[CharLac]

Okay I see a lot of discussion about walk around zooms but basically, I am pondering the idea of replacing my DA 18-55 WR lens. This was the kit lens from my K7 which I am now using on my K3II. Don't get me wrong, this has been a great little lens and produced some fantastic images (IMHO) over the years. That said, I am sometimes wanting something a tad wider (I do have a 14mm 2.8 for tripod work in low light so nothing crazy, just a bit wider...maybe) a tad longer (again maybe, as I do have an old M 75-150mm that I use when I really want the extra reach and cropping the K3II is not a problem), something a bit faster (not as much of an issue any more with the impressive higher ISO on the K3 but still, as a walk around lens it would be nice sometimes to have a clearer/brighter viewfinder for my poor old eyes) and sharper. The 18-55 can produce some relatively sharp images but under limited conditions; it would be nice to have a wider scope of apertures and focal lengths to work effortlessly with. Oh yeah, WR is a requirement and yes, I want a Pentax lens.

Anyway, I have read a lot about the DA 16-85mm , the DA* 16-50mm, the DA 18-135mm and they all have their pluses...although I think I'd stick with the 16-85 over the 18-135, and the 16-50 intrigues me.

Comments? Am I missing a lens I should be looking at? Being a newbie, if there is a recent thread discussing this same topic, please let me know and I will move my question there and delete this one.

Thanks, Charlie

[jatrax]

The 16-50 is not significantly better than the 16-85 EXCEPT it is f/2.8. If you need that then the 16-50 or one of the 17-50 F/2.8 ones will work. But if you do not need the f/2.8 then get the 16-85, you will not find better.

If you are mostly OK with the 18-55 then get the 16-85 you will be delighted.

My 16-85 lives on my K-3II and my wife uses a 18-135 on her's. I think the 16-85 is sharper in most situations but it is hard to say all the time. Either will work, but I prefer the 16-85.

[CharLac]

The 16-50 is not significantly better than the 16-85 EXCEPT it is f/2.8. If you need that then the 16-50 or one of the 17-50 F/2.8 ones will work. But if you do not need the f/2.8 then get the 16-85, you will not find better.

If you are mostly OK with the 18-55 then get the 16-85 you will be delighted.

My 16-85 lives on my K-3II and my wife uses a 18-135 on her's. I think the 16-85 is sharper in most situations but it is hard to say all the time. Either will work, but I prefer the 16-85.

Does the length of the lens when zoomed to 85mm bother you?

[richandfleur]

I’m looking seriously at the Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.0

I’d prefer to go Pentax, but everything in my price bracket is either SDM motor, or not particularly great optically.

The 16-85 would be my first choice, but it’s soo expensive.

18-135 WR might be an alternative, although that seems to trade optical quality for convenience of WR and longer range.

The kit lens isn’t that bad, if used within its strengths zone.

[stevebrot]

My answer to this question was the Sigma 17-70/2.8-4 (Contemporary). Its performance is quite well-matched to my K-3 and I have few reservations when recommending this lens.

My review here at PF: https://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/sigma-17-70mm-f2-8-4-dc-macro-hsm-c...?reviewid=4705

No, it is not WR, but that was not a strong consideration when doing my market research and yes, I have gotten this lens wet.


Steve

[jatrax]

Does the length of the lens when zoomed to 85mm bother you?

No. It fits and balances quite well on the K-3II. Stick the DFA 150-450 on the K-3II for a bit. After that everything else seems tiny.

[richandfleur]

My answer to this question was the Sigma 17-70/2.8-4 (Contemporary). Its performance is quite well-matched to my K-3 and I have few reservations when recommending this lens.

My review here at PF: Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC Macro HSM (Contemporary) Lens Reviews - Sigma Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

No, it is not WR, but that was not a strong consideration when doing my market research and yes, I have gotten this lens wet.


Steve

Yes, after a lot of investigation I've decided that way to Steve. Haven't got on yet, but it's on the shopping list.

