[audiobomber]

I don't have any comment on the 16-85mm vs. the 16-50 other than the obvious aperture and range differences which have been pointed out. I use a Sigma 17-50 f2.8 and DA 18-135mm, depending on what I'm doing. I have a need for both.

I just butted into this thread to say that Heie's 18-135mm is a bum lens. He must have gotten the broken one that Photozone tested.

---

Last edited by audiobomber; 01-02-2016 at 07:13 PM.

[normhead]

I don't have any comment on the 16-85mm vs. the 16-50 other than the obvious aperture and range differences which have been pointed out. I just butted in to say that Heie's 18-135mm is a bum lens. He must have gotten the broken one that Photozone tested.

It's definitely not a lens for everyone. Lenses for the way people take pictures, not for the test charts. There are a good number of people who love those test chart lenses.

[RGlasel]

It's definitely not a lens for everyone. Lenses for the way people take pictures, not for the test charts

Are you sure the fish are biting right now? The best lens in your bag is almost always the one you most recently purchased.

[Rondec]

I don't have any comment on the 16-85mm vs. the 16-50 other than the obvious aperture and range differences which have been pointed out. I use a Sigma 17-50 f2.8 and DA 18-135mm, depending on what I'm doing. I have a need for both.

I just butted into this thread to say that Heie's 18-135mm is a bum lens. He must have gotten the broken one that Photozone tested.

I have to think that quality control on this lens must not be very good. The copy that Klaus tested on Photozone was not very good either. On the other hand, your copy performed quite well versus your 18-250. I have shot my brother's 18-135 and it was soft on the borders past 85mm, but it was very nice otherwise.

[normhead]

I have to think that quality control on this lens must not be very good. The copy that Klaus tested on Photozone was not very good either. On the other hand, your copy performed quite well versus your 18-250. I have shot my brother's 18-135 and it was soft on the borders past 85mm, but it was very nice otherwise.

But that's exactly it, it's soft on the borders, but excellent centre sharpness everywhere in it's range. A lens for the way people take pictures. Looking at my images there are no sharp borders after about 60mm, but the subject is always in sharp focus, and the borders are out of focus areas, and they would be whether the lens was sharp on the borders or not, and for 30 years Pentax maintained that was the way people took pictures.

You have to pixel peep to see 18-135 imperfections. And I keep that in mind when I use it, and my 60-250 handy for if I really need edge to edge sharpness. That being said, I rarely need edge to edge sharpness, most of the time it's an irrelevant metric, because the edges are out of focus anyway. Klaus version was just fine, but Klaus's method of evaluation, taking a straight average of what he considers to be a perfect lens, razor sharp at every part of the image and the highest possible maximum sharpness everywhere, is not what Pentax was trying to achieve when they designed this lens. Klaus method of evaluation does not consider the very high percentage of images where borders are out of focus, just based on depth of field.

Pentax goal was pretty simple in this one. Make a lens that gave you as much as possible without invoking the cost of a DA 16-50 type lens. The people who aren't happy less than the absolute possibility of sharpness all across the image hate this lens. Itmakes you think a bit. My saying "for many images the 18-135 is just as good as any lens out there) " doesn't make any sense because they don't believe it. They believe that an image tha is soft on the edges because the lens is soft, is in some way not as good as an image that is soft on the edges because the edges are out of focus.

Functionally, there is no difference, besides that the 18-135 is likely to have much smoother bokeh.

It's like the guy going to the doctor saying "it hurts when I do this."
And the doctors says "well don't do that."

I suspect what most people don't like about the 18-135 is that they have to be aware of the lens. As you move from 50-70mm you have to be aware your borders are becoming less sharp, and use the lens for only centre sharp images. I guess some people find it easier to use only glass that's sharp everywhere, and are willing to pay for that, even if it means triple the price or 40% less focal length. As you move to 135mm images with a 16-50 or 16-85 you have to change lenses too, so there's really no difference, except the 18-135 can save you a lens change if you only need centre sharpness, in which case no other lens you can use is going to give you better. And there are a lot of images that are only sharp in the centre. A fact Pentax acknowledges, but lens testers ignore.

