[bertwert]

You should never look at choosing a lens like choosing a wife. If you make a mistake (with a lens), move on once you can afford to do so; ex-lenses can't make you pay for the rest of your life.

It's also okay to have more than one lens at a time, just make sure they all take care of different needs. If you get the 18-135 you can always complement it with other, less versatile lenses in the future and still get lots of use from the 18-135 (unlike the HD DA 55-300 I bought before the PLM version was available).

I think I'm starting to look for a 18-135 now... even if I do decide in the future it's not good enough for certain things, it will still be a good do-everything 'beater' lens.

[repaap]

I've been doing some looking these last few days for a general purpose lens, and outdoor pursuits such as canoe tripping. Now, I've got a pretty good idea that the 16-50 will work quite well for this, but I'd like to hear some other opinions. Shooting landscapes and occasional portraits. First up the boring old 18-55 does half these tasks okay-enough, but I just don't like using it. And I haven't picked it up in months.

To fund this new lens, I'll sell a handful of stuff I rarely use and am unlikely to miss, this could bring in somewhere around $400 Canadian (280 USD) which I see the 16-50 going for (or a slight bit more) every so often on the forum, and from Japan on eBay. I haven't seen the 16-85 at that price really, which was another lens I considered.

Now for downsides, a lot of people complain that the corners are soft when wide open, but from what I can see they are decently sharp when stopped down to f/8 or so - where I would use it for landscapes. Another complaint is the SDM failure, but I really don't mind screw drive, if I found one already converted alternatively. It is a fairly sizeable lens (compared to others I own), but I'm young and foolish, so the weight isn't a huge concern.

For some upsides... firstly it's WR, which is just a requirement for this. F/2.8 will help with subject isolation for portraits, as well as low light as I dislike using a flash. The wee bit wider at the short end is nice for landscapes. Overall, it's a big step up from my current lens in this range, which is a good thing...

Anyways, I'd be quite happy to hear some further thoughts on this

I did enjoy my times with DA*16-50/2.8 I love to take a walks whole day, or towards evening. And there are a lot of beautiful moments one is able to catch with fast zoom. Depending on how far one is from model, I could tell that one can make quite nice portraits even with this lens. My copy had(have) no problem with SDM. My DA*55 has been squeeking from day 1 whe I bought it second hand, but it has still been good. I suppose if lens has history of SDM problems, they will come back. But if not, then it might not get some. But converting should be easy(as I have heard, because as said no need for that for my copy). Sur, longer zooms are more capable, but they will not give you that f 2.8. if that is important to you, then you should go for it.

I pesonally bought 15-30/2.8 for my K-1 at first. To kind replace my DA*16-50, just because I always wanted my DA to be wider. Just recently I bought DFA 28-105, and it came just to fill that practical purpose, which it also does. but that is also what it is. Practical and good quality standard zoom. it does not have give more 'mojo' too my daily shooting. And if your budget is not for DA 16-85, then there is not much lenses with really good AW sealing.


Here is just few. I have had it with me on many travels allaround and in good and bad weather. One big problem is flaring. other tan that. I'v not had many problems. one of the good things are getting close and shooting wide.

[bertwert]

I did enjoy my times with DA*16-50/2.8 I love to take a walks whole day, or towards evening. And there are a lot of beautiful moments one is able to catch with fast zoom. Depending on how far one is from model, I could tell that one can make quite nice portraits even with this lens. My copy had(have) no problem with SDM. My DA*55 has been squeeking from day 1 whe I bought it second hand, but it has still been good. I suppose if lens has history of SDM problems, they will come back. But if not, then it might not get some. But converting should be easy(as I have heard, because as said no need for that for my copy). Sur, longer zooms are more capable, but they will not give you that f 2.8. if that is important to you, then you should go for it.

Now that was initial thoughts as well, and great photos. But I'm now thinking that I would be benefit more from the reach and size of the 18-135 over the qualities of the 16-50.

