[aslyfox]

If the budget allows it, or if you can find a good price on an experienced one

I like the HD Pentax-DA 16-85mm F3.5-5.6 ED DC WR

" HD Pentax-DA 16-85mm F3.5-5.6 Conclusion

ThePentax DA 16-85mm is an exciting addition to the Pentax K-mount lineup of standard zoom lenses, as it delivers an unprecedented mix of versatility and image quality. This characteristic makes it a stellar choice for demanding photographers who are looking for a high-performance all-in-one lens that can produce pleasing images straight out of camera. "

" Who Is It For?

We feel that this lens appeals to a very large crowd consisting of beginners looking for a single all-purpose lens with the best available image quality or advanced users in need of a versatile zoom lens to supplement a lineup of primes. It's also a great choice for shooting in inclement weather thanks to its weather sealing. From an image quality standpoint, the 16-85mm should be chosen over the 18-135mm unless you consistently tend to shoot at the long end of the zoom range."

HD Pentax-DA 16-85mm F3.5-5.6 Review - Introduction | PentaxForums.com Reviews

I'm no expert, that is for sure but it might fit the OP's statement about what he likes to photograph

" shoot outdoor landscapes, as well as urban shots. Naturally, I also enjoy shooting things at home like candid family shots.. "

there is overlap, however, with the primes he already has 28 mm and 50 mm

---

Last edited by aslyfox; 10-05-2017 at 06:59 AM.

[ChristianRock]

I don't know what your budget is but for family pictures I always have a DA 35 2.4 and an F 50 1.7 available. The kids are too fast for manual focus lenses in low light, so these lenses help a lot. The 50mm lens is great for watching them from a bit more of a distance, and the DA 35 2.4 is great to get more in the picture if needed. Each lens costs a bit over 100 dollars so they are very inexpensive as far as new lenses go, but they can give very good results in the right hands.

For landscapes and urban shots, I don't know if you prefer a prime or a zoom... there's good options either way. As far as primes, the DA 15mm f4 is a much loved lens, but it might be a bit too wide sometimes. The DA 21mm is also loved, though not quite as passionately as the 15mm... still, it's capable of very good results and has a very useful and versatile wide focal length. They're both over 400 dollars new though, as they are part of the higher-end "Limited" series. There really isn't a wide autofocus cheap prime lens for the Pentax system (though the Pentax Limited lenses are actually pretty affordable compared to what's available in other camera brand systems!). There's also a DA 14mm f/2.8 lens - much bigger than the two others I mentioned but also faster so better for indoor. It's a bit wider also, and more expensive. Finally, there's a couple of third-party primes from Samyang (also sold as Rokinon): the 14mm f/2.8 and the 16mm f2. Both are good lenses, the 14mm is very good when you find a good copy (there are QC issues apparently...) and the 16mm is also very well regarded, and I haven't heard many horror stories about faulty lenses. The 14mm is full frame if that matters, so you could use it on your film Pentax or with the K-1 if you ever decide to upgrade.

As far as zooms, the DA 16-85mm that was mentioned is also very good and probably one of the best bets in terms of quality zooms for APS-C cameras. If the price tag of just over 500 dollars is a bit much, there's some affordable options in the used market. The DA 16-45mm, which hasn't been in production for a while, was always a very highly regarded zoom. There are people here in the forums that prefer it to the Limited lenses. I paid 120 dollars for mine, so deals are out there, but they're usually more in the 150-200 dollar range. The DA 17-70mm is considered even better (I don't know because I don't have it) and costs about the same in the used market these days - 150 to 250 depending on condition and on who's selling. The reason it's lost its market value (it cost quite a bit more when it was new) is the SDM autofocus motor, which sometimes fails in this lens, and it has to then be fixed as it doesn't have any options to convert to screw drive focus (like the DA 16-50mm). But I have seen some really good results from this lens.

Speaking of the DA 16-50mm, it's also an option I think, as the used prices on it have gone down a lot. It's the most expensive standard zoom for Pentax when new, but used prices have gone down to the 350-500 dollar range. It's an f/2.8 constant aperture lens so it's better than the previously mentioned lenses for low light. It is said to give extremely sharp results at f4, the only downside being the SDM autofocus motor (but it can be converted to screw drive) and distortion at the 16mm end, which is a bit more significant than the other lenses that go down to 16mm.

Sigma and Tamron also offer f/2.8 standard zooms, both being 17-50mm and also well regarded. The Tamron seems to be a bit more of a gamble as lots of copies have problems with the autofocus and with decentering - the build quality isn't as good as the Pentax 16-50 or the Sigma 17-50. But people who have a good copy of the Tamron usually like it a lot. The Sigma version seems to have better build and QC and it's rare to hear about someone having had a bad copy of it. The Tamron sells in the 200 or so dollar range and the Sigma usually just under ot at about 300 dollars in the used market. The Sigma is still available new for about 499 dollars.

Finally, in the standard zoom market there's also a Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4, which isn't constant aperture but is still a very good lens. The latest version, part of the Contemporary series (will have a "C" in the name), is an improvement over the previous versions which were already pretty good, but were a bit soft at the 70mm end of the zoom. I've seen 70mm pictures taken with the new lens that are very sharp especially in the center, so I think it's a very good option and if you can afford it I think it would be the one I would recommend, honestly! That one or the DA 16-45mm if you can live with the shorter focal length and would like to spend a bit less.

There's even wider options like the DA 12-24mm and the Sigma 10-20mm (two versions, one is slower, the newer one is faster at constant f/3.5). And there's a DA 10-17mm fisheye lens.

This isn't the complete list but I hope that gives you a head start into looking at the options and seeing what will work out best for you

[MichaelPatrick]

I don't know what your budget is but for family pictures I always have a DA 35 2.4 and an F 50 1.7 available. The kids are too fast for manual focus lenses in low light, so these lenses help a lot. The 50mm lens is great for watching them from a bit more of a distance, and the DA 35 2.4 is great to get more in the picture if needed. Each lens costs a bit over 100 dollars so they are very inexpensive as far as new lenses go, but they can give very good results in the right hands.

For landscapes and urban shots, I don't know if you prefer a prime or a zoom... there's good options either way. As far as primes, the DA 15mm f4 is a much loved lens, but it might be a bit too wide sometimes. The DA 21mm is also loved, though not quite as passionately as the 15mm... still, it's capable of very good results and has a very useful and versatile wide focal length. They're both over 400 dollars new though, as they are part of the higher-end "Limited" series. There really isn't a wide autofocus cheap prime lens for the Pentax system (though the Pentax Limited lenses are actually pretty affordable compared to what's available in other camera brand systems!). There's also a DA 14mm f/2.8 lens - much bigger than the two others I mentioned but also faster so better for indoor. It's a bit wider also, and more expensive. Finally, there's a couple of third-party primes from Samyang (also sold as Rokinon): the 14mm f/2.8 and the 16mm f2. Both are good lenses, the 14mm is very good when you find a good copy (there are QC issues apparently...) and the 16mm is also very well regarded, and I haven't heard many horror stories about faulty lenses. The 14mm is full frame if that matters, so you could use it on your film Pentax or with the K-1 if you ever decide to upgrade.

As far as zooms, the DA 16-85mm that was mentioned is also very good and probably one of the best bets in terms of quality zooms for APS-C cameras. If the price tag of just over 500 dollars is a bit much, there's some affordable options in the used market. The DA 16-45mm, which hasn't been in production for a while, was always a very highly regarded zoom. There are people here in the forums that prefer it to the Limited lenses. I paid 120 dollars for mine, so deals are out there, but they're usually more in the 150-200 dollar range. The DA 17-70mm is considered even better (I don't know because I don't have it) and costs about the same in the used market these days - 150 to 250 depending on condition and on who's selling. The reason it's lost its market value (it cost quite a bit more when it was new) is the SDM autofocus motor, which sometimes fails in this lens, and it has to then be fixed as it doesn't have any options to convert to screw drive focus (like the DA 16-50mm). But I have seen some really good results from this lens.

Speaking of the DA 16-50mm, it's also an option I think, as the used prices on it have gone down a lot. It's the most expensive standard zoom for Pentax when new, but used prices have gone down to the 350-500 dollar range. It's an f/2.8 constant aperture lens so it's better than the previously mentioned lenses for low light. It is said to give extremely sharp results at f4, the only downside being the SDM autofocus motor (but it can be converted to screw drive) and distortion at the 16mm end, which is a bit more significant than the other lenses that go down to 16mm.

Sigma and Tamron also offer f/2.8 standard zooms, both being 17-50mm and also well regarded. The Tamron seems to be a bit more of a gamble as lots of copies have problems with the autofocus and with decentering - the build quality isn't as good as the Pentax 16-50 or the Sigma 17-50. But people who have a good copy of the Tamron usually like it a lot. The Sigma version seems to have better build and QC and it's rare to hear about someone having had a bad copy of it. The Tamron sells in the 200 or so dollar range and the Sigma usually just under ot at about 300 dollars in the used market. The Sigma is still available new for about 499 dollars.

Finally, in the standard zoom market there's also a Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4, which isn't constant aperture but is still a very good lens. The latest version, part of the Contemporary series (will have a "C" in the name), is an improvement over the previous versions which were already pretty good, but were a bit soft at the 70mm end of the zoom. I've seen 70mm pictures taken with the new lens that are very sharp especially in the center, so I think it's a very good option and if you can afford it I think it would be the one I would recommend, honestly! That one or the DA 16-45mm if you can live with the shorter focal length and would like to spend a bit less.

There's even wider options like the DA 12-24mm and the Sigma 10-20mm (two versions, one is slower, the newer one is faster at constant f/3.5). And there's a DA 10-17mm fisheye lens.

This isn't the complete list but I hope that gives you a head start into looking at the options and seeing what will work out best for you

Wow, this is an incredibly detailed, helpful post. Thank you!

I am going to check out some of these lenses. I am not likely to buy new primes right away, but I am definitely looking for a new zoom. I've been leaning toward the DA 18-135 WR, as it seems to get great reviews and is a step up from the DA 18-55 WR (from what I read) in terms of IQ and obviously versatility. That said, I am going to look into some of your suggestions before pulling the trigger on it.

Thanks!

[ChristianRock]

Yes the 18-135mm is a good option for an all-around, one-lens-does-it-all. The IQ isn't bad, either, so I would say it's a lens most people would be glad to have. Another option that is also an upgrade optically from the 18-55 kit lens is the DA 18-250mm (there is also a newer 18-270mm but it's not quite as well regarded as the 18-250, which for a superzoom is considered pretty good). But I think lenses like the DA 16-45mm, 12-24mm, 17-70mm and especially the 16-85mm would be better landscape/cityscape lenses. As would the Sigma 17-50, 17-70 and 10-20, and the Tamron 17-50 (again, if you can find a good copy).

[MichaelPatrick]

Well, so I have taken in everyone's input and am having a hard time deciding. Here are my two approaches to purchases so far:

1) Buy the DA 18-135 WR right away. This seems to be a great lens, and will basically cover the range that I am used to based on my SLR lenses (28mm-200). It also allows me to use my SLR 28mm and 50mm primes and extra-wide and wide-angle lenses. I can also use my SLR 80-200 if it fills gaps that are left behind by the 18-135.

Once I save some money, I can complement the 18-135 with the DA 55-300 / Tamron 70-300.

Eventually, I will also throw some prime lenses in there, as recommended by ChristianRock.

I think that this is a good option in terms of price, and will allow me to grow as a photographer - especially as I familiarize myself with digital rather than film. My only real concern is that the 18-135 drops off after 100mm.

2) I can also go the more costly route, segmenting the zooms to avoid a drop in IQ, especially toward the higher end of the range. In doing so, I would first pick up either the DA 16-85 or the Sigma 17-70. My concern here is that while these seem to be higher end lenses, they do have some mixed reviews, whereby some folks say they don't lend all that much more noticeable IQ in relation to the more versatile 18-135.

Like with the first buying option, I would save some cash and then pick up a more powerful zoom - perhaps getting either the DA 55-300 /Tamron 70-300.

Again, I would then supplement these zooms with some primes when I find a good deal.

3) I am way off base/someone comes here with a completely new idea, and I am back to square one spending hours and hours doing more research, rather than grading my students' papers!!!


To reiterate: I am most interested in nature landscape photos, as well as urban shooting. I also want the basics for family events (but primes will factor in here in the long run).

I also want to make sure that I don't trap myself as I grow. I doubt I'll become a professional, but I am anal-retentive and obsessive enough to get good enough to want to print some large photos (poster size or a little smaller) at some point (I hope!). As such, a key question is whether or not the first purchase option will allow me to do so (with some cropping and image sharpening).

Thank you everyone! My dad was always insanely loyal to Pentax products, but I had no idea that the Pentax community is so damn helpful and insightful!

M

[Alex645]

I would opt for option 2 for both IQ and going 16mm wide is better for landscapes and urban shooting. The 55-300mm is the way to go as the second lens.

