Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!

**boriscleto** · 12-26-2015, 12:21 PM

I've been lusting after the 16-85 for months now. But even at the below MAP prices we've had for weeks now it still seems a bit out of reach. And it's still only 16mm...I would probably end up getting something wider later anyway.

So the new plan is to get the 18-135 which is now below $300. Then get a used copy of the Tamron 10-24 or one of the Sigma 10-20s. The Sigma 8-16 is even more out of reach than the 16-85

I've read all the reviews in the database, but any other opinions would be welcome.

**pepperberry farm** · 12-26-2015, 12:28 PM

you're looking for opinions on all five of those lenses or a specific one?

**boriscleto** · 12-26-2015, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by pepperberry farm

you're looking for opinions on all five of those lenses or a specific one?

The 10-20ish lenses.

timb64 · 12-26-2015, 12:49 PM - **1 Like**

Buy cheap and you end up buying twice.You say you lust after the 16-85 and if you buy the 18-135 there will always be the niggling doubt in your mind.Take it from someone who has owned both ,the 16-85 is definitely worth the extra.

**boriscleto** · 12-26-2015, 01:22 PM

The 18-135 actually fits my requirements better. It isn't any wider than my 18-55 but it's better. Since I'm pairing this lens with my 150-500 the 135 has less of a gap.

**RobA_Oz** · 12-26-2015, 01:44 PM

The 18-135 must rank as one of the best value for money Pentax lenses of the present era. I have the DA*16-50 and the DA*50-135, both of which I admire for their IQ, but the 18-135 has versatility and practicality on its side, and the IQ is remarkably good at the right aperture. I doubt you'll be disappointed in it.

I've also had both the Sigma 10-20 (the f3.5 version, now sold) and the 8-16, and I doubt that either would disappoint you. I originally settled on the Sigma 10-20 over the Tamron equivalent because it had far less aberration in the corners, judging by comparative reviews. I'd have been happy enough with it, but the opportunity to purchase the 8-16 when it was widely said to be no longer made in K-mount was too tempting, so it went off to a good home, elsewhere.

percy · 12-26-2015, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by timb64

Buy cheap and you end up buying twice.You say you lust after the 16-85 and if you buy the 18-135 there will always be the niggling doubt in your mind.Take it from someone who has owned both ,the 16-85 is definitely worth the extra.

I've had both and have to agree - the 16-85 is absolutely worth the extra

**RobA_Oz** · 12-26-2015, 01:54 PM

Originally posted by timb64

Buy cheap and you end up buying twice.You say you lust after the 16-85 and if you buy the 18-135 there will always be the niggling doubt in your mind.Take it from someone who has owned both ,the 16-85 is definitely worth the extra.

Originally posted by percy

I've had both and have to agree - the 16-85 is absolutely worth the extra

So, what suggestions do you have for the 85-150 gap? I don't think anyone could disagree with what you say about the 16-85, but it would leave a hole in coverage as well as one in his pocket, particularly if another lens has to be bought (and carted around) to provide the cover.

**boriscleto** · 12-26-2015, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by RobA_Oz

So, what suggestions do you have for the 85-150 gap? I don't think anyone could disagree with what you say about the 16-85, but it would leave a hole in coverage as well as one in his pocket, particularly if another lens has to be bought (and carted around) to provide the cover.

I can bridge the gap, but it is with either the F 35-135 or A 135/2.8. I don't think I would want to carry the heavy 35-135 together with the heavy 16-85 and the really heavy 150-500...

Somewhere down the road I may re-acquire a 55-300 for a light kit.

My requirements for a walk around lens were really that it be A: WR and B: better than my 18-55. The 16-45 and 16-50 were out because they weren't long enough, or not WR, or had SDM issues etc.

I think the 18-135 is just too good a value at $280 to pass up right now. I can put the $150 or so towards an UWA.

**clackers** · 12-26-2015, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by boriscleto

My requirements for a walk around lens were really that it be A: WR and B: better than my 18-55. The 16-45 and 16-50 were out because they weren't long enough, or not WR, or had SDM issues etc.

I think the 18-135 is just too good a value at $280 to pass up right now.

Does the 18-135 really fulfil your criterion B, BC?

The Sigma 17-70 has great PQ but fails your criterion A, and you seem to be outdoors a *lot*.

Shame the 16-85 is not yet in reach. We should all get together and crowd fund you - others will have enjoyed your bird shots just as much as me!

**pepperberry farm** · 12-26-2015, 02:58 PM

the DA 18-135mm is a great lens, as long as you work within its limitations - it doesn't like low-light situations and the placement of the focus ring can be frustrating at times....

I am using this lens this month in the Single challenge and have found it to be quite versatile and handy to have on the K-3 or K-50.... here is my Flickr album for the 18-135:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/pepperberryfarm/albums/72157661141055566

**boriscleto** · 12-26-2015, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by clackers

Does the 18-135 really fulfil your criterion B, BC?

