[normhead]

I don't believe 'the more the better' when it comes to the number of lenses I own. My travel kit in the past has been a DA 18-135 and a DA 15. I think it best to have a few lenses that I'm really good at using and have a clear purpose for (one of which is "excellent all-around zoom"). A trip I'm planning for sometime next year Is probably going to be the 18-135 and a Samyang 14mm f2.8 for low light / astro shooting.

The DA 18-135 isn't so great for two things, in my experience; it's not a light grabbing f2.8 or faster lens, and somewhat relatedly it's not great for portrait work. Again, in my experience. The DA 40XS or DA 50 1.8 can be added to a kit to handle those tasks for not a lot of money, weight, or space.

Thanks for reminding me, I should have bought the 15 to go with my 18-135 instead of the 21. At least you got m interested in the Rokinon 14, 2.8. What a nice lens. That 40 XS is also a a nice lens to carry in your top pocket, just because you can.

The 40 is also a great walk around lens on either a K-1 or a K-3 if you are in a prime kind of mood.

[UncleVanya]

Dakight, Interestingly, no edit box shows up on my posts.

I think your post count determines if you can edit early on. As a new user you were not able to do so I expect. The edit box will probably show up soon enough.

[pres589]

The Sy 14 is so easy to focus. I'm really annoyed now when I pick up my Kino 28mm f2 and try to not focus incorrectly with it. Somehow I think I'm worse with focusing that lens than my M 50 1.4.

A K-1 and a 40XS seems like such a dream to shoot with on walks or in cities. I have to be honest, I still have no idea what the DA 21 is really for. I think Canon got it more right with the 24mm f2.8 STM.

[pentageek]

I have so little respect for the folks who bad mouth this lens, I hope it doesn't come through too much. I always feel like saying. if you want to promote your lens fine, if you have to put down mine, that's not acceptable. Especially if you just repeat the nonsense posted by reviewers who don't use the lens every second day.

Does saying 'significantly outperforms' equal bad mouthing 18-135? I do not promote anything, and I don't put down anything. I used to have this lens, for short time had both of them, and I do not 'repeat the nonsense posted by reviewers who don't use the lens'. You can consider any lens to be better than the other, and this is your right which I respect, but I also expect you to respect opinions of others, especially when they are based on first-hand experience.

[KxBlaze]

Well, no it doesn't from 85mm to 135 mm the 18-135 significantly out performs it. Thats a range of 50mm. From 16-18 the 16-85 out performs the 18-135, that's a range of 2 mm, however it may be an important consideration.

That's pointing out the obvious. I do not believe Pentageek was trying to say the 16-85 goes to focal length 135 and out performs the 18-135 at that focal length. If you do not agree with someone (for the record I like the 18-135 better and think it is a better lens than the 16-85 but would not say the 16-85 is terrible from 86-135 because it does not cover that focal length) you do not have to point out the obvious in a condescending way to prove your point.

I recently bought a KS2 with the 18-50 WR lens. I think I would rather have the 18-135 WR for an all round lens. I believe I can probably trade the dealer for the new to new difference in price, about $320, or I can buy a used 18-135 EWR in great shape for about$250 (both CDN dollars) and then perhaps sell the 18-50. Is there any really good reason to own both lenses?

I would say there is no reason to own both. I would suggest keeping the 18-135 as I think it is an amazing all around lens and since you are not concerned with lens size the 18-135 seems like the best choice for you.

[UncleVanya]

For me (and I don't own the 16-85) the real test is would I be happy with 16-85 over the 16-50 f/2.8 I have. Is the extra 35mm worth the loss of the wider aperture. Tests seem to show it is close to if not better than the 16-50 at the wide end. But lacking 86-135 - I have to ask if the results I would get from cropping the 16-85 images would match the 18-135. I think the comparison published here said it was a close race with the 18-135 beating the cropped 85mm results from the 16-85. So for me that exxtra length is valued. And while i like wide perspectives a lot - the DA 15 + DA 18-135 is a smaller combo than a 16-85 plus a 135mm prime - even the f/3.5 version. The DA 16 also offers better flare resistance and lovely starbursts.