People who don't like this lens, never learned how to use it. And in many cases were much happier with a lens they didn't have to learn how to use. "Just buy something that is good everywhere regardless of expense." For me, if I can use my brain to save me a bit of expense, 90% of the time I'll go for it.

[timb64]

But that's exactly it, it's soft on the borders, but excellent centre sharpness everywhere in it's range. A lens for the way people take pictures. Looking at my images there are no sharp borders after about 60mm, but the subject is always in sharp focus, and the borders are out of focus areas, and they would be whether the lens was sharp on the borders or not, and for 30 years Pentax maintained that was the way people took pictures.

You have to pixel peep to see 18-135 imperfections. And I keep that in mind when I use it, and my 60-250 handy for if I really need edge to edge sharpness. That being said, I rarely need edge to edge sharpness, most of the time it's an irrelevant metric, because the edges are out of focus anyway. Klaus version was just fine, but Klaus's method of evaluation, taking a straight average of what he considers to be a perfect lens, razor sharp at every part of the image and the highest possible maximum sharpness everywhere, is not what Pentax was trying to achieve when they designed this lens. Klaus method of evaluation does not consider the very high percentage of images where borders are out of focus, just based on depth of field.

Pentax goal was pretty simple in this one. Make a lens that gave you as much as possible without invoking the cost of a DA 16-50 type lens. The people who aren't happy less than the absolute possibility of sharpness all across the image hate this lens. Itmakes you think a bit. My saying "for many images the 18-135 is just as good as any lens out there) " doesn't make any sense because they don't believe it. They believe that an image tha is soft on the edges because the lens is soft, is in some way not as good as an image that is soft on the edges because the edges are out of focus.

Functionally, there is no difference, besides that the 18-135 is likely to have much smoother bokeh.

It's like the guy going to the doctor saying "it hurts when I do this."
And the doctors says "well don't do that."

I suspect what most people don't like about the 18-135 is that they have to be aware of the lens. As you move from 50-70mm you have to be aware your borders are becoming less sharp, and use the lens for only centre sharp images. I guess some people find it easier to use only glass that's sharp everywhere, and are willing to pay for that, even if it means triple the price or 40% less focal length. As you move to 135mm images with a 16-50 or 16-85 you have to change lenses too, so there's really no difference, except the 18-135 can save you a lens change if you only need centre sharpness, in which case no other lens you can use is going to give you better. And there are a lot of images that are only sharp in the centre. A fact Pentax acknowledges, but lens testers ignore.

People who don't like this lens, never learned how to use it. And in many cases were much happier with a lens they didn't have to learn how to use. "Just buy something that is good everywhere regardless of expense." For me, if I can use my brain to save me a bit of expense, 90% of the time I'll go for it.

So to summerise in less than eleven words,its weakness is in fact its main strength,what patent nonsense!

[normhead]

So to summerise in less than eleven words,its weakness is in fact its main strength,what patent nonsense!

NO, it's weakness is not a weakness in many shooting situations, and it's strength is it's range. From 18-50mm, it stacks up with any lens out there, 50-135 you have to use it for a specific type of shot.

What is often shown as was the case here, was that those who summarize in 11 words, often display that they couldn't understand what was said.

Often a picture is worth a thousand words....



How would this image be improved by having sharper edges?
And if you can't improve on it by using a much more expensive lens, why wouldn't you go for the cheaper option?

The edges are so out of focus, the sharpness of the lens at the edges makes no difference. Changing to a better lens doesn't improve the image, because in the center, where the subject is, the sharpness is excellent, even on Photozone's tests. Are you starting to get the hang of this? Not every picture benefits from having a lens that is sharp edge to edge.