[BryantCP]

I've had a DA* 16-50 since around 2008. Overall, I've been pleased with it in terms of image quality. One thing I haven't heard mentioned is that it has much better contrast than the kit DA 18-55. Wide open at f2.8 the sharpness with mine seems to be acceptable to good.

[pepperberry farm]

Bert - pm me for a deal on a DA18-135....

[bertwert]

Bert - pm me for a deal on a DA18-135....

PM sent

[c.a.m]

Anyways, I'd be quite happy to hear some further thoughts on this

@bertwert, I don't have any experience with the DA* 16-50, but I do own a DA* 50-135 which I converted to screwdrive after it experienced 5 SDM or mechanical failures in 2012-2013 (4 repaired under warranty). I don't mind the screwdrive, and its autofocus has been flawless.

I don't think that I would buy another DA* SDM lens, based on my experience with my 50-135. However, as you indicate, converting to screwdrive is a fair remedy.

I own a DA 18-135mm lens. I've used it fairly often, but to be honest, I was never 'wowed' by its images, although I've seen a number of perfectly acceptable images here on Pentax Forums and many of mine are ok. It's a versatile lens, to be sure, and it's pretty sharp in the range of 20-50 mm or so. When I got it, I was looking for a zoom lens mainly in the 16-50mm range, so I considered its longer reach to be a bonus. Quite a few folks here attest to its good value-for-money, to which I would agree. I'd suggest that a detailed research on PF and other sites will give some good insight into the lens.

When my 'camera kitty' reached a sufficient level, I looked for a replacement for the 18-135. I ended up deciding that I'd be comfortable with a two-lens zoom kit for general purpose walk-abouts, including the 50-135 and a wide-to-near telephoto. I settled on a DA 20-40mm (which is likely out of your current budget at roughly CAD $730). For what it's worth, here are my notes from another thread:

Sigma 17-50 vs Pentax 20-40 - PentaxForums.com

I'm very pleased with the 20-40, and haven't used the 18-135 for a while. I wouldn't suggest that you look at the 20-40 now, unless you're willing to save up more funds. Also, the Sigma 17-50 that I refer to in that thread is not weather sealed, so it might not be ideal for some types of outings. Amazon currently is listing the Sigma for CAD $399 (1 left in stock), which is a very good price, lack of WR notwithstanding.

I also considered the D-FA 28-105mm. It is also relatively pricey, unless you can get a used copy. It's not overly wide on APS-C, which might be a disadvantage to you.

The DA 16-85 seems to receive very good reviews and ratings.

It might be worth considering whether you would prefer a single lens with a wider focal length range, or a couple of lenses to split the range. The 18-135 covers a good range that will cover many subjects. In my experience, I find that if I really need an extended 'reach', it's usually well beyond 135mm. My philosophy is that I prefer better image quality over the advantage of having a one-lens solution; yes, I might not have the right lens mounted for a sudden opportunity that disappears quickly, but I've not missed too many shots with a two- or three-lens kit. Generally, when I'm not set on one type of subject, I find that I can get good shots with whatever lens is mounted on the camera.

I acquired my 18-135 at a fairly good price within my budget at the time, and used it happily enough for several years, including on several trips.


- Craig

---

Last edited by c.a.m; 04-04-2020 at 12:40 PM.

[repaap]

Now that was initial thoughts as well, and great photos. But I'm now thinking that I would be benefit more from the reach and size of the 18-135 over the qualities of the 16-50.

You know if size is a concern. DA*16-50 is smaller than a lot of peole say it is. But if reach forego need for speed, then that is what you go for. You know. what I said I really ment it. for APS-C it is great lens. Have to say that SDM concerned me too. I'v actually put my DA* through places where I thought that oh boy, it is not going to make it. but it did. The thing is that it is showing it's age too. I paid nearly 900€ as I bought it new. Did not think about that prize at all after going around with it.


but that is just me. I'm now in K-1 world and getting edge to edge sharpness and speed is going to cost me even more.