So for me - when I want the nth degree of IQ, I'm shooting my prime limiteds or my DA 15, DA 20-40, and DA* 50-135... but that is my preference.

EDIT: Just reread the review. At 85mm The 18-135 beat the 16-85 by a hair. Downsampling the 135 to 85 also beat the 16-85 (barely), and upsampling 85 on the 16-85 to match the 135 on the 18-135 was inferior. Read here: https://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/hd-pentax-da-16-85mm-f35-56/general-image-quality.html Overall I'd say the diffeence was pretty small. At the wide end the 16-85 really shines - so mostly this is a matter of the focal length needed and size desired and range to cover.

[MichaelaPDX]

I recently bought a KS2 with the 18-50 WR lens. I think I would rather have the 18-135 WR for an all round lens. I believe I can probably trade the dealer for the new to new difference in price, about $320, or I can buy a used 18-135 EWR in great shape for about$250 (both CDN dollars) and then perhaps sell the 18-50. Is there any really good reason to own both lenses?

Interesting and timely discussion for me. I just ordered a K-70 with the 18-135 lens. My favorite lens for the type of photography I do (35mm) is a manual Pentax 28mm. I've been searching for a wide angle prime for the K-70 but frankly I'm not sure one is even necessary. I don't really know that I'll need anything different than the 18-135.

[normhead]

I think the comparison published here said it was a close race with the 18-135 beating the cropped 85mm results from the 16-85. So for me that exxtra length is valued.

There are some thing published on the site that are just crazy, That's one I missed.

If you do a comparison, and the it's the guy who does the tests who's responsibility it is to demonstrate the differences, can't show the difference between an excellent 85mm lens and an excellent centre sharp 135mm lens, then he also can't show you why you should buy a 135mm prime as well as a 85mm prime, as in his/her tests they don't show the difference between two excellent zooms.

I can devise a test where an 85mm is exactly the same as 135mm, but that proves nothing. And nether does the Pentax forum comparison.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/321890-und...re-detail.html

A good test is one that highlights the differences as well as the areas in which they are similar.

Following this logic, no one should ever buy a 135mm lens. The 85 will be very close. With all due respect, that's nonsense. Learn to put together a test that actually shows something.

That's pointing out the obvious. I do not believe Pentageek was trying to say the 16-85 goes to focal length 135 and out performs the 18-135 at that focal length. If you do not agree with someone (for the record I like the 18-135 better and think it is a better lens than the 16-85 but would not say the 16-85 is terrible from 86-135 because it does not cover that focal length) you do not have to point out the obvious in a condescending way to prove your point.

No he just said the 16-85 significantly outperforms the 18-135, and I pointed out that was nonsense. If you say something stupid and someone takes exception, I try to explain thoroughly and slowly not leaving anything out, If you ignore the obvious, someone will point it out to you. If you find that condescending, well, that's your opinion.

Here is what he said.

Have you considered 16-85? It's more expensive, but significantly outperforms 18-135 in terms of IQ.

Maybe you can explain where in that statement he acknowledges the obvious. IN fact he posts as if the obvious doesn't exist, doesn't matter.At 24mm the 18-135 insignificantly out performs the 16-85 according to the photozone numbers.

So next time you want to give me a lecture about one of my responses, maybe think it through a bit first.
I'm always happy to see a technical response that goes beyond personal attacks, and demonstrably incorrect information.

[pres589]

Our new friend Mike here is probably wondering what he wandered into...

I feel like the 18-135 is an awesome all-around. It's not so great from 18mm to about 24mm. As 24mm on crop is about the same width of view as what a 35mm offer on full frame, this is kind of non-excellent. So, a second lens, or stitching multiple images together in post processing is the answer if a really wide, high quality image is desired. Both solutions have their place. I think my suggestion is that, for the time being, just shoot the daylights out of the K-70/18-135 combo and see what makes sense after getting some time with the lens.