I think it does. Even if only for the 56-135mm. I've got plenty of lenses to use in situations that a consumer zoom can't handle...

**ramseybuckeye** · 12-26-2015, 04:29 PM

Originally posted by boriscleto

I think it does. Even if only for the 56-135mm. I've got plenty of lenses to use in situations that a consumer zoom can't handle...

I think you've already figured it out. Get the 18-135 and enjoy it. It's better than given credit for, and it's a steal at the current prices. I can tell you the Tamron 10-24 is a sharp lens, it is prone to flare when a light source is in view. the distortion is far worse in the wide end, minimal at 24. I cannot compare it to the Sigma.

I would like to try the 16-85 too, but to me it should have been faster.

Kozlok · 12-26-2015, 05:17 PM

I so don't understand the bridge the gap thought. I carry a 15 and a 43 most of the time. Maybe a 24 if I'm feeling middle of the road-ish. Use only my Sigma 30/1.4 for family events indoors. I have a Tamron 70-200 for when I think I might need zoom, usually pair that with the 15 for wide. Other than that, I move my feet, use a crop, or just take whatever shots the POV allow. Doing the single-in challenges taught me how to use whatever lens I have; I don't find I need anything in between.

rr1736 · 12-26-2015, 05:26 PM

For just walking around you might look at the Sigma 18-250 it cheaper than the Sigma 18-200 or Sigma 18-300. Adorama has it for $349 lots of reach. The 18-300 $579 The18-200 for $399. I have had this lens for some time and found it works well. Not weather sealed like the Pentax 18-135 It gives you a great range at a reasonable price.

12-26-2015, 12:21 PM	#1
boriscleto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: North Syracuse, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,477	New thinking on walk around lens I've been lusting after the 16-85 for months now. But even at the below MAP prices we've had for weeks now it still seems a bit out of reach. And it's still only 16mm...I would probably end up getting something wider later anyway. So the new plan is to get the 18-135 which is now below $300. Then get a used copy of the Tamron 10-24 or one of the Sigma 10-20s. The Sigma 8-16 is even more out of reach than the 16-85 I've read all the reviews in the database, but any other opinions would be welcome.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Good walk around lens suggestions	tranceplante	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	21	10-15-2014 06:23 AM
Advice On Walk Around Lens for Travel Photography	WVRICK	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	29	01-18-2014 03:11 PM
16-50 stolen, need some opinions on new Walk around	Saxplayer1004	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	28	01-06-2013 07:51 PM
Can't decide on the optimal walk around lens	Deepbyrne	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	34	11-21-2012 11:27 PM
New walk around lens	ccf60	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	5	11-03-2010 08:14 AM

12-26-2015, 12:28 PM	#2
pepperberry farm amateur dirt farmer Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: probably out in a field somewhere... Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 41,766	you're looking for opinions on all five of those lenses or a specific one?

12-26-2015, 12:46 PM	#3
boriscleto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: North Syracuse, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,477 Original Poster	Originally posted by pepperberry farm you're looking for opinions on all five of those lenses or a specific one? The 10-20ish lenses.

12-26-2015, 12:49 PM - 1 Like	#4
timb64 Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: /Situation : Doing my best to avoid idiots! Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,514	Buy cheap and you end up buying twice.You say you lust after the 16-85 and if you buy the 18-135 there will always be the niggling doubt in your mind.Take it from someone who has owned both ,the 16-85 is definitely worth the extra.

12-26-2015, 01:22 PM	#5
boriscleto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: North Syracuse, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,477 Original Poster	The 18-135 actually fits my requirements better. It isn't any wider than my 18-55 but it's better. Since I'm pairing this lens with my 150-500 the 135 has less of a gap.

12-26-2015, 01:44 PM	#6
RobA_Oz Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Tasmania, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,209	The 18-135 must rank as one of the best value for money Pentax lenses of the present era. I have the DA16-50 and the DA50-135, both of which I admire for their IQ, but the 18-135 has versatility and practicality on its side, and the IQ is remarkably good at the right aperture. I doubt you'll be disappointed in it. I've also had both the Sigma 10-20 (the f3.5 version, now sold) and the 8-16, and I doubt that either would disappoint you. I originally settled on the Sigma 10-20 over the Tamron equivalent because it had far less aberration in the corners, judging by comparative reviews. I'd have been happy enough with it, but the opportunity to purchase the 8-16 when it was widely said to be no longer made in K-mount was too tempting, so it went off to a good home, elsewhere.

