Travel/convenience zoom: 16-85? Sigma 17-70?

Bui · 06-24-2019, 07:27 AM

Hello,

I've completed a full circle of need/want: I started with the kit lens 18-55 when I purchased my first camera, the Pentax Kx. Since then, I've acquired the 18-135, sold it, bought it again, sold it again (because I used it less and less, I found that it's not very sharp, probably copy issue I remember the first one was better), the Tamron 17-50, which is sharp but rendering is so-so, at least in my biased and amateur eyes, the DA 20-40, which is great and I'm still using it, the Pentax 16-50, which I found unnecessarily heavy, because I used f/2.8 less than 20% percent of the time, so sold it. For quite a while I was content with the DA 20-40, DA 15 and DA 55-300 trio.

Now, after some trips recently, where sometimes switching lenses was a pain, in a tour train running through a place, for example. Last weekend I attended the year-end show of my daughter school, where changing lenses was simply not an option, due to fast-pace action. I start wanting to have an all in one lens again. I would like to try something other than the ones I already know, expecting that:

- Images are a bit sharper than 18-135, and better color than the Tamron. I like the 20-40 a lot for this reason, though it's also not tack sharp, and is more like a prime than a zoom.
- 2.8 is not a must
- Not a beast like the 16-50
- WR

I think one obvious choice is the 16-85, but I'm wondering whether the 16-85 is truly better than what I already had, it's quite pricey, even used. I also have another option to buy a Sigma 17-70 C, which cost half of the Pentax, but no WR. In term of image quality, are they comparable? Should I stay with the 20-40 and forget about zoom?
-

**jatrax** · 06-24-2019, 08:16 AM - **1 Like**

Considering how many lenses you have tried I suspect you have more experience than many of us. So quite hard for anyone to say what will match your expectations.

I shoot with the 16-85 on the K-3II and my wife uses the 18-135 on her K-3. Sometimes my shots are better, sometimes her's are. I believe the 16-85 is slightly sharper overall and definitely better on the edges than the 18-135 but the 18-135 has much more reach and stopped down it is very hard to see the difference.
Not sure if that helps or not. My wife is convinced her 18-135 is perfect (for her) and I am equally convinced that the 16-85 is perfect (for me). I used the DA*16-50 for many years and except for the lack of f/2.8 I find the 16-85 images comparable in good light and stopped down a bit.

timb64 · 06-24-2019, 08:30 AM - **2 Likes**

I have owned both the 18-135 and the 16-85.My experience is that the IQ of the 16-85 is noticeably better.
The extra width at 16mm also suits my shooting style better and I also have an older (non PLM) 55-300 to cover the longer range.
I post pictures taken with both lenses fairly regularly and you can also visit my Flickr page (link below on full website)

**pres589** · 06-24-2019, 08:34 AM - **1 Like**

It isn't apples to apples comparison as this is across bodies, but I think my shots with my 18-135 on my K-5 II are better than the shots I got with the older, pre-Global Vision Sigma 17-70 on my K100D. Performance at 70mm with the 18-135 was better than 70mm with the 17-70.

I think I'd look really hard at the 16-85. I am very happy with my 18-135 but folks seem to really like the 16-85 and having that extra 2mm on the wide end is not to be sneezed at.

normhead · 06-24-2019, 08:42 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by jatrax

Considering how many lenses you have tried I suspect you have more experience than many of us. So quite hard for anyone to say what will match your expectations.

I shoot with the 16-85 on the K-3II and my wife uses the 18-135 on her K-3. Sometimes my shots are better, sometimes her's are. I believe the 16-85 is slightly sharper overall and definitely better on the edges than the 18-135 but the 18-135 has much more reach and stopped down it is very hard to see the difference.
Not sure if that helps or not. My wife is convinced her 18-135 is perfect (for her) and I am equally convinced that the 16-85 is perfect (for me). I used the DA*16-50 for many years and except for the lack of f/2.8 I find the 16-85 images comparable in good light and stopped down a bit.

Another family with the 18-135 love hat thing going. Glad to know ours isn't the only one.

