[THoog]

Having owned both I'd say the size/weight difference is negligible but the difference in quality is noticeable.

The 16-85 crosses a threshold for me. (arthritis may have something to do with it)

Comparison of sizes (16-85, 18-135, 18-55)

[timb64]

The 16-85 crosses a threshold for me. (arthritis may have something to do with it)

Comparison of sizes (16-85, 18-135, 18-55)

Sorry to hear that.

[BrAtClIF]

The 16-85 crosses a threshold for me. (arthritis may have something to do with it)

Comparison of sizes (16-85, 18-135, 18-55)

Thanks for the pics of the three of them next to each other. Very useful to a newbie.

[MartinMcFly]

My DA 18-135 virtually never leaves my K-5ii. It's the perfect travel lens, small and silent. I can get a relatively wide angle shot and also pull in distant objects when needed. I have used it previously on a K-7 taking night time shots with not much available light with very pleasing results. Just my 5 cents worth.

[Paul the Sunman]

If you have to start over with your short zoom decision, would you pick one of the two and explain why

• DA 18-135
• DA 16-85

and that assumes the Pentaxian not having DA* 16-50 zoom.

Thanks for your help as I am leaning more towards DA 16-85, though I have my eyes laying all around 18-135 or the Sigma 17-70 C for about 2 years now.

Cheers,
Hin

I'm having a 6-month break from my 18-135 while my son is using it in Asia. So, to tide me over, I bought the 16-85. I like the extra 2mm at the short end a lot, and the IQ is excellent, certainly a step up from the 18-135 in most ways. The colour is not quite as punchy as the 18-135, but you can always adjust that as you wish in pp. The loss of the long end is not a major concern when also carrying the 55-300.

As a one-lens-only travel solution though, the 18-135 is the best option I know.

[mee]

If you have to start over with your short zoom decision, would you pick one of the two and explain why

• DA 18-135
• DA 16-85

and that assumes the Pentaxian not having DA* 16-50 zoom.

Thanks for your help as I am leaning more towards DA 16-85, though I have my eyes laying all around 18-135 or the Sigma 17-70 C for about 2 years now.

Range wise, the 16-85 hands down.

But I don't own that lens. I do, however, own an 18-135 that came as a kit. I also now own a DA* 16-50 so I am accustomed to the width at 16mm.

18 is actually rather usable but the extra 2mm really does make a difference. The long end of the 18-135 is a bit poor from around 75mm or so to 135mm. BUT it is also a smaller and lighter lens so it is handy for travel.

Each has a different set of pros and cons. But I like to shoot pretty wide and the optics on the 16-85 seem improved over the 18-135 so thats why I'd pick it.

[normhead]

There seems to be a certain number of 16-85 users who just can't let 18-135 users get a good word in edge wise. Some kind of jealousy or something i suspect.

[hinman]

The 16-85 crosses a threshold for me. (arthritis may have something to do with it)

Comparison of sizes (16-85, 18-135, 18-55)

Thank you so much for the visual picture. If I have the 16-50, I will go directly to 18-135. But since I don't have any of the thee in DA 16-50, 16-85 and 18-135. I am more leaning to get 1 single lens and the torture is deciding one over the other. I will be baffled if I get one after the other as I hate the chore in selling lens.

Thanks again everyone for the invaluable inputs.

Hin

[timb64]

There seems to be a certain number of 16-85 users who just can't let 18-135 users get a good word in edge wise. Some kind of jealousy or something i suspect.

Surely can't mean me as I'm on the "ignore list"

Anyway references to the 16-85 only arose in response to a direct question to compare the two from hinman

[JensE]

One more opinion on the somewhat tangent discussion on 18-135mm vs. 16-85mm: As somebody having used the 18-135mm a lot, I would still recommend the 16-85mm over it for somebody who is OK with its size.

Why? I do love the size, weight, very quite and relatively fast focus as well as the excellent WR of my lens and have likely taken my best pictures with it. But, most of it somewhat of a rehash of the above, there are some points which I learned from experience:
1. The wide end of the 16-85mm is really useful e.g. for 'cityscapes'. While I own the 8-16mm Sigma, I now typically leave it at home and only use the more recently aquired 15mm LTD and suspect that most of my travel needs would even be served without it using the 16-85mm. I often found the 18-135mm just a tad too narrow.
2. On the long end, zooming out beyond ~100mm does not actually give considerably more detail than cropping the 100mm on my 18-135mm, at least with less than ideal light. Over most of it's range, not only corners but also the short edges never fully sharpen up on mine when stopping down the aperture. Not a problem for the vast majority of compositions, but it gets much more pronounced at the long end.
3. Contrast wide open at the long end is notably lower than in the middle range.
4. The image circle covered by the 18-135mm seems to be a little small. I sometimes end up with heavily darkened corners. I suspect it is due to sensor shift being involved, that those steep fall-offs are uneven and not correctable by lens profiles, sometimes very hard to fix. I need to spend a lot of extra work in post-processing when this happens. It's hard to predict or control at time of exposure.
Altogether, it's often advisable to frame picures more generously with the 18-135mm and leave room for some cropping, effectively reducing the level of details captured.

So, with limited usefulness of the long range, if I it wasn't for the the very compact size of the 18-135mm, I'd avoid the compromises made for it and take the 16-85mm for a single zoom.

[loco]

Those are good points about the long end, JensE. I don't think I've ever used the long end of the 18-135 for landscapes. I have used it for pseudo-macro, though, and it works nicely for that. The sharpness in the middle is still reasonable and the blurry edges often don't matter as much. It also isn't too bad for portraits.