12-26-2015, 01:47 PM	#7
percy Senior Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Herefordshire, UK Posts: 197	Originally posted by timb64 Buy cheap and you end up buying twice.You say you lust after the 16-85 and if you buy the 18-135 there will always be the niggling doubt in your mind.Take it from someone who has owned both ,the 16-85 is definitely worth the extra. I've had both and have to agree - the 16-85 is absolutely worth the extra

12-26-2015, 01:54 PM	#8
RobA_Oz Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Tasmania, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,209	Originally posted by timb64 Buy cheap and you end up buying twice.You say you lust after the 16-85 and if you buy the 18-135 there will always be the niggling doubt in your mind.Take it from someone who has owned both ,the 16-85 is definitely worth the extra. Originally posted by percy I've had both and have to agree - the 16-85 is absolutely worth the extra So, what suggestions do you have for the 85-150 gap? I don't think anyone could disagree with what you say about the 16-85, but it would leave a hole in coverage as well as one in his pocket, particularly if another lens has to be bought (and carted around) to provide the cover.

12-26-2015, 02:02 PM	#9
boriscleto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: North Syracuse, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,477 Original Poster	Originally posted by RobA_Oz So, what suggestions do you have for the 85-150 gap? I don't think anyone could disagree with what you say about the 16-85, but it would leave a hole in coverage as well as one in his pocket, particularly if another lens has to be bought (and carted around) to provide the cover. I can bridge the gap, but it is with either the F 35-135 or A 135/2.8. I don't think I would want to carry the heavy 35-135 together with the heavy 16-85 and the really heavy 150-500... Somewhere down the road I may re-acquire a 55-300 for a light kit. My requirements for a walk around lens were really that it be A: WR and B: better than my 18-55. The 16-45 and 16-50 were out because they weren't long enough, or not WR, or had SDM issues etc. I think the 18-135 is just too good a value at $280 to pass up right now. I can put the $150 or so towards an UWA.

12-26-2015, 02:14 PM	#10
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	Originally posted by boriscleto My requirements for a walk around lens were really that it be A: WR and B: better than my 18-55. The 16-45 and 16-50 were out because they weren't long enough, or not WR, or had SDM issues etc. I think the 18-135 is just too good a value at $280 to pass up right now. Does the 18-135 really fulfil your criterion B, BC? The Sigma 17-70 has great PQ but fails your criterion A, and you seem to be outdoors a lot. Shame the 16-85 is not yet in reach. We should all get together and crowd fund you - others will have enjoyed your bird shots just as much as me!

12-26-2015, 02:58 PM	#11
pepperberry farm amateur dirt farmer Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: probably out in a field somewhere... Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 41,766	the DA 18-135mm is a great lens, as long as you work within its limitations - it doesn't like low-light situations and the placement of the focus ring can be frustrating at times.... I am using this lens this month in the Single challenge and have found it to be quite versatile and handy to have on the K-3 or K-50.... here is my Flickr album for the 18-135: https://www.flickr.com/photos/pepperberryfarm/albums/72157661141055566

12-26-2015, 03:09 PM	#12
boriscleto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: North Syracuse, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,477 Original Poster	Originally posted by clackers Does the 18-135 really fulfil your criterion B, BC? I think it does. Even if only for the 56-135mm. I've got plenty of lenses to use in situations that a consumer zoom can't handle...

12-26-2015, 04:29 PM	#13
ramseybuckeye Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Hampstead, NC Photos: Gallery Posts: 17,295	Originally posted by boriscleto I think it does. Even if only for the 56-135mm. I've got plenty of lenses to use in situations that a consumer zoom can't handle... I think you've already figured it out. Get the 18-135 and enjoy it. It's better than given credit for, and it's a steal at the current prices. I can tell you the Tamron 10-24 is a sharp lens, it is prone to flare when a light source is in view. the distortion is far worse in the wide end, minimal at 24. I cannot compare it to the Sigma. I would like to try the 16-85 too, but to me it should have been faster.

12-26-2015, 05:17 PM	#14
Kozlok Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Albuquerque Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,148	I so don't understand the bridge the gap thought. I carry a 15 and a 43 most of the time. Maybe a 24 if I'm feeling middle of the road-ish. Use only my Sigma 30/1.4 for family events indoors. I have a Tamron 70-200 for when I think I might need zoom, usually pair that with the 15 for wide. Other than that, I move my feet, use a crop, or just take whatever shots the POV allow. Doing the single-in challenges taught me how to use whatever lens I have; I don't find I need anything in between.

12-26-2015, 05:26 PM	#15
rr1736 Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Chicago Illinois Photos: Albums Posts: 203	For just walking around you might look at the Sigma 18-250 it cheaper than the Sigma 18-200 or Sigma 18-300. Adorama has it for $349 lots of reach. The 18-300 $579 The18-200 for $399. I have had this lens for some time and found it works well. Not weather sealed like the Pentax 18-135 It gives you a great range at a reasonable price.

New thinking on walk around lens

Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!