Quote:

I think one obvious choice is the 16-85, but I'm wondering whether the 16-85 is truly better than what I already had, it's quite pricey, even used. I also have another option to buy a Sigma 17-70 C, which cost half of the Pentax, but no WR. In term of image quality, are they comparable? Should I stay with the 20-40 and forget about zoom?

To me this is a no brainer.

You don't want lens changes, you want to get the most out of what's on your camera. Since I like the 18-135 and you don't, I'm going to say higher than average standards.

The 18-135 was built under the "lenses for the way people take pictures" philosophy. The 16-85 was built under the "modern lenses for modern sensors" philosophy.

Compared to the 17-70, need I point out, 1 important mm wider on the wide end 15 longer on the long end, WR and DC motor.

I'm not seeing a choice here. You are in a "widest focal length range n a standard zoom" category.

As for the juggling act around cost, I can't help you with that. I'd love a 16-85 for my Tess, I think she'd love it. but so far, it's not in the budget. I made a decision to get the 18-135 years ago, when it was the latest thing since sliced bread, and have a lot of use with it. I don't think I should have waited for the 16-85. The 16-85 is the new 18-135.

The only reason for passing on the 16-85 would be you can't afford it. With WR and DC, you're not competing with the value even at half the price. IN our case, we probably will own a 16-85 at some point. I'm not wasting time and money buying make do alternatives. (or course we still have our 18-135, 28-105 and Tamron 17-50. We aren't suffering in the meantime for standard type zooms.)

stevebrot · 06-24-2019, 08:49 AM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by Bui

I also have another option to buy a Sigma 17-70 C, which cost half of the Pentax, but no WR. In term of image quality, are they comparable?

I have not shot with any of the others, but can report that even after five years of ownership, I am still (amazingly) quite happy with my Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.0 (C). The lack of WR has not been a problem*, though I might mention that none of my lenses have WR and I am in the habit of accounting for that. Feel free to wander through my Flickr stream for examples.

fotostevia | Flickr

Here is one of my favs from a few months back...

...and another, "explored" about a week ago...

Originally posted by jatrax

Considering how many lenses you have tried I suspect you have more experience than many of us. So quite hard for anyone to say what will match your expectations.

That is quite funny

Steve

* I did have a scare while doing some waterfall shooting in the Columbia River Gorge. The falls that I was shooting was in a deep grotto filled with swirling mist. I hardly had the camera set on tripod before it and the lens were drenched in spray. Afterwards, the lens failed to AF and there was evidence of moisture on the face of the body's mount flange. Some time in the sun and all was well, though I did learn my lesson.

**Biff** · 06-24-2019, 08:53 AM

I have a somewhat similar dilemma. I've been using the 18-135 for a while now, and really appreciate it's size/performance ratio, but sometimes wonder what I may be missing in sharpness (I don't do a lot of comparing), and enjoyed having the fixed aperture of the 16-45. It's a jump in price, but the 24-70 2.8 seems tempting. The 16-85 is too, as the extra on the wide end I usually find more useful that the longer zoom. Also, have you considered the 24-105?

**pres589** · 06-24-2019, 09:00 AM

That's a 28-105, not a 24, which would be a bit worse on crop. Seems like a great lens but not so versatile.

normhead · 06-24-2019, 09:04 AM

Originally posted by pres589

That's a 28-105, not a 24, which would be a bit worse on crop. Seems like a great lens but not so versatile.

Ya, I held out for 6 months hoping a 24-105 would be announced but I waited for nothing. I guess my thought process reverted to the 6 months of "If Pentax doesn't release a DA 24-105 I'm gonna hold my breath and scream."

Maybe he's locked in the same time warp.

The 28-105 is so good, Tess doesn't care. She can still take her Tamron 17-50 if she thinks she might need wider.

**Apet-Sure** · 06-24-2019, 10:49 AM - **1 Like**

I've got a copy of the older Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.5 DC Macro, Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.5 DC Macro Lens Reviews - Sigma Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database. It fit my budget, and I've been quite happy with it overall. (Usually any image problems were caused by the photographer and not by the lens.) The grasshopper was taken with this lens on a K10D, the fly on flower with a K-5iis.

