[Theov39]

I have never used the Pentax 16-85 but I used to use the equivalent Nikon 16-85 which is nearly identical in size and weight plus it has the same filter size. Based on that experience, I'd definitely go for the 18-135 for now. It is more compact, lighter, takes smaller filters and it has a versatile focal range to explore what style of photography you prefer over the long run.

True, 16mm IS noticeably wider (24mm vs 27mm) but still not super wide. If later you decide you would like to go wider, buy a dedicated wide angle lens like the Pentax DA 12-24mm or Pentax DA 15mm lens using the money you saved by buying the 18-135 instead of the 16-85. Both the Pentax DA 12-24mm and 15mm lens produce beautiful images.

---

Last edited by Theov39; 01-01-2019 at 08:08 PM.

[C_Jones]

I have the Pentax 16-85. It is high definition (HD), weather resistant, silent AF, and has a dependable direct current motor. It provides excellent images. I replaced an 18-55 with the 16-85. The extra width the 16 end gives is definitely an advantage over the 18 and contributes greatly to landscape and other types of shooting. The focal length up to the 85 end is a useful range. Imagery is excellent throughout the focal range of the lens.

I would definitely recommend the Pentax 16-85. I have mine on my K-3 II presently and have frequently been using it on a Sirui tripod for landscape shooting. I shoot a majority of long exposures on my tripod when the conditions are right, and portrait type shots also (full body, group, and head shots). The results are amazing.

For longer focal range needs I have my Pentax 70-200 on my Pentax K-1 II and my Sigma 150-500 on my K-5 IIs. Having different lenses for different ranges is an effective method.

[boriscleto]

Forget about the 2mm difference at the wide end and get a Sigma 10-20, Pentax 12-24, or Tamron 10-24...Or even a Sigma 8-16...There are those who will tell you that the 15 Limited controls your mind...don't listen to them, they're just weak minded fools...

[Des]

I suggest you visit the Troubleshooting and Beginner Help section in the thread entitled "Which K-70 package?"on P.2 to view some sample work with this lens by Des, to see its extreme versatility and its possibilities for yourself. Now, keep in mind these images are results from an experienced photographer, which you will eventually become. Please do check this out!

It's very flattering to be cited as a reference point! FWIW, the thread @Mikesbike is referring to is here: Which k-70 package? - PentaxForums.com

The point I was trying to emphasize there was how useful and versatile the lens is in my kind of real world use. For example, it doesn't overly bother me that the edges aren't sharp when shooting at the long end, because it has plenty of resolution in the centre - and that's what I want at the long end. (In fact the contrast between sharp centre and soft edges can even help give a more 3D effect - e.g. the parrot photo in the samples mentioned.) And even though I usually have the DA 55-300 with me as well, having the extra reach of the 18-135 saves a lot of lens changes. If I'm on a walk, or on a cruise, or in a dusty or damp environment, or if a lens change may mean missing the moment, that versatility really matters. And those are often the sorts of situations I'm dealing with. When those things don't matter so much (for example if I take the 55-300 or DFA 100 or another tele lens on a second body), I might take my DA 20-40 or DA 12-24 instead (the former for its compact size, wider aperture, lovely rendering and HD coatings, the latter for its great wide coverage).

On the other hand, for a more dedicated and skilled landscape photographer (like @Northcoastgreg - check out his excellent reviews: Lens Reviews | Reviews | The Northcoast Photographer ), shooting at f8 or so on a tripod most of the time and wanting more even resolution across the frame, and the superior resistance to flare and aberrations provided by the HD coatings, the 16-85 would be much more appealing. Same goes for anyone who never shoots beyond 85mm, or who doesn't have any issue changing lenses when they do.

I think it's telling that the main point of difference between the lenses in their common range, as reported by most people who have had both, is the corner/edge sharpness of the 16-85, particularly at its telephoto end, and the superior flare resistance etc of the HD coatings. Look at the photos you have taken to date and ask yourself: would those differences really really matter to me? If the answer is no, get the 18-135. If the answer is yes, ask yourself whether they matter more than the versatility of the wider focal range. If the answer is no, get the 18-135. If the answer is yes, pony up for the 16-85.

---

Last edited by Des; 01-02-2019 at 04:36 AM.

[UncleVanya]

I think it's telling that the main point of difference between the lenses in their common range, as reported by most people who have had both, is the corner/edge sharpness of the 16-85, particularly at its telephoto end, and the superior flare resistance etc of the HD coatings. Look at the photos you have taken to date and ask yourself: would those differences really really matter to me? If the answer is no, get the 18-135. If the answer is yes, ask yourself whether they matter more than the versatility of the wider focal range. If the answer is no, get the 18-135. If the answer is yes, pony up for the 16-85.