[normhead]

One more opinion on the somewhat tangent discussion on 18-135mm vs. 16-85mm: As somebody having used the 18-135mm a lot, I would still recommend the 16-85mm over it for somebody who is OK with its size.

Why? I do love the size, weight, very quite and relatively fast focus as well as the excellent WR of my lens and have likely taken my best pictures with it. But, most of it somewhat of a rehash of the above, there are some points which I learned from experience:
1. The wide end of the 16-85mm is really useful e.g. for 'cityscapes'. While I own the 8-16mm Sigma, I now typically leave it at home and only use the more recently aquired 15mm LTD and suspect that most of my travel needs would even be served without it using the 16-85mm. I often found the 18-135mm just a tad too narrow.
2. On the long end, zooming out beyond ~100mm does not actually give considerably more detail than cropping the 100mm on my 18-135mm, at least with less than ideal light. Over most of it's range, not only corners but also the short edges never fully sharpen up on mine when stopping down the aperture. Not a problem for the vast majority of compositions, but it gets much more pronounced at the long end.
3. Contrast wide open at the long end is notably lower than in the middle range.
4. The image circle covered by the 18-135mm seems to be a little small. I sometimes end up with heavily darkened corners. I suspect it is due to sensor shift being involved, that those steep fall-offs are uneven and not correctable by lens profiles, sometimes very hard to fix. I need to spend a lot of extra work in post-processing when this happens. It's hard to predict or control at time of exposure.
Altogether, it's often advisable to frame picures more generously with the 18-135mm and leave room for some cropping, effectively reducing the level of details captured.

So, with limited usefulness of the long range, if I it wasn't for the the very compact size of the 18-135mm, I'd avoid the compromises made for it and take the 16-85mm for a single zoom.

Well isn't that always the compromise, more zoom range especially in cheaper lenses often means less quality over the whole range. The wider aperture the more weight.

Here are some examples from the 18-135...

AT 31 mm...

Sharp everywhere


Right to the edge.


At 135mm, sharp enough for 1280 pixel wide images


Soft on the edge...


A great deal of the time with telephotos soft on the edge doesn't matter, and isn't even noticeable even in large size printed. This image by the way is good enough print large, taken at 135mm. And no, a 16-85 wouldn't come close to this in IQ. This is what you give up if you select 16-85 over the 18-135.


The 18-135 and 16-85 are both walk around lenses. I don't consider either to be good enough to use for images i want to try and sell, but for 4x6s and web sized images, they both do just fine. Compared to my 60-250, the16-85 at 85 mm is coming off the camera as soon as I can use the 60-250, it's only average at 85mm.

So from my perspective neither is good enough to stay on the camera all the time and neither is good enough to stop me from putting on a better lens if it matters. To me this is just hair splitting. A tempest in a tea kettle. Making distinctions by limiting your choices to "the best of average." If you want quality, get the Tamron 17-50. It's much better than either of them, and it's quite possible you can blow the Tamron up to the equivalent of 85mm and have just as sharp edges as the 16-85 will give you at 85mm.

If I want to print large, neither of them is going to be on the camera, so from my perspective nit picking about which is better, is kind silly. Go for the focal length you want, the weight you want and the aperture you want. They are both walk around lenses. Arguing ultimate IQ on a walk around lens is kind of like admitting that you have to settle for less than the best and wondering how much less you can get away with.

That's a reasonable thing to do, but neither of these lenses is going win any awards for their IQ. But, that doesn't mean you can't take award winning images with either of them.

[THoog]

Making distinctions by limiting your choices to "the best of average."

I've always aspired to be "the best of the average".

[normhead]

I've always aspired to be "the best of the average".

Ya, there's a lot less pressure on you that way, a good solid mental health choice.

[timb64]

Well isn't that always the compromise, more zoom range especially in cheaper lenses often means less quality over the whole range. The wider aperture the more weight.

Here are some examples from the 18-135...

AT 31 mm...

Sharp everywhere


Right to the edge.


At 135mm, sharp enough for 1280 pixel wide images


Soft on the edge...


A great deal of the time with telephotos soft on the edge doesn't matter, and isn't even noticeable even in large size printed. This image by the way is good enough print large, taken at 135mm. AN no, a 16-85 wouldn't come close to this in IQ. This is what you give up if you select 16-85 over the 18-135.


The 18-135 and 16-85 are both walk around lenses. I don't consider either to be good enough to use for images i want to try and sell, but for 4x6s and web sized images, they both do just fine. Compared to my 60-250, the16-85 at 85 mm is coming off the camera as soon as I can use the 60-250, it's only average at 85mm.

So from my perspective neither is good enough to stay on the camera all the time and neither is good enough to stop me from putting on a better lens if it matters. To me this is just hair splitting. A tempest in a tea kettle. Making distinctions by limiting your choices to "the best of average." If you want quality, get the Tamron 17-50. It's much better than either of them, and it's quite possible you can blow the Tamron up to the equivalent of 85mm and have just as sharp edges as the 16-85 will give you at 85mm.

If I want to print large, neither of them is going to be on the camera, so from my perspective nit picking about which is better, is kind silly. Go for the focal length you want, the weight you want and the aperture you want. They are both walk around lenses. Arguing ultimate IQ on a walk around lens is kind of like admitting that you have to settle for less than the best and wondering how much less you can get away with.

That's a reasonable thing to do, but neither of these lenses is going win any awards for their IQ. But, that doesn't mean you can't take award winning images with either of them.

Just to be clear Norm,do you or have you owned a 16-85?