No doubt the Pentax 16-85 is a better lens, but not by a wide margin for twice the price I paid for the Sigma. There have been times where 85 at the top end would have been preferable to my 70, and I would like to have WR. If I could afford a 16-85 it would probably stay on my camera most of the time. If you can afford one, it's probably a no brainer.

Edit: I meant to include this Hydrangea also, taken on my K10D.

**Apet-Sure** · 06-24-2019, 11:07 AM - **1 Like**

Edit: I meant to include this Hydrangea also, taken on my K10D.

**mikesbike** · 06-24-2019, 11:48 AM

It depends on how much you need extra FL beyond your 20-40mm LTD range. I have both it and the DA 18-135mm, and use either depending on my need. I also have a Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 which I like very much, and is very useful for low light. When I am going about with the KP and 20-40mm LTD for its compactness, light weight, and fine rendering, I often expand its capabilities by having the DA 15mm in the front accessory pocket of my camera holster case, and a DA 70 or FA 77mm LTD in a jacket pocket or separate belt case.

**rogerstg** · 06-24-2019, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by Bui

Last weekend I attended the year-end show of my daughter school, where changing lenses was simply not an option, due to fast-pace action. I start wanting to have an all in one lens again. I would like to try something other than the ones I already know, expecting that

For that type of indoor venue, I use my DA* 50-135. f:2.8 comes in handy when the child is moving on stage so that a little more shutter speed can be used when needed. I normally have my DA* 16-50 too, but only seem to use it for after the show shots.

**ToddK** · 06-24-2019, 01:55 PM

I had the Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4 Contemporary but recently sold it after buying the DA16-85. I bought the Sigma as a travel lens and was perfectly content with the IQ, except for the number of rain-outs that occurred with it when I couldn't (or was afraid to) take it out and use it. Aside from the weather resistance, I really like that extra 1 mm on the wide end and 15 mm on the long end with the DA16-85. Other than those factors, I think the two lenses are in the same ballpark for IQ.

**SteveinSLC** · 06-24-2019, 05:18 PM

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.

06-24-2019, 07:27 AM	#1
Bui Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2016 Photos: Gallery Posts: 316	Travel/convenience zoom: 16-85? Sigma 17-70? Hello, I've completed a full circle of need/want: I started with the kit lens 18-55 when I purchased my first camera, the Pentax Kx. Since then, I've acquired the 18-135, sold it, bought it again, sold it again (because I used it less and less, I found that it's not very sharp, probably copy issue I remember the first one was better), the Tamron 17-50, which is sharp but rendering is so-so, at least in my biased and amateur eyes, the DA 20-40, which is great and I'm still using it, the Pentax 16-50, which I found unnecessarily heavy, because I used f/2.8 less than 20% percent of the time, so sold it. For quite a while I was content with the DA 20-40, DA 15 and DA 55-300 trio. Now, after some trips recently, where sometimes switching lenses was a pain, in a tour train running through a place, for example. Last weekend I attended the year-end show of my daughter school, where changing lenses was simply not an option, due to fast-pace action. I start wanting to have an all in one lens again. I would like to try something other than the ones I already know, expecting that: - Images are a bit sharper than 18-135, and better color than the Tamron. I like the 20-40 a lot for this reason, though it's also not tack sharp, and is more like a prime than a zoom. - 2.8 is not a must - Not a beast like the 16-50 - WR I think one obvious choice is the 16-85, but I'm wondering whether the 16-85 is truly better than what I already had, it's quite pricey, even used. I also have another option to buy a Sigma 17-70 C, which cost half of the Pentax, but no WR. In term of image quality, are they comparable? Should I stay with the 20-40 and forget about zoom? -

