Originally posted by pjv Hi Tim, when I got my copy of the 18-135, I virtually stopped using my 16-45. The added reach and WR make it a great walk around lens. The 18-135 has excellent qualities too. Good luck with your choice, and don't forget to post some pix of your trip when you get back.
....
Compare here (but remember, the 16-45 ratings are done on a 10 MP sensor, the 18-135 on a 16 MP sensor, the 16-45 chart will look better than it is.
Pentax SMC-DA 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 ED AL [IF] WR - Review / Lens Test - Analysis and here
Pentax SMC-DA 16-45mm f/4 ED AL - Review / Test Report - Analysis
What the 16-45 has over the 18-135 is 16-17mm, other results are mixed.
SO buy the 18-135 for it's reach. ( Want to go to 135mm)
But the DA 16-85, for it's wide end and more consistent IQ across it's range.
Use the 16-45 for constant ƒ4.
They all have something to offer. It's just a matter of you deciding what you value.
From my perspective, if I have a wide angle shot that I really want with the 18-135, I'll set it to 24mm and stitch. There's a plan. I've never done it but I could.
The 16-85 and 18-135 have pseudo macro, at about .24 magnification. That's an extra bonus for either of those lenses. The 16-45 produces more magnification at .26 but, some of us just prefer longer than 50mm for macro, with 90 and 100 mm being preferred for macro shots around my house, but again, a value judgement. Some folks like 35mm macros.
I own the 18-135 already, so I'd just go with that. But, I'm still hoping to pick up a 16-85 for my wife. She's pickier than me. And it's better matched to my DA 55-300 PLM in providing range.
But with one lens, I'd take the 18-135.