[Rondec]

A few 16-50 shots.

[bertwert]

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.

More food for thought...

I wonder if I'd find the extra bit of width more helpful than the reach... all I'm really photographing are landscapes these days... and occasionally people doing things outdoors.

Honestly, I'd probably be happy enough with either, I'm currently leaning more towards the 18-135...

[bikehead90]

Absolutely not. I have a soft spot in my heart for the 16-50 (just like the corners, amIright!?!). But honestly for me the 16-50 was my first step into “good” photography, and I still have mine, even though my APSC kit has taken a backseat since jumping to FF. It is absolutely one of those lenses that can and will make you happy with the shots you get. Even now with moving away from my beginner K7 (God, I miss that camera), that lens still takes shots I’m proud of. I’d include some, but I cannot find the ones that show off what it can actually do. My one caution I would give you is the SDM motor can be a pit of a pain. Because I haven’t been using my APSC kit with any regularity, my 16-50 takes some “waking” up, in the form of multiple consecutive soft shutter release presses, before it will allow any focusing. Just something to keep in mind.

But you absolutely want to go with anything that’s WR for your plans. I did consider using the lenses others have talked about, but didn’t because I’m a sadist and don’t mind lugging around 15-20 lbs of camera crap.

[bertwert]

Absolutely not. I have a soft spot in my heart for the 16-50 (just like the corners, amIright!?!). But honestly for me the 16-50 was my first step into “good” photography, and I still have mine, even though my APSC kit has taken a backseat since jumping to FF. It is absolutely one of those lenses that can and will make you happy with the shots you get. Even now with moving away from my beginner K7 (God, I miss that camera), that lens still takes shots I’m proud of. I’d include some, but I cannot find the ones that show off what it can actually do. My one caution I would give you is the SDM motor can be a pit of a pain. Because I haven’t been using my APSC kit with any regularity, my 16-50 takes some “waking” up, in the form of multiple consecutive soft shutter release presses, before it will allow any focusing. Just something to keep in mind.

But you absolutely want to go with anything that’s WR for your plans. I did consider using the lenses others have talked about, but didn’t because I’m a sadist and don’t mind lugging around 15-20 lbs of camera crap.

Now, I agree with you that it's not a bad idea, and I certainly would enjoy the 16-50. But I'm just a hobbyist photographer taking pictures for fun, and to be honest, excellent image quality isn't a factor for me, I'm not making money from my photography. Taking some pictures is always second to what I'm doing, I don't got out to specifically take some photos. I think the 18-135 will suit my needs better (for now at least), especially looking through Heie's image post here where it was the only lens he used during a Finnish training exercise.

Thanks everyone for the input

[PKMike]

I have 22 lenses and out of all of them the 18-135 gets the most use. I just keep coming back to it for many reasons. It is compact, light weight, quiet, focus is vey fast and accurate, zoom range is versatile, weather sealed and I"m satisfied with the the image quality. It really has a lot going for it and very little to complain about. I frequent the Boundary Waters and Quetico for 8-10 day canoe trips. My next trip will likely be K-3 +18-135 + polarizer (if I can resist adding DA15 or 10-17 and 55-300 PLM...LOL). My photography also tends to be secondary to a main activity (at times). I think you would be quite satisfied with 18-135. My 2 cents worth.

[normhead]

I frequent the Boundary Waters and Quetico for 8-10 day canoe trips.

My first real canoe trip with a couple of friends who were outdoor ed. teachers was in Quetico. But if you're in that part of the world, a trip to the Slate Islands off Marathon Ontario is definitely in order. It's one of the furthest south places you can see free roaming Caribou.

[Unregistered User 8]

Hi Robert, you have a tough choice buddy.
The old wagon is the 16-50 and the cityscape is the 18-135. Good luck. They are both great lenses IMO.

[bertwert]

I have 22 lenses and out of all of them the 18-135 gets the most use. I just keep coming back to it for many reasons. It is compact, light weight, quiet, focus is vey fast and accurate, zoom range is versatile, weather sealed and I"m satisfied with the the image quality. It really has a lot going for it and very little to complain about. I frequent the Boundary Waters and Quetico for 8-10 day canoe trips. My next trip will likely be K-3 +18-135 + polarizer (if I can resist adding DA15 or 10-17 and 55-300 PLM...LOL). My photography also tends to be secondary to a main activity (at times). I think you would be quite satisfied with 18-135. My 2 cents worth.

That's good to hear, the nice thing with the 18-135 is that I can probably swing it without selling the 10-17, which I rarely use, but thinking now, I may miss it occasionally...

[normhead]

I might point out Mattb123 in the 18-135 