[UncleVanya]

Norm I think you missed the point of the comparison. The article wasn't a compare and contrast. It was mainly a review of the 16-85 and an answer to the optical quality of the lens to the then reining champion 18-135 all around lens. The images posted showed that you could get comparable results with sampling but gave a slight edge on the long end to the 18-135. That's pretty useful info for someone torn over which to buy. I agree that there is more to the comparison of the two lenses. I was surprised to learn that even at 85mm the 18-135 slightly edged out the 16-85. Past critique of the 18-135 always suggested falling performance at just past 70mm. Few ever reported this on the 16-85. I really think the comparison data helps level set even if it didn't do a full comparison.

To the rest of you... If your still reading, I think the 18-135 is a remarkable lens. It gives a wide range in a compact wr package. I'd love to try out the 16-85 at some point but only due to my insatiable desire to learn.

[timb64]

Having owned both lenses,in my opinion,the 16-85 significantly outperforms the 18-135 in terms of IQ

[Dean2]

[/COLOR]Dakight, Interestingly, no edit box shows up on my posts but by clicking on "Go advanced" I can access the post and edit it..
.

I think your post count determines if you can edit early on. As a new user you were not able to do so I expect. The edit box will probably show up soon enough.

Great info and spot on. The Edit box has now started showing up. Thanks for the help.

[normhead]

Having owned both lenses,in my opinion,the 16-85 significantly outperforms the 18-135 in terms of IQ

But you have nothing to back that up with.
Stated the way you state it there's nothing wrong with that. You made clear it was a personal opinion based on your experience of 2 lenses. However, your willingness to extend that to all lenses of that class in all circumstances is open to correction.

For all variable aperture lenses that I can think of the trick is knowing their strengths and using them to their strengths. Sometimes a person saying such things is saying one lens is better overall than the other for his/her use. But that doesn't mean it's better for everyone. And in fact it's possible that the commentator just doesn't have a shooting style that uses the strengths of the lens.

All I'm saying is, given the 16-85 or 18-135, you may prefer one over the other based on your shooting style, and that has nothing to do with the objcective merits of the lens. It certainly is annoying when people take their personal level of understanding and try and apply it to the universal. The fact that one guy doesn't get a lens, doesn't mean everyone else won't.

Funny how I would never say "don't buy a 16-85". I've never met a lens that didn't have some merit, although some of them are extremely limited in their good points. Based on your personal preferences it might be the lens for you. It does amaze me how many 16-85 users can't say the same thing about the 18-135. There seems to be some snobby thing here I just don't understand. Despite the fact that some of the best shooters on the forum (excluding myself from that category) shoot with the 18-135, for the reasons I stated.

Now if I wanted to get snobby I'd say something like "when you've sold as many 16-85 images as I've sold 18-135 image, we'll talk." It's not just 16-85 users that can get all arrogant. Most of us just prefer not to.

If you can't sell your lens without putting down another lens, there's something wrong with you. My personal opinion is you should be banned, and some photo sites actually do that. People pay good money for their lenses, they don't need people on the forum second guessing their choices. That's just rude.

Every mature person on the forum understands, the fact that a lens didn't suit them doesn't mean it doesn't suit everybody, and that it's not a voting contest where everyone picks sides. Provide accurate information. Debating personal opinions is worthless, unless you have taken the time to determine that person who is being given advice wants to shoot what you shoot, the way you shoot it.

Why can't you just state what you like and why without putting down something else?

Bottom line for this thread, 500 people could come here and say they like the 16-85 better than the 18-135, and the OP could still be better suited to and prefer the 18-135.

[timb64]

But you have nothing to back that up with.
Stated the way you state it there's nothing wrong with that.

There,that's all you needed to say,why the subsequent diatribe?

As you obviously have an issue with what I say why not put me back on your ignore list (which I had understood from another of your recent postings no-one had ever been taken off!).

[BigMackCam]

OK folks, let's get back to friendly, constructive, courteous and respectful discussion, if you please. Warnings, infractions and / or thread bans are the alternative.

Thanks