[bertwert]

You know if size is a concern. DA*16-50 is smaller than a lot of peole say it is. But if reach forego need for speed, then that is what you go for. You know. what I said I really ment it. for APS-C it is great lens. Have to say that SDM concerned me too. I'v actually put my DA* through places where I thought that oh boy, it is not going to make it. but it did. The thing is that it is showing it's age too. I paid nearly 900€ as I bought it new. Did not think about that prize at all after going around with it.

Now I'm less sure again. You do make a good case for the 16-50... decisions, decisions...

[Rondec]

I've used the 16-50 for over a decade and it is a nice lens. I would miss the extra couple of mm on the wide side with the 18-135, but could probably make do with the 16-85. I guess I'm used to the size and it doesn't bother me, particularly because it is smaller with a K3 than my DFA 24-70 is with a K-1. I'd probably be OK with the 16-85 too, but the price for a new copy of that would be more than you are getting this one for and the size difference of 488 grams for the 16-85 and 562 grams for 16-50 wouldn't make that much difference in my shooting.

I've posted a lot of photos with the 16-50 and mostly shoot landscapes with it, so it works OK and the sealing has held up for a decade. But the others are good too.

[bertwert]

@bertwert, I don't have any experience with the DA* 16-50, but I do own a DA* 50-135 which I converted to screwdrive after it experienced 5 SDM or mechanical failures in 2012-2013 (4 repaired under warranty). I don't mind the screwdrive, and its autofocus has been flawless.

I don't think that I would buy another DA* SDM lens, based on my experience with my 50-135. However, as you indicate, converting to screwdrive is a fair remedy.

I own a DA 18-135mm lens. I've used it fairly often, but to be honest, I was never 'wowed' by its images, although I've seen a number of perfectly acceptable images here on Pentax Forums and many of mine are ok. It's a versatile lens, to be sure, and it's pretty sharp in the range of 20-50 mm or so. When I got it, I was looking for a zoom lens mainly in the 16-50mm range, so I considered its longer reach to be a bonus. Quite a few folks here attest to its good value-for-money, to which I would agree. I'd suggest that a detailed research on PF and other sites will give some good insight into the lens.

When my 'camera kitty' reached a sufficient level, I looked for a replacement for the 18-135. I ended up deciding that I'd be comfortable with a two-lens zoom kit for general purpose walk-abouts, including the 50-135 and a wide-to-near telephoto. I settled on a DA 20-40mm (which is likely out of your current budget at roughly CAD $730). For what it's worth, here are my notes from another thread:

Sigma 17-50 vs Pentax 20-40 - PentaxForums.com

I'm very pleased with the 20-40, and haven't used the 18-135 for a while. I wouldn't suggest that you look at the 20-40 now, unless you're willing to save up more funds. Also, the Sigma 17-50 that I refer to in that thread is not weather sealed, so it might not be ideal for some types of outings. Amazon currently is listing the Sigma for CAD $399 (1 left in stock), which is a very good price, lack of WR notwithstanding.

I also considered the D-FA 28-105mm. It is also relatively pricey, unless you can get a used copy. It's not overly wide on APS-C, which might be a disadvantage to you.

The DA 16-85 seems to receive very good reviews and ratings.

It might be worth considering whether you would prefer a single lens with a wider focal length range, or a couple of lenses to split the range. The 18-135 covers a good range that will cover many subjects. In my experience, I find that if I really need an extended 'reach', it's usually well beyond 135mm. My philosophy is that I prefer better image quality over the advantage of having a one-lens solution; yes, I might not have the right lens mounted for a sudden opportunity that disappears quickly, but I've not missed too many shots with a two- or three-lens kit. Generally, when I'm not set on one type of subject, I find that I can get good shots with whatever lens is mounted on the camera.