If you buy something for what it does, it will always do that thing. This is a lens you can buy for what it does, just make sure you want what it does. If you want more than what it does, buy something else. Personally, I'm quite happy with what it does. And I generally don't think much of folks who criticize it for what it doesn't do. Every lens has stuff it doesn't do. If we start dwelling on what they don't do for every lens. no one would ever recommend anything.

The above is a macro image so the fact that it's shot at 135mm makes no difference. You can do this same image with a 16-85.

With images like this one,


You can't match it with a 16-50 or 16-85. It's 135 using every bit of reach and shot to the strength of the lens. In fact I doubt you're going to match this image better with any lens you choose. The lens needs to be WR, it needs to be easily hand held, and it need to be relatively small to fit in a very compact case for easy management in the boat Despite all the nay sayers, the lens is the best lens for some applications. And that's what I look for in a lens. Does it give me something I want, that no other lens gives me.

For what it does, it's best in class, for $300.

---

Last edited by normhead; 01-03-2016 at 08:34 AM.

[timb64]

NO, it's weakness is not a weakness in many shooting situations, and it's strength is it's range. From 18-50mm, it stacks up with any lens out there, 50-135 you have to use it for a specific type of shot.

What is often shown as was the case here, was that those who summarize in 11 words, often display that they couldn't understand what was said.

Often a picture is worth a thousand words....



How would this image be improved by having sharper edges?
And if you can't improve on it by using a much more expensive lens, why wouldn't you go for the cheaper option?

The edges are so out of focus, the sharpness of the lens at the edges makes no difference. Changing to a better lens doesn't improve the image, because in the center, where the subject is, the sharpness is excellent, even on Photozone's tests. Are you starting to get the hang of this? Not every picture benefits from having a lens that is sharp edge to edge.

If you buy something for what it does, it will always do that thing. This is a lens you can buy for what it does, just make sure you want what it does. If you want more than what it does, buy something else. Personally, I'm quite happy with what it does. And I generally don't think much of folks who criticize it for what it doesn't do. Every lens has stuff it doesn't do. If we start dwelling on what they don't do for every lens. no one would ever recommend anything.

The above is a macro image so the fact that it's shot at 135mm makes no difference. You can do this same image with a 16-85.

With images like this one,


You can't match it with a 16-50 or 16-85. It's 135 using every bit of reach and shot to the strength of the lens. In fact I doubt you're going to match this image better with any lens you choose. The lens needs to be WR, it needs to be easily hand held, and it need to be relatively small to fit in a very compact case for easy management in the boat Despite all the nay sayers, the lens is the best lens for some applications. And that's what I look for in a lens. Does it give me something I want, that no other lens gives me.

For what it does, it's best in class, for $300.

Whilst your devotion to the 18-135 is touching I think you are in danger of overplaying its strengths and turning a blind eye to its weaknesses.The OP wasn't even about that lens!

[Rondec]

NO, it's weakness is not a weakness in many shooting situations, and it's strength is it's range. From 18-50mm, it stacks up with any lens out there, 50-135 you have to use it for a specific type of shot.

What is often shown as was the case here, was that those who summarize in 11 words, often display that they couldn't understand what was said.

Often a picture is worth a thousand words....



How would this image be improved by having sharper edges?
And if you can't improve on it by using a much more expensive lens, why wouldn't you go for the cheaper option?

The edges are so out of focus, the sharpness of the lens at the edges makes no difference. Changing to a better lens doesn't improve the image, because in the center, where the subject is, the sharpness is excellent, even on Photozone's tests. Are you starting to get the hang of this? Not every picture benefits from having a lens that is sharp edge to edge.

If you buy something for what it does, it will always do that thing. This is a lens you can buy for what it does, just make sure you want what it does. If you want more than what it does, buy something else. Personally, I'm quite happy with what it does. And I generally don't think much of folks who criticize it for what it doesn't do. Every lens has stuff it doesn't do. If we start dwelling on what they don't do for every lens. no one would ever recommend anything.