06-24-2019, 08:42 AM - 1 Like	#5
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by jatrax Considering how many lenses you have tried I suspect you have more experience than many of us. So quite hard for anyone to say what will match your expectations. I shoot with the 16-85 on the K-3II and my wife uses the 18-135 on her K-3. Sometimes my shots are better, sometimes her's are. I believe the 16-85 is slightly sharper overall and definitely better on the edges than the 18-135 but the 18-135 has much more reach and stopped down it is very hard to see the difference. Not sure if that helps or not. My wife is convinced her 18-135 is perfect (for her) and I am equally convinced that the 16-85 is perfect (for me). I used the DA16-50 for many years and except for the lack of f/2.8 I find the 16-85 images comparable in good light and stopped down a bit. Another family with the 18-135 love hat thing going. Glad to know ours isn't the only one. Quote: I think one obvious choice is the 16-85, but I'm wondering whether the 16-85 is truly better than what I already had, it's quite pricey, even used. I also have another option to buy a Sigma 17-70 C, which cost half of the Pentax, but no WR. In term of image quality, are they comparable? Should I stay with the 20-40 and forget about zoom? To me this is a no brainer. You don't want lens changes, you want to get the most out of what's on your camera. Since I like the 18-135 and you don't, I'm going to say higher than average standards. The 18-135 was built under the "lenses for the way people take pictures" philosophy. The 16-85 was built under the "modern lenses for modern sensors" philosophy. Compared to the 17-70, need I point out, 1 important mm wider on the wide end 15 longer on the long end, WR and DC motor. I'm not seeing a choice here. You are in a "widest focal length range n a standard zoom" category. As for the juggling act around cost, I can't help you with that. I'd love a 16-85 for my Tess, I think she'd love it. but so far, it's not in the budget. I made a decision to get the 18-135 years ago, when it was the latest thing since sliced bread, and have a lot of use with it. I don't think I should have waited for the 16-85. The 16-85 is the new 18-135. The only reason for passing on the 16-85 would be you can't afford it. With WR and DC, you're not competing with the value even at half the price. IN our case, we probably will own a 16-85 at some point. I'm not wasting time and money buying make do alternatives. (or course we still have our 18-135, 28-105 and Tamron 17-50. We aren't suffering in the meantime for standard type zooms.) Last edited by normhead; 06-24-2019 at 08:50 AM.*

06-24-2019, 08:49 AM - 2 Likes	#6
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by Bui I also have another option to buy a Sigma 17-70 C, which cost half of the Pentax, but no WR. In term of image quality, are they comparable? I have not shot with any of the others, but can report that even after five years of ownership, I am still (amazingly) quite happy with my Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.0 (C). The lack of WR has not been a problem, though I might mention that none of my lenses have WR and I am in the habit of accounting for that. Feel free to wander through my Flickr stream for examples. fotostevia \| Flickr Here is one of my favs from a few months back... ...and another, "explored" about a week ago... Originally posted by jatrax Considering how many lenses you have tried I suspect you have more experience than many of us. So quite hard for anyone to say what will match your expectations. That is quite funny Steve I did have a scare while doing some waterfall shooting in the Columbia River Gorge. The falls that I was shooting was in a deep grotto filled with swirling mist. I hardly had the camera set on tripod before it and the lens were drenched in spray. Afterwards, the lens failed to AF and there was evidence of moisture on the face of the body's mount flange. Some time in the sun and all was well, though I did learn my lesson. Last edited by stevebrot; 06-24-2019 at 10:34 AM.

06-24-2019, 09:04 AM	#9
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by pres589 That's a 28-105, not a 24, which would be a bit worse on crop. Seems like a great lens but not so versatile. Ya, I held out for 6 months hoping a 24-105 would be announced but I waited for nothing. I guess my thought process reverted to the 6 months of "If Pentax doesn't release a DA 24-105 I'm gonna hold my breath and scream." Maybe he's locked in the same time warp. The 28-105 is so good, Tess doesn't care. She can still take her Tamron 17-50 if she thinks she might need wider. Last edited by normhead; 06-24-2019 at 12:19 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
PayPal fee surcharges (convenience fees) are a violation of the PayPal user agreement	Spodeworld	General Talk	3	09-11-2017 10:08 AM
Choosing a lens: Pentax 17-70, 16-85 or sigma 17-70 C	Frispel	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	38	09-14-2016 07:59 PM
DA 16-85 vs. DA* 16-50; which is a better travel lens?	Newtophotos	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	41	01-08-2016 08:32 AM
Shootout #2 - DA 15 Ltd / Tamron 17-50 @17 / DA* 16-50 @16 / Sigma 10-20 @16	EarlVonTapia	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	4	06-23-2013 10:17 PM