I acquired my 18-135 at a fairly good price within my budget at the time, and used it happily enough for several years, including on several trips.


- Craig

Several good points, pointing me both ways Craig.

For my current thoughts, a one-lens WR solution is what I'm looking for... I did look at the 20-40 briefly, and could maybe stretch for it (but that would mean selling the 21 Ltd ), but I passed it over on price and short range for a zoom.

Now the funny thing is if the 21 Ltd was WR, I'd end up using just that for everything... but for a zoom I want something wider and longer... weird how that works out...

[bertwert]

I've used the 16-50 for over a decade and it is a nice lens. I would miss the extra couple of mm on the wide side with the 18-135, but could probably make do with the 16-85. I guess I'm used to the size and it doesn't bother me, particularly because it is smaller with a K3 than my DFA 24-70 is with a K-1. I'd probably be OK with the 16-85 too, but the price for a new copy of that would be more than you are getting this one for and the size difference of 488 grams for the 16-85 and 562 grams for 16-50 wouldn't make that much difference in my shooting.

I've posted a lot of photos with the 16-50 and mostly shoot landscapes with it, so it works OK and the sealing has held up for a decade. But the others are good too.

Thanks for your input. You've got some excellent shots with the 16-50. The extra bit wider I feel could be beneficial, and images (of the lens) don't make it look huge.

I suppose between the 16-50 and 18-135, is that they are quite different lenses really, and I need to see what suits me better for my current photography - which is mainly landscape and nature based during outdoor pursuits.

Cheers.

[mikesbike]

Now that was initial thoughts as well, and great photos. But I'm now thinking that I would be benefit more from the reach and size of the 18-135 over the qualities of the 16-50.

Absolutely. I think it will be the ideal lens for your specific application. It is far better than your DA 18-55mm kit lens. Far better build and far better AF, and is still amazingly compact for its zoom range. I think you will love it. It can even do fine quality closeups, with very good bokeh! Take a look at the thread, "DA 18-135mm WR show us what it can do" and you will see some very fine examples.

---------- Post added 04-04-20 at 01:42 PM ----------

I think I'm starting to look for a 18-135 now... even if I do decide in the future it's not good enough for certain things, it will still be a good do-everything 'beater' lens.

I also have the excellent DA 20-40mm f/2.8-4 Limited, and more recently the very fine Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC HSM which I chose over the Pentax 16-50mm- no WR but a good sharp lens for low light situations.. I love both of theses lenses, but I've had the DA 18-135mm for many years now and still use it happily when I need the range. As far as aperture, it can keep to f/3.5-4.5 out to 70mm. Its edge performance is decent to very good within this range also, making it good for landscape, while central area quality is excellent right on through- outstanding for such a zoom range. As you zoom to more telephoto, usually edges become less important anyway. I've not noticed any issue.

[bertwert]

Absolutely. I think it will be the ideal lens for your specific application. It is far better than your DA 18-55mm kit lens. Far better build and far better AF, and is still amazingly compact for its zoom range. I think you will love it. It can even do fine quality closeups, with very good bokeh! Take a look at the thread, "DA 18-135mm WR show us what it can do" and you will see some very fine examples.

I have been looking through that thread. Many fine examples indeed

[RobA_Oz]

I have had both the DA*16-50 and the DA18-135. I’ve kept the DA*16-50, mainly because I passed my K-5 onto one of my daughters and I figured the range of the 18-135 would suit her better as she gets back into SLR photography.

When I was using both lenses whilst travelling, I found that I’d use the 18-135 on initial exploration walks, for which it was versatile and more than adequate in IQ. If I had time, I’d go back and shoot some more with the 16-50, simply because the IQ was superior (to my eye) and that little extra FoV was helpful with some subjects.

Having mainly used the K-1 and a variety of FA* lenses for some time now, I don’t regard the K-5/K-3 DA*16-50 combo as heavy.