The above is a macro image so the fact that it's shot at 135mm makes no difference. You can do this same image with a 16-85.

With images like this one,


You can't match it with a 16-50 or 16-85. It's 135 using every bit of reach and shot to the strength of the lens. In fact I doubt you're going to match this image better with any lens you choose. The lens needs to be WR, it needs to be easily hand held, and it need to be relatively small to fit in a very compact case for easy management in the boat Despite all the nay sayers, the lens is the best lens for some applications. And that's what I look for in a lens. Does it give me something I want, that no other lens gives me.

For what it does, it's best in class, for $300.

My comment said that there was significant copy variation. My brother's copy is decent. The photos that Klaus posted showed nothing sharp at 135mm focal length -- fine for a small photo, but nothing that was printable at any size. And he sent it in to Pentax Germany and they said that it was performing according to standard.

Anyway, as Timb64 says, the 18-135 is not on the OP's list. It is odd to me that show up on all the threads of folks considering the 16-85 to tell them that they should buy the 18-135 instead. I understand that you like that lens, but there are better lenses out there, even if by only a little bit.

[normhead]

My comment said that there was significant copy variation. My brother's copy is decent. The photos that Klaus posted showed nothing sharp at 135mm focal length -- fine for a small photo, but nothing that was printable at any size. And he sent it in to Pentax Germany and they said that it was performing according to standard.

Anyway, as Timb64 says, the 18-135 is not on the OP's list. It is odd to me that show up on all the threads of folks considering the 16-85 to tell them that they should buy the 18-135 instead. I understand that you like that lens, but there are better lenses out there, even if by only a little bit.

No what's odd is folks turning up in threads on the 16-85 and posting negative stuff about the 18-135. Someone other than me brought this lens up. I just respond to the crap that gets posted out there.

even if by only a little bit

Ya and there are a lot of lenses out there that in some areas of it's range are a little bit worse, but we never seem to get that mentioned unless I choose to do so. I'm just so constantly astounded by how you guys can post such one sided BS, constantly and not even realize what you're doing. Does everything have to always be biased against this lens?

It started with Klaus over at photozone and since then everyone seems to think they are a friggin expert because the trash the lens.

Read lensrentals, there is significant variation with every lens, even those costing thousands, not buying this lens doesn't save you from sample variation, so why mention it with regards to this lens only?

OK. I've posted exactly what I'm talking about with examples. I notice you completely ignore the commentary and examples and just keep going with the same old nonsense you always get bogged down in. This conversation is like a broken record. You post nonsense, I respond and try and clean up your messy thinking. Simple fact, its a cheap lens that at 24mm, gives you images on par with any lens out there including the 16-85, 16-50, and any Pentax prime you choose to name and can match the best images of any lens if you match image type and focal length, through out it's range. That is the truth. Your half arsed begrudging acknowledgements are touching, but display a lack of understanding and more than a little disrespect for the qualities of the lens.

As I have said, confine your posts to the positive attributes of the lenses you like and this kind of nonsense will end. Stop trashing other people's lenses. When you post your ignorance about various lenses and your inability to understand how to use them, you just invite this stuff.

Telling people how to use their lenses is constructive, telling people not to use lenses you never even figured out how to use, that's just ignorant.

There's quite a few people who love this lens, but of course, you guys are right and they are wrong... shows your lack of respect fellow forum users.

The most relevant part of "you can't get results with this lens" is the you.

Even Klaus got excellent results with the lens, he just found that for him, the positives didn't make up for the negatives.

[Rondec]

No what's odd is folks turning up in threads on the 16-85 and posting negative stuff about the 18-135. Someone other than me brought this lens up. I just respond to the crap that gets posted out there.