I agree.


Just read the original reviews and you'll see the two lenses are both excellent. One key that people forget is that cropping in the 16-85 was nowhere near as good as the 135 "weak" end of the 18-135. Also results up to about 70 are pretty similar. So is slight better performance from 70-85mm and infinitely better 16 -17.99 or infinitely better 85.001-135 more useful? For me I've never shot the 16-85, but I own the 16-50, and only grab it when the low light fast aperture is needed. So my expectation is it wouldn't be a lens I would need over what I have. I do usually grab the da15 to carry in a pocket so my use of wider than 18mm is solved, otherwise the 16-85 might appeal more.

[timb64]

Having owned both lenses my strong preference is the 16-85 but that suits my shooting which is more landscape based.
I have a 55-300 to cover the longer end.The other good thing about both lenses is their pseudo macro capability.
Good luck with whichever you choose.

[WPRESTO]

Like Pentax Syntax, I've had both the 18~135mm and the 16~85mm. I kept the latter for the slightly better IQ (at the edges and sometimes wide-open across the frame, but only sometimes), the extra wide-angle coverage, and because I have other lenses to cover long focal lengths. I think many others who have commented here (I have not read all the comments) have recommended the 18~135mm and I would as well for someone just starting.

[UncleVanya]

Either lens will be a great choice.

[normhead]

Either lens will be a great choice.

He should decide what focal length most appeals to him, and which price.
The 16-85 with it's lower zoom ratio should be the better lens so if maximum IQ is the goal, the 16-85 requires less awareness of what you're shooting. But in the long end nether can touch the DA* 60-250 or a prime. In the long end, both need to be taken off the camera at some point for maximum IQ.

[SteveinSLC]

I've gone round and round on this question of which lenses to pair with my KP. Tried the 15, 20-40, 16-85, 18-135 and 55-300PLM. I do a fair amount of travel and hiking, so portability and weather/dust resistance is important.
I think I've settled on the 16-85 and 55-300PLM combination. These are both reasonably small lenses, between the two of them cover a really large range, and have pretty good image quality. And with the excellent high ISO performance of the KP, the slower speeds of the zooms aren't as much of a worry. And the 55-300PLM focuses well and very fast, so is a decent wildlife lens for hiking situations.

[normhead]

I've gone round and round on this question of which lenses to pair with my KP. Tried the 15, 20-40, 16-85, 18-135 and 55-300PLM. I do a fair amount of travel and hiking, so portability and weather/dust resistance is important.
I think I've settled on the 16-85 and 55-300PLM combination. These are both reasonably small lenses, between the two of them cover a really large range, and have pretty good image quality. And with the excellent high ISO performance of the KP, the slower speeds of the zooms aren't as much of a worry. And the 55-300PLM focuses well and very fast, so is a decent wildlife lens for hiking situations.

Although I haven't tried the 16-85, as a person who regularly hikes that would be my current choice for the out doorsy type person, if I were buying today. While suspect the 18-135 is better if you want a one lens solution.

[UncleVanya]

I've gone round and round on this question of which lenses to pair with my KP. Tried the 15, 20-40, 16-85, 18-135 and 55-300PLM. I do a fair amount of travel and hiking, so portability and weather/dust resistance is important.
I think I've settled on the 16-85 and 55-300PLM combination. These are both reasonably small lenses, between the two of them cover a really large range, and have pretty good image quality. And with the excellent high ISO performance of the KP, the slower speeds of the zooms aren't as much of a worry. And the 55-300PLM focuses well and very fast, so is a decent wildlife lens for hiking situations.

That isn't a bad combination. The 18-135 offers a little more overlap for fewer lens changes but there is nothing wrong with what you settled on. My kit for similar use varies - one option I like is the DA 20-40, 50-135; another is the 18-135/55-300 (DA not DA WR) Sometimes the DA 15 gets added in. And then again at times I'm sporting my m43 gear...

[RGlasel]

I don't want to repeat what has already been written, but in my opinion your choice should be determined by what you want to purchase as your second addition to your lens collection. Obviously, you don't want to purchase either the 16-85 or 18-135 after buying the other one first, but unless you simply get bored with your first purchase, you won't have to worry about buyer's remorse from buying either of them. If you are determined to never buy a second lens, then you need to decide if taking photos at 16mm is more important than from 86mm to 135mm and accept that the extra you pay for the 16-85 is still less than buying a new ultra-wide. On the other hand, if there is a chance you will be tempted to buy another lens at some point before you die, then there is an infinite universe of buying decisions waiting for you.


