

I disagree. I removed the 18-135mm from my K-3 and mounted the 16-85, and it unbalanced the camera. It's not raw weight, it is cantilever effect, the moment of inertia changes unfavourably.

When the 16-85 was finally announced, I lost interest because of the slow aperture. Most of us were expecting an f4. I kept the 18-135, which is more of an all-purpose length for me, and added a Sigma 17-50mm f2.8. The Sigma is better balanced with a grip, but I rarely use it like that because it doesn't fit in my day bag.

If I were starting out in Pentax, my first lenses would be the 16-85, 55-300 and DA 35mm. Since I own a DA 15, 17-50 and 18-135, the 16-85 is redundant.

[One3rdEV]

No personal experience with the 16-85mm, but a brief side note related to the 18-135mm vs Sigma 17-50mm F2.8:

I purchased the Sigma and the Pentax DA* 50-135mm when I originally purchased my K-5 body. But when on family vacations/activities it was a struggle to decide which single lens to carry (e.g. into an amusement park). I later purchased the 18-135mm as a single lens solution for family activities. Initially it was the focal length range I was after, but it has turned out that the WR and smaller physical size of lens have been most appreciated. Best of all is that I can carry the camera over my shoulder while walking hand-in-hand and not have it banging into my wife. The size and weight of the Sigma was a constant problem in this regard. However the thing I like least about the 18-135mm is that my copy will sometimes creep zoom while walking and defeats the benefit of its shorter length. On only a few occasions have I felt that its corner performance has been problematic. Overall both my wife and I have been very pleased with its image results. I figured I could sell the Sigma, but if I shoot the two lenses side-by-side the Sigma demonstrates visibly better IQ (e.g. micro contrast, separation) and I just can't sell it. Had I have originally purchased the 16-85mm or 18-135mm I can imagine that I would have been sufficiently satisfied with the WR and focal length range to have not felt a need for a different solution. Keeping in mind that this is from a vacation / outdoor activity photography frame of mind (e.g. includes water sports where I don't feel comfortable taking a non-WR Sigma lens).

[normhead]

As usual, if you compare a $900 CDN lens to a $539 CDN lens, that can be had as low as $300 US, you'd hope the $900 lens would be better. The 18-135 was introduced at about $670 so the 16-85 is a more expensive lens any way you look at it. At $900, it has to be the slowest lens ever made for that focal length at that price. It's almost certainly better. But it's not a bargain. It's a you pay more you get more kind of lens.

If you have the big bucks, the 16-85 is probably better, Working on a budget, the 18-135 can be purchased in a package with a camera body for not that much. Many of us thought when Pentax announced it was a step above kit, thought they were talking the 18-55. After release it's fairly apparent it's the 18-135 it's slightly better than.

Can you tell the difference?

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

Despite what people will tell you, I doubt it, although you really need to have a 60-250 to cover the long end of the 18-135 if you run into a situation that requires edge to edge sharpness over 60mm. The 16mm, is important to many, but 15 ltd and crop would be the more compact way to go.

To me, it seems like any other lens. pay more money, get a better product... what's your preference? That kind of decision is best made in the context of your whole line up. My Sigma 8-16 makes the 16 end reductant, as will any other UWA, but, you can certainly make a good case for this lens if money is no object, or if you have no desire to buy a UWA lens, and this is going to be the widest lens you own.

[audiobomber]

However the thing I like least about the 18-135mm is that my copy will sometimes creep zoom while walking and defeats the benefit of its shorter length.

That does suck. No creep from mine, even after 5 years.

[colonel00]

Mine creeps a lot. Especially if I have it hung vertically on a backpack shoulder strap with a Capture Clip. Some good points regarding true value of the lenses in this thread though. Especially when you can get the 18-135 for under $300 now.

[timb64]

Audiobomber,I think it's amusing that you find one lens has the "perfect"balance and reject two ,frankly,similar lenses because they upset that delicate equilibrium.

Normhead -I was able to sell on my old 18-135 for more than $300 US! The loss or cost of owning the lense for a year (I think of it as rental!) was just over $100US, in that time the only person who was ever critical of any pictures I took with it was, ironically, you!

For me the enjoyment of the results I get from the better lens are well worth the cost of trading up.

Just out of interest Norm,up to what FL equivalent would you be happy to crop from the 15mm?

[Rondec]

As usual, if you compare a $900 CDN lens to a $539 CDN lens, that can be had as low as $300 US, you'd hope the $900 lens would be better. The 18-135 was introduced at about $670 so the 16-85 is a more expensive lens any way you look at it. At $900, it has to be the slowest lens ever made for that focal length at that price. It's almost certainly better. But it's not a bargain. It's a you pay more you get more kind of lens.

If you have the big bucks, the 16-85 is probably better, Working on a budget, the 18-135 can be purchased in a package with a camera body for not that much. Many of us thought when Pentax announced it was a step above kit, thought they were talking the 18-55. After release it's fairly apparent it's the 18-135 it's slightly better than.

Can you tell the difference?

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

Despite what people will tell you, I doubt it, although you really need to have a 60-250 to cover the long end of the 18-135 if you run into a situation that requires edge to edge sharpness over 60mm. The 16mm, is important to many, but 15 ltd and crop would be the more compact way to go.

To me, it seems like any other lens. pay more money, get a better product... what's your preference? That kind of decision is best made in the context of your whole line up. My Sigma 8-16 makes the 16 end reductant, as will any other UWA, but, you can certainly make a good case for this lens if money is no object, or if you have no desire to buy a UWA lens, and this is going to be the widest lens you own.

All of your shots in that thread were at f5.6. One gets a faster lens in order to be able to shoot at wider apertures. If I compare an 18-135 to a DA 50 f1.8, I will find that the DA 50 is better from f1.8 to f5.6. They'll be pretty similar from f5.6 to f11 and the 50 may keep a little extra sharpness between f11 and f22. From what I've seen the 16-85 is pretty consistent in its center and border sharpness throughout its range, while the 18-135 has some really good spots and some not so good spots (particularly at the telephoto end).