Ya and there are a lot of lenses out there that in some areas of it's range are a little bit worse, but we never seem to get that mentioned unless I choose to do so. I'm just so constantly astounded by how you guys can post such one sided BS, constantly and not even realize what you're doing. Does everything have to always be biased against this lens?

It started with Klaus over at photozone and since then everyone seems to think they are a friggin expert because the trash the lens.

Read lensrentals, there is significant variation with every lens, even those costing thousands, not buying this lens doesn't save you from sample variation, so why mention it with regards to this lens only?

OK. I've posted exactly what I'm talking about with examples. I notice you completely ignore the commentary and examples and just keep going with the same old nonsense you always get bogged down in. This conversation is like a broken record. You post nonsense, I respond and try and clean up your messy thinking. Simple fact, its a cheap lens that at 24mm, gives you images on par with any lens out there including the 16-85, 16-50, and any Pentax prime you choose to name and can match the best images of any lens if you match image type and focal length, through out it's range. That is the truth. Your half arsed begrudging acknowledgements are touching, but display a lack of understanding and more than a little disrespect for the qualities of the lens.

As I have said, confine your posts to the positive attributes of the lenses you like and this kind of nonsense will end. Stop trashing other people's lenses. When you post your ignorance about various lenses and your inability to understand how to use them, you just invite this stuff.

Telling people how to use their lenses is constructing, telling people not to use lenses you never even figured out how to use, that's just ignorant.

There's quite a few people who love this lens, but of course, you guys are right and they are wrong... shows your lack of respect fellow forum users.

The most relevant part of "you can't get results with this lens" is the you.

Even Klaus got excellent results with the lens, he just found that for him, the positives didn't make up for the negatives.

I'd rather not talk about your photos and what they show or don't show. Let it be said that this lens is fine. I think you are a little too aggressive in your sharpening, particularly with this lens. But that doesn't change that there are plenty of good results out there.

[timb64]

No what's odd is folks turning up in threads on the 16-85 and posting negative stuff about the 18-135. Someone other than me brought this lens up. I just respond to the crap that gets posted out there.



Ya and there are a lot of lenses out there that in some areas of it's range are a little bit worse, but we never seem to get that mentioned unless I choose to do so. I'm just so constantly astounded by how you guys can post such one sided BS, constantly and not even realize what you're doing. Does everything have to always be biased against this lens?

It started with Klaus over at photozone and since then everyone seems to think they are a friggin expert because the trash the lens.

Read lensrentals, there is significant variation with every lens, even those costing thousands, not buying this lens doesn't save you from sample variation, so why mention it with regards to this lens only?

OK. I've posted exactly what I'm talking about with examples. I notice you completely ignore the commentary and examples and just keep going with the same old nonsense you always get bogged down in. This conversation is like a broken record. You post nonsense, I respond and try and clean up your messy thinking. Simple fact, its a cheap lens that at 24mm, gives you images on par with any lens out there including the 16-85, 16-50, and any Pentax prime you choose to name and can match the best images of any lens if you match image type and focal length, through out it's range. That is the truth. Your half arsed begrudging acknowledgements are touching, but display a lack of understanding and more than a little disrespect for the qualities of the lens.

As I have said, confine your posts to the positive attributes of the lenses you like and this kind of nonsense will end. Stop trashing other people's lenses. When you post your ignorance about various lenses and your inability to understand how to use them, you just invite this stuff.

Telling people how to use their lenses is constructive, telling people not to use lenses you never even figured out how to use, that's just ignorant.

There's quite a few people who love this lens, but of course, you guys are right and they are wrong... shows your lack of respect fellow forum users.

The most relevant part of "you can't get results with this lens" is the you.

Even Klaus got excellent results with the lens, he just found that for him, the positives didn't make up for the negatives.