Debated long and hard about the earlier (non contemporary) model, of which OS is an option on some.
As discussed, with Pentax no longer offering real IBIS in video mode, this particular lens is one of the last remaining options for this.

Have decided to go the contemporary route though, and your review on this was really helpful Steve.
Barrel turning the 'wrong way' and no WR are the main disappointments, but IQ / build quality etc are all strong pros.

Also debated going with the constant aperture 17-50mm version, either Sigma or Tamron.
The Tamron seems to have good sharpness, but there were lots of reports of varying focus issues, and requiring different calibration corrections throughout the zoom range, which you can't correct with a single value in camera.
By all accounts the Sigma 17-70 Contemporary now has good sharpness right through the zoom range, so I decided for a kit lens that the extra 20mm on the long end was preferable to constant aperture, and it's fairly low throughout anyway, being f4.0 at the longest range too.

[CharLac]

I’m looking seriously at the Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.0

I’d prefer to go Pentax, but everything in my price bracket is either SDM motor, or not particularly great optically.

The 16-85 would be my first choice, but it’s soo expensive.

18-135 WR might be an alternative, although that seems to trade optical quality for convenience of WR and longer range.

The kit lens isn’t that bad, if used within its strengths zone.

Thanks for the reply but I am not sure what you mean about the 16-85 being so expensive. it's only USD$50 more than the USD$500 Sigma at B&H right now. Or am I looking at the wrong 16-85 (I only see one)

Thanks Charlie

[CharLac]

Well, order placed with B&H for a 16-85...7-10 days can't go fast enough!

Basically, the more I read, the more the discussion seemed to be be pointing me at that lens; so why fight it!

I'm off to Algonquin Park and then Texas in a month's time so I can't wait to try this out during the two trips.

Thanks for all the suggestions folks,

Charlie

[timb64]

Good luck with your new purchase on your forthcoming trips.Post some results here:

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

[richandfleur]

My answer to this question was the Sigma 17-70/2.8-4 (Contemporary).


Steve

In your review Steve, you mentioned having doubts around this vs the 17-50 constant f2.8 aperture alternative.
With some time passing, what do you now think about this?

From what I've read, the f2.8 is well constructed (was one of the better EX range as Sigma used to call things) but the newer Contemporary style of the 17-70 had increased build quality too.
Optically they now appear very similar, albeit with a varying (but still quite low) aperture over the zoom range of the 17-70.

[stevebrot]

In your review Steve, you mentioned having doubts around this vs the 17-50 constant f2.8 aperture alternative.
With some time passing, what do you now think about this?

Good question. Size and bulk, along with price, were the deciding factors at the time. I am not sure I would be willing to give up the 1:3 reproduction ratio and would have to compare FOV for 50mm at portrait distance* before making a decision now.


Steve

* The 17-70 exhibits significant focus breathing at the long end such that FOV is significantly wider than expected for a given focal length at portrait distance. For example, at 70mm and 6 feet, the FOV is slightly wider than my Pentax-M 50/1.7 at the same distance.

[jddwoods]

Well, order placed with B&H for a 16-85...7-10 days can't go fast enough!

Basically, the more I read, the more the discussion seemed to be be pointing me at that lens; so why fight it!

I'm off to Algonquin Park and then Texas in a month's time so I can't wait to try this out during the two trips.

Thanks for all the suggestions folks,

Charlie

I was just about to add my two cents of opinion to this thread and wholeheartedly recommend the DA 16-85 but it looks like you ordered it. Good luck with your new lens, I am sure you will really like it. I replaced my DA 17-70 when the SDM motor died with a used DA 16-85 in like new condition and am very happy with my copy.

[WorksAsIntended]

I think you made the right decission. Despite its not a f2.8 lens it can compete with basically every aps-c zoom I know. I was pleasently supprised when I got mine.

[CharLac]

16-85 arrived yesterday....can't wait to play!

{If you haven't grown up by age 50, you don't have to}