06-24-2019, 08:16 AM - 1 Like	#2
jatrax Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Washington Cascades Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,991	Considering how many lenses you have tried I suspect you have more experience than many of us. So quite hard for anyone to say what will match your expectations. I shoot with the 16-85 on the K-3II and my wife uses the 18-135 on her K-3. Sometimes my shots are better, sometimes her's are. I believe the 16-85 is slightly sharper overall and definitely better on the edges than the 18-135 but the 18-135 has much more reach and stopped down it is very hard to see the difference. Not sure if that helps or not. My wife is convinced her 18-135 is perfect (for her) and I am equally convinced that the 16-85 is perfect (for me). I used the DA*16-50 for many years and except for the lack of f/2.8 I find the 16-85 images comparable in good light and stopped down a bit.

06-24-2019, 08:30 AM - 2 Likes	#3
timb64 Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: /Situation : Doing my best to avoid idiots! Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,510	I have owned both the 18-135 and the 16-85.My experience is that the IQ of the 16-85 is noticeably better. The extra width at 16mm also suits my shooting style better and I also have an older (non PLM) 55-300 to cover the longer range. I post pictures taken with both lenses fairly regularly and you can also visit my Flickr page (link below on full website)

06-24-2019, 08:34 AM - 1 Like	#4
pres589 Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Wichita, KS Photos: Albums Posts: 4,529	It isn't apples to apples comparison as this is across bodies, but I think my shots with my 18-135 on my K-5 II are better than the shots I got with the older, pre-Global Vision Sigma 17-70 on my K100D. Performance at 70mm with the 18-135 was better than 70mm with the 17-70. I think I'd look really hard at the 16-85. I am very happy with my 18-135 but folks seem to really like the 16-85 and having that extra 2mm on the wide end is not to be sneezed at.

06-24-2019, 08:53 AM	#7
Biff Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: SF Bay Area Photos: Albums Posts: 1,081	I have a somewhat similar dilemma. I've been using the 18-135 for a while now, and really appreciate it's size/performance ratio, but sometimes wonder what I may be missing in sharpness (I don't do a lot of comparing), and enjoyed having the fixed aperture of the 16-45. It's a jump in price, but the 24-70 2.8 seems tempting. The 16-85 is too, as the extra on the wide end I usually find more useful that the longer zoom. Also, have you considered the 24-105?

06-24-2019, 09:00 AM	#8
pres589 Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Wichita, KS Photos: Albums Posts: 4,529	That's a 28-105, not a 24, which would be a bit worse on crop. Seems like a great lens but not so versatile.

06-24-2019, 11:48 AM	#12
mikesbike Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2016 Location: Southeastern Michigan Posts: 4,549	It depends on how much you need extra FL beyond your 20-40mm LTD range. I have both it and the DA 18-135mm, and use either depending on my need. I also have a Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 which I like very much, and is very useful for low light. When I am going about with the KP and 20-40mm LTD for its compactness, light weight, and fine rendering, I often expand its capabilities by having the DA 15mm in the front accessory pocket of my camera holster case, and a DA 70 or FA 77mm LTD in a jacket pocket or separate belt case.

06-24-2019, 01:14 PM	#13
rogerstg Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Rhode Island Photos: Albums Posts: 1,168	Originally posted by Bui Last weekend I attended the year-end show of my daughter school, where changing lenses was simply not an option, due to fast-pace action. I start wanting to have an all in one lens again. I would like to try something other than the ones I already know, expecting that For that type of indoor venue, I use my DA* 50-135. f:2.8 comes in handy when the child is moving on stage so that a little more shutter speed can be used when needed. I normally have my DA* 16-50 too, but only seem to use it for after the show shots.

06-24-2019, 01:55 PM	#14
ToddK Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Texas Hill Country Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,532	I had the Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4 Contemporary but recently sold it after buying the DA16-85. I bought the Sigma as a travel lens and was perfectly content with the IQ, except for the number of rain-outs that occurred with it when I couldn't (or was afraid to) take it out and use it. Aside from the weather resistance, I really like that extra 1 mm on the wide end and 15 mm on the long end with the DA16-85. Other than those factors, I think the two lenses are in the same ballpark for IQ.

06-24-2019, 05:18 PM	#15
SteveinSLC Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2017 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 568	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.