Infamy, infamy,they've all got it in for me!
I don't think I've ever said a bad word against the 18-135 yet you get so aggressive/defensive.Suggested New Years Resolution: lighten up a bit and take it all a bit less seriously

[normhead]

This is an ƒ2.8 vs 50mm-85 decision. I've seen great images from both cameras. Most of the time for a walk around ƒ2.8 isn't important, often 85mm is. Plus the 16-85 has good pseudo macro capability as a bonus.

My first quote, no mention of the 18-135.

I don't have any comment on the 16-85mm vs. the 16-50 other than the obvious aperture and range differences which have been pointed out. I use a Sigma 17-50 f2.8 and DA 18-135mm, depending on what I'm doing. I have a need for both.

I just butted into this thread to say that Heie's 18-135mm is a bum lens. He must have gotten the broken one that Photozone tested.

First mention of the 18-135.

I have to think that quality control on this lens must not be very good. The copy that Klaus tested on Photozone was not very good either. On the other hand, your copy performed quite well versus your 18-250. I have shot my brother's 18-135 and it was soft on the borders past 85mm, but it was very nice otherwise.

First negative quote related to the 18-135.

Infamy, infamy,they've all got it in for me!
I don't think I've ever said a bad word against the 18-135 yet you get so aggressive/defensive.Suggested New Years Resolution: lighten up a bit and take it all a bit less seriously

So to summerise in less than eleven words,its weakness is in fact its main strength,what patent nonsense!

Nice trolling, the thread speaks for itself, and shows you not only mis-represent me but lie about what you are doing yourself. It's pretty pathetic when I have to constantly call the two of you out, and then have to go back in the thread to show you what you did. (As if you didn't know.)

Honestly, I think this is a trolling issue for you. You just spout out nonsense as benign as you can and still be negative, then say "look how innocent I am, look how bad you are." It's dishonest.

I have no idea what Rondec's angle is, except he has a DA*16-50, that if you look at the ratings seems pretty weak, by the test charts. Maybe he thinks if he points out how "weak" the 18-135 is, no one will look at the numbers for the 16-50, but basically I have no idea what's going on there.

[RGlasel]

I think you are a little too aggressive in your sharpening, particularly with this lens.

You could be right, but it's a red herring. I'm pretty sure sharpening in post processing isn't lens dependent. You could also be unaware that the degree of atmospheric light dispersion is different between the Ohio valley and Algonquin Park. Not to mention that two different photographers are trying to capture different lighting conditions and will use the tools available to them to get the look they want. One of the reasons I bought a DA 15 is because of the foggy morning photos you have posted, but I haven't tried to take any similar photos with that lens myself. I just wanted a lens that did a better job of capturing the natural "mood" of what I see.

Apologies to the original poster for chasing after unrelated rabbits, but you raised a common point of divergence, which conveniences do you trade for which improvements in IQ? Ironically, I think you now have all of the lenses being debated here, so you can answer your questions at least as well as any of the rest of us.

[Rondec]

You could be right, but it's a red herring. I'm pretty sure sharpening in post processing isn't lens dependent. You could also be unaware that the degree of atmospheric light dispersion is different between the Ohio valley and Algonquin Park. Not to mention that two different photographers are trying to capture different lighting conditions and will use the tools available to them to get the look they want. One of the reasons I bought a DA 15 is because of the foggy morning photos you have posted, but I haven't tried to take any similar photos with that lens myself. I just wanted a lens that did a better job of capturing the natural "mood" of what I see.

Apologies to the original poster for chasing after unrelated rabbits, but you raised a common point of divergence, which conveniences do you trade for which improvements in IQ? Ironically, I think you now have all of the lenses being debated here, so you can answer your questions at least as well as any of the rest of us.

My point is more that it is hard to tell the natural sharpness of a lens when there are artifacts. I actually agree with Norm that for many photos it is unnecessary to have sharpness across the frame. There are just plenty of times where you would like to frame in such a way that your subject is not in the center of the image.

I like Norm's photos in general, I just sometimes find it hard to tell much about a lens's quality from them.