My suggestion is that if your next lens purchase (after either the 16-85 or 18-135) is going to be a telephoto zoom, get the 16-85 now. Anything else (including a prime lens of any focal length), get the 18-135 now.

[normhead]

I don't want to repeat what has already been written, but in my opinion your choice should be determined by what you want to purchase as your second addition to your lens collection. Obviously, you don't want to purchase either the 16-85 or 18-135 after buying the other one first, but unless you simply get bored with your first purchase, you won't have to worry about buyer's remorse from buying either of them. If you are determined to never buy a second lens, then you need to decide if taking photos at 16mm is more important than from 86mm to 135mm and accept that the extra you pay for the 16-85 is still less than buying a new ultra-wide. On the other hand, if there is a chance you will be tempted to buy another lens at some point before you die, then there is an infinite universe of buying decisions waiting for you.


My suggestion is that if your next lens purchase (after either the 16-85 or 18-135) is going to be a telephoto zoom, get the 16-85 now. Anything else (including a prime lens of any focal length), get the 18-135 now.

^ good point. Nicely condensed. It's always good when someone can take a complicated topic and reduce it to a couple of relevant parameters.

And also worth noting. There are different directions here.

1: ƒ3.5 to ƒ6.3 glass, good for outdoors in good light.

2: There's medium glass 2.8 glass, better for low light, better for smooth out of focus back grounds, dentally heavier...and twice as expensive.

3: and then there is compact light weight primes and ƒ2 0ƒ1.4 glass. Even heavier unless near the registration distance of the lens. like the 31, 43, 77 and 50 14, 85 1.4. These are the ultimate for smooth out of focus areas, and often ultimate sharpness and rendering.

It's like being in the middle of the continent. Which way you go next depends on where you intend to end up.

Then there's folks like me who have mixed and matched drawing elements from all three groups. Hoping to do a little of everything. We're hopeless. No one has harder lens decision than we do. I tend to buy whatever I can get a deal on at the moment. That of course makes the above model completely irrelevant.

it's like college football players, some recruit the best players at the position they need to fill. And some just recruit the best athletes and turn them into what they need. Both approaches can lead to either very good teams, or complete failures. I think I tend to go for the best lens for the money, that moment. But that's more relevant to those who already have a pretty complete stable of lenses, who are looking to improve on what they have rather than just starting from scratch.

[mikesbike]

@Des- I am glad to use your work any time as reference, as it is indeed very fine. Glad to have it available! I figure anyone interested in this lens would and should be impressed as to its potential upon seeing what you've posted!

I am also often going out and about for lengthy periods, so portability is one of my major concerns. The DA 16-85mm lens is much bulkier than is the DA 18-135mm, which is amazingly compact. So for my outings it is either the very fine, extremely compact DA 20-40mm Limited, or when I need more zoom range, it is the DA 18-135mm. I have used it for landscape shots without any issues. Actually the edge performance is quite good at its shorter zoom end, where wider angle is more often used for landscape shots anyway, especially when stopped down a click or so. I also like its wide open aperture still being f/4.5 out at 70mm, which can blur the background a little more, and with the gradual softening at the edges provides a 3-D effect for portraits and closeups. The whole central area is remarkably sharp though its large zoom range, which is exceptional! And if some subject or other should come along, I've got more reach to zoom and get a grab shot. Its compactness makes it very physically compatible with the KP.

But, if my shooting demonstrated a specific need for edge sharpness at longer zoom settings, and I would need the added wide angle at the short end of the zoom range, I would then have to go with the larger, costlier 16-85mm.

Here's my carrying setup- with either of the DA 20-40mm or 18-135mm lenses on camera, and put into a belt-loop/cross-shoulder strap holster case, the ensemble is secure from swinging, and quite easy-carrying. These last couple of years I've also included the very small DA 15mm Limited lens, which is so small it fits into the front accessory zippered compartment of the camera holster case! And with room to spare for an extra battery, SD cards and a few other small items! I put a small piece of bubble wrap partially around this lens for added protection, which takes care of any extra wide-angle need. This is an extremely capable, amazingly compact and convenient carrying package, especially for hiking or going on bicycle. If I need even more reach, I can put a tele lens (like a 55-300mm) into another belt loop lens case on my other side. But due to the zoom reach of the DA 18-135mm I don't have to change over to the the telephoto lens all that often, and actually the little extra-wide angle DA 15mm LTD stays put most of the time also.