[mikesbike]

I've had both in my quest for the best travel lens to pair with my KP. The 16-85 is better, but not enough better to justify the size/weight difference and the shorter reach. I do have a 55-300 PLM that I use for longer reach, but there are times when I just want one lens, or don't want to take the time to switch. And the loss of 2mm on the wide end isn't that big a deal.

My finding as well. The DA 18-135mm can't be beat for such events shooting, for its versatility and capability to instantly get otherwise missed shots.

For situations where flash is not an option for indoor or low lighting, the setup of my Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 and DA* 50-135mm will be needed to address this need.

[caliscouser]

Throwing something else into the mix..the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8.

Affordable, decent size and weight, f/2.8 throughout the range, I like how it renders skin tones.
I use mine almost exclusively as an event lens, so it only gets a few outings per year.
I prefer this focal length on APS-C for events versus a 17-50. But some may want wider at the expense of longer.

[Bui]

Thank you very much for a lot of great responses. Finally decided to go with the 16-85 (wow, you really made me determined to get it) as I found an offer in our local buy and sell website, for ~~ 350$, hopefully a good deal. I plan to use it as my main lens for our coming trip to Sardinia, replacing the 20-40, to see how I like it.

For some other options you mentioned in this thread, I’m looking at an all around travel lens including European cities, so such lens as Pentax 28-105 or Tamron 28-75 would be a bit too narrow, though I heard nice things about them. I was also looking hard at the Sigma contemporary 17-70, at less than 200$, I think a good price, but finally the WR and longer range of the Pentax won, thought it cost nearly double. I may have to sell my Tamron 17-50 to fund this purchase.

The 18-135 is also a good option. The last one I got was not so great, but I remember the 1st one was quite good, had I have it now I would not have sold it. To try a 3rd one might worth it but I want to take this occasion (of buying new lens) to try something new, especially one that many believe is better than the 18-135.

Again, thank you very much.

[timb64]

Thank you very much for a lot of great responses. Finally decided to go with the 16-85 (wow, you really made me determined to get it) as I found an offer in our local buy and sell website, for ~~ 350$, hopefully a good deal. I plan to use it as my main lens for our coming trip to Sardinia, replacing the 20-40, to see how I like it.

For some other options you mentioned in this thread, I’m looking at an all around travel lens including European cities, so such lens as Pentax 28-105 or Tamron 28-75 would be a bit too narrow, though I heard nice things about them. I was also looking hard at the Sigma contemporary 17-70, at less than 200$, I think a good price, but finally the WR and longer range of the Pentax won, thought it cost nearly double. I may have to sell my Tamron 17-50 to fund this purchase.

The 18-135 is also a good option. The last one I got was not so great, but I remember the 1st one was quite good, had I have it now I would not have sold it. To try a 3rd one might worth it but I want to take this occasion (of buying new lens) to try something new, especially one that many believe is better than the 18-135.

Again, thank you very much.

Congratulations on your new purchase, share the results here:

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