[Cambo]

One of the best zooms ever made. Incredible lens.

Cheers,
Cameron

[mikesbike]

For wide-angle scenic use, the DA 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 is great and versatile. But for all-around versatility combined with quality- for scenic use to zooming for kid shots, portrait grabs, or pet shots, the DA 18-135mm is a wonderful tool. I've had one for a number of years and would not part with it. The fine shots posted by Norm here speak to the high quality it is capable of. I considered going for the 16-85mm when it came out, but I have my excellent DA 12-24mm for the extra wide end, and it is not as versatile, yet it is larger. The DA 18-135mm can keep to f/3.5-4.5 all the way out to 70mm with very good IQ quality. I have found its AF to be exceptionally fast, quiet, and accurate. The build quality is also exceptional, and with WR. Much better in every way than the kit lens, which I gave to friends with my K-r.

[sbh]

I'm a big fan of the 17-70 f/4. It's the best overall package imho. I really miss this kind of lens on the K-1. It's always on my K-5iis.

[jatrax]

I really miss this kind of lens on the K-1.

Would that not be the 28-105?

[jddwoods]

I'm a big fan of the 17-70 f/4. It's the best overall package imho. I really miss this kind of lens on the K-1. It's always on my K-5iis.

I am a bit reluctant to recommend the 17-70. It is sharp but the big issue with this lens is its autofocus. I have both the 17-70 and the 16-85 and overall I feel the 16-85 is definitely the better of the two. The advantages of the 16-85 are the much better autofocus, add in WR, the wider zoom range, better sharpness especially above 50 mm and it is the 16-85 that is almost always on my K-3. The one advantage of the 17-70 is the constant F4.0 aperture but I think that advantage is very small compared to the advantages of the 16-85. Size wise and weight wise they are about the same. Build quality is definitely better on the 16-85, the 16-85 feels much more solid with none of the inner barrel wobble that is noticeable on my 17-70.

[clackers]

Would that not be the 28-105?

Yep.

And it's fantastic, so good that it's probably cannibalized some 24-70 f2.8 sales.

[Scorpio71GR]

To me the two choices are the 18-135 or the 16-85. I own both. For overall reach the 18-135 is best. Since getting the 16-85 my 18-135 rarely gets used. The focal length of the 16-85 suits me better. I do not think you can wrong with either lens. I will ad the 16-85 has constantly impressed me. Something not many lenses have ever done. Others have mentioned the 28-105. The 28-105 is probably one the best Pentax zoom lenses I have used. It rarely leaves my K-1.

[jatrax]

And it's fantastic, so good that it's probably cannibalized some 24-70 f2.8 sales.

Agree with that. I bought the DFA 24-70 first and then DFA 28-105. Had I bought the 28-105 first I would not have bought the 24-70. Nothing wrong with the 24-70, but the 28-105 is 'close enough' and so much lighter. What we need is a companion 18-35ish of the same quality.

[RTogog]

Hello,

I prefer Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM C vs Pentax DA 16-85 F3.5-5.6 as my daily lens. Besides smaller, its max. aperture f2.8 at short end focal lens which is very important for night shots. On my case of my Pentax, its edge corners at fl 16mm is a bit soft and do not improve even I change to aperture f8. I have no complaint for other aperture and focal lens which look give equivalent performance, except my Sigma create more CA than my Pentax, but this issue can be settled with a software. May be I got not the best copy, but after seen some samples from other users and some other source I can conclude that this weakness on edge corners is normal.

RTogog

[pres589]

Yeah, I can't see owning both the 18-135 and the 16-85.

[normhead]

To me the two choices are the 18-135 or the 16-85. I own both. For overall reach the 18-135 is best. Since getting the 16-85 my 18-135 rarely gets used. The focal length of the 16-85 suits me better. I do not think you can wrong with either lens. I will ad the 16-85 has constantly impressed me. Something not many lenses have ever done. Others have mentioned the 28-105. The 28-105 is probably one the best Pentax zoom lenses I have used. It rarely leaves my K-1.

Agree with that. I bought the DFA 24-70 first and then DFA 28-105. Had I bought the 28-105 first I would not have bought the 24-70. Nothing wrong with the 24-70, but the 28-105 is 'close enough' and so much lighter. What we need is a companion 18-35ish of the same quality.

The 28-105 just does stuff other lenses don't do. A companion 18-35 would be totally awesome.

[twilhelm]

I don't own the 16-85, but users seem to really like it. I have owned the DA 17-70 f4 for years and I love the lens. It was my most used lens until I purchased the 20-40. I'll keep the 17-70 because it works for shooting events.

If it's great glass for budget money, you should consider the 17-70, I've seen pristine copies under $300 lately.

[normhead]

Sounds like 16-85 if you have the bucks.
18-135 if you want more range and almost as good. ( At Henry's $320 CAD less than an 16-85)
17-70 if you shoot events or low light.
28-105 if you have a K-1.

Every suggesting has ifs. Only the OP can sort them out.

[reeftool]

Hello,

I prefer Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM C vs Pentax DA 16-85 F3.5-5.6 as my daily lens. Besides smaller, its max. aperture f2.8 at short end focal lens which is very important for night shots. On my case of my Pentax, its edge corners at fl 16mm is a bit soft and do not improve even I change to aperture f8. I have no complaint for other aperture and focal lens which look give equivalent performance, except my Sigma create more CA than my Pentax, but this issue can be settled with a software. May be I got not the best copy, but after seen some samples from other users and some other source I can conclude that this weakness on edge corners is normal.

RTogog

I really love my Sigma 17-70C. Unfortunately, my camera with lens attached took a fall off a bench and my beloved Sigma ended up in 2 pieces with the mount separated. I just shipped it to Sigma for a repair estimate but I may be faced with replacing it. I have been looking at prices and currently, the Sigma 17-70 and DA 16-85 are selling for the same $499 price.

I shoot a lot of events with my 17-70. Car shows, motorcycle shows, parties, etc. Any further input on the comparison of these 2 lenses? I use the Sigma wide open very often on the short end at parties and indoors and the results have been excellent. I normally wouldn't have even entertained the thought of replacing it. It's a lens I'm familiar with and trust. The 16-85 wasn't around when I bought the Sigma. I like the greater zoom reach but am a little apprehensive of it being slower. If it's as sharp wide open as the Sigma, maybe but that extra bit of shutter speed makes a difference, too, when shooting indoors in a crowded room. I really don't like to use flash.

[normhead]

I like the greater zoom reach but am a little apprehensive of it being slower. If it's as sharp wide open as the Sigma, maybe but that extra bit of shutter speed makes a difference, too, when shooting indoors in a crowded room.

The increases in low light performance on newer bodies probably makes this a moot point. I don't use my walk around lenses indoors for the most part. If we are talking about an indoor lens, then we are talking a completely different set of specs. Now we are talking Tamron 17-50 ƒ2.8, but usually my 35 2.4 or FA 50 1.7. We have used the 18-135 indoors for family gatherings without issue. I use the 1.7 when it's actually dark, and I want a decent shutter speed. In my mind, expecting your low light lens and your walk around lens to be the same lens just isn't intuitive.

This topic engenders this type of suggestion.

"I need the 2.8 of the 17-70 wide open for events, but i don't need the constant 2.8 of the 17-50, 50-135. I don't need the 7:1 zoom range of the 18-135 over the 17-70, but I do need the zoom range of the 17-70 or 16-85 over the various 1x-50 2.8s." Is it me or is this just drawing lines in the sand?

My walk around decision is much more simple. I want the best zoom range with acceptable image quality. If it doesn't have that, in my mind it's not a walk around lens. Starting to mix in things like low light performance etc. are just confusing the issue. Camera companies make the different types of lenses, because they are different things. And I want the best weight/performance ratio, because, I'm going to be walking around carrying the lens and camera. That pretty much gets rid of 2.8 lenses. 2.8 zoom lenses are heavier than they need to be for people who normally are shooting ƒ5.6 to ƒ8 out doors, while walking around. One stop better low light performance is twice the weight. That is critical in your "walk around" thinking. Large apertures are not your friend if you are weight conscious.

The whole thing with a walk around lens is you don't know what you will encounter. That's different from an event lens. For some something like the Sigma 18-250 is the perfect walk around lens. That's not enough IQ for me but the 18-135 is. That's not good enough for some but the 17-70 is. That's not good enough for some but the 16-85 is. That's not good enough for some but the 28-105 on the K-1 is.

IN every case every increase in IQ, and the increases in IQ are at best minimal, cost you zoom range and flexibility. While it's interesting hearing where everyone draws the line, the OP still has to figure out what compromise he's comfortable with.

I suggest, going with the highest zoom range with an IQ you can live with. Some seem to be suggesting looking for the best combo of zoom range and low light performance (which I think is completely different category but could conceivably be what the OP is asking for.)

But I think it pays to understand, people are talking about different types of lenses in their recommendations. That's complicating the issue. But the OP can clarify by deciding what's really important to him.

If a fast aperture isn't an issue, that greatly simplifies your choices.
If a faster aperture is desired, that also greatly simplifies your choices.
That's where I'd make the first cut of my possible choices list.
After that, I'd look at the images of the various systems try and figure out where your personal IQ limit is. If an 18-250 is good enough for you, why would you waste your money on something else?

You have to be really picky about IQ to spend a lot of money on a pricey walk around lens with great low light performance etc.. That doesn't always produce the kinds of results people think it should. Many would be better off with an 18-250, they just read the lens charts and refuse to consider it. For some that's a mistake, for others it isn't. But choosing one or the other isn't a good or a bad decision, it's all about you and what makes you happy. My preference for the 18-135 really has no bearing on that. The 18-135 could be the lens that makes you happiest, but more likely it will be one of the others, just because there are so many choices at least 4 more ways to go, and all else being equal, the chance of any one of them being for you, given 4 choices is about 25%. These lenses are not better than each other, these lenses are different from each other. Each one does things the others don't, ( eg. the 17-70 lets in more light than the 18-135 but is almost half the focal length) and does 85% of what the others do. Your decision should be based on what you want in that last 15%.