Originally posted by mikesbike Hi John, welcome to Pentax and this forum. It would be of interest to learn what subject matter you like to shoot most and also which camera body (ies) you use with this lens. Unfortunately, there have been more than average quality-control complaints cropping up with the otherwise fine DA 16-85mm lens. Here are alternatives, some of which are costly, but offer other advantages. One is the DFA 24-70mm f/2.8 WR, which offers very high image quality, an even more robust pro-style build, and of course the fast, f/2.8 constant aperture for low-light, fast action, and reduced depth-of-field uses. 24mm still provides moderate wide angle for APS-C cameras, which the DA 16-85mm is designed for. But the lens is larger and heavier due to having such a wide aperture capability. Unfortunately, a wide-angle complementary lens offering WR would be a likewise large, heavy, expensive lens, the DFA 15-30mm f/2.8, which is very costly. However, if you don't need WR for wide angle use, there is the very fine DA 12-24mm f/4.
The closest all-around, versatile lens to the DA 16-85mm having WR is the yet more compact DA 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 DC WR where you trade some wide angle for a lot more reach. Its build quality is excellent, and only in edge sharpness does it trail the DA 16-85mm model. Its central-area sharpness, however is excellent throughout its zoom range. Its AF is very fast and sure, and quality control issues with it seem to be very rare. For aperture speed, it can keep to f/4-4.5 all the way out to 70mm, which is pretty decent. Someone here has posted having software (by DxO?), with which he can successfully correct edge softness in this lens when needed. I have the costly, very fine DA 20-40mm Limited, which I love on a compact body, and a fast, pro-style Sigma 24-60mm f/2.8, but I still do Love my very versatile, fine DA 18-135mm!
Thanks Mikesbike,
I had read a fair bit about the 18-135 and thought it was well built. The extra length would be a bonus and I think I could get by without the 2 mm on the wide end. I had read about the difference in sharpness and wondered how much difference it was in the real world. I do sell some of my pictures but many times I have them printed on canvas so I can get away with a little less sharp on canvas. I have a couple of primes and there are times when a really sharp picture is oh so nice though.
I was wondering about the 24-70 as well, it sounds like a beautiful lens. I am worried it might not be quite wide enough for me. I know I can carry a few lenses but when I am into bad weather I hate swapping lenses. Sadly the 16-85 is the perfect length for me. From what I have read it seems like the majority are pretty good but there are a few out there that don't seem to hold up.
I am thinking if you love the 18-135 and you obviously use some fine lenses so you are fussy about your picture quality so I may look more serious into it.
I literally live on the side of the Atlantic ocean in Lunenburg NS, Canada. It is the perfect area for my style because the harsher the weather the more likely I am out. We had a winter hurricane go thru last week and I was on a beach capturing 25 ft waves. It was nasty and I was the only fool on the beach but I am in heaven on days like that. I also bring my camera kayaking with me so again even on nice days it is not the ideal element for a camera run by a computer chip. Lol I should have kept my old K1000