If you only post and share on the web, then the IQ is less a factor, but as you mention your intent to print poster size (I print my best work up to 40x60") the IQ will be noticeable.

The only option 3 Iʻd suggest, which would be least expensive option, is to go with a 18-55mm WR and the 55-300mm zooms. But if you can afford it, I think going to 16mm is worth every millimeter.

[aslyfox]

Well, so I have taken in everyone's input and am having a hard time deciding. . . . .2) I can also go the more costly route, segmenting the zooms to avoid a drop in IQ, especially toward the higher end of the range. In doing so, I would first pick up either the DA 16-85 or the Sigma 17-70. My concern here is that while these seem to be higher end lenses, they do have some mixed reviews, whereby some folks say they don't lend all that much more noticeable IQ in relation to the more versatile 18-135. . . . M

a review of this thread might be helpful

DA 16-85 WR,show us what it can do. - Page 47 - PentaxForums.com

or it might cause more anguish

I would urge you, if the budget allows it, to rent these lenses and do your own testing under your own conditions

[MichaelPatrick]

I would opt for option 2 for both IQ and going 16mm wide is better for landscapes and urban shooting. The 55-300mm is the way to go as the second lens.

If you only post and share on the web, then the IQ is less a factor, but as you mention your intent to print poster size (I print my best work up to 40x60") the IQ will be noticeable.

The only option 3 Iʻd suggest, which would be least expensive option, is to go with a 18-55mm WR and the 55-300mm zooms. But if you can afford it, I think going to 16mm is worth every millimeter.

In regards to your third option, do you think that the 18-55 is on pa with the 18-135? Or, is this just a budget option that covers the whole range without overlap?

Also, do you think that the above two lenses compare in terms of IQ with the 16-85?

Thanks!

[Alex645]

In regards to your third option, do you think that the 18-55 is on pa with the 18-135? Or, is this just a budget option that covers the whole range without overlap?

Also, do you think that the above two lenses compare in terms of IQ with the 16-85?

"Jack of all trades; master of none." Sometimes you need a do-it-all lens, but we are compromising IQ for convenience. From my own experience, the 18-55mm is as sharp or sharper than the 18-135mm in the 18-35mm range. At the long end of 55mm, Iʻd give the nod to the 18-135mm.

As consumers, I think photographers have always disrespected the kit lenses, whether they were 50mm primes back in the film era or the 18-55mm today. But from my experience, I have found these lenses as highly underrated mainly because they were the norm that came with the camera.

If we think about it, the manufacturer wants to wow us with their cameras, so it makes no sense that they would sell a mediocre lens if they want their cameras to produce impressive images. The price is made artificially low on those kit lens partly due to supply and demand, and to justify the more realistic mark-ups for other lenses in the system. I love various primes and zooms for many reasons, but the sharpest primes are the normal primes (35, 40, 43, 50, 55, 58mm) and typically the shortest ranged zooms.

Although overlap seems like a "waste" or redundant, itʻs not a bad thing. Although most zoom users shoot max wide and max long and not much in-between, the sweet spot for most lenses are in the middle focal lengths. (There are exceptions, but most of those are sharper at the wide end and then progressively get worse as you zoom in.)

Hard to compare the functionality of the 16-85mm at 16mm vs. an 18-55mm and 55-300mm combo beyond the 85mm. But purely for IQ, the 16-85mm has the edge at 18mm and 55mm, but the 18-55mm has the edge from maybe 20-40mm and the 55-300mm has the edge at 85mm.

BUT Iʻm splitting hairs: IQ is not as important as having 16mm or the convenience of the extra 55-85mm at the long end. If you donʻt need the 16mm wide end, then I think your money (and IQ) is best put into the 18-55mm+55-300mm combo. If IQ is really THE priority, itʻs called ʻprimeʻ for a reason But if you donʻt do side-by-side comparisons, youʻll love any of these zooms. Iʻve gone down the rabbit hole but for your own sanity, Iʻd focus on your photography and less on gear.

[MichaelPatrick]

So, after looking through a number of photos on PPG taken with the 18-55 WR on a K-5, I am going to go with that. It's not a burden on my wallet, and will pair well with the lenses I currently have. Soon enough, I will probably go for the DA 55-300, or something similar, as it is very reasonably priced. From there, I'll pick up primes as needed. Keep in mind that I'm finishing up a PhD, so funds are limited as fellowships coupled with NYC rent have an interesting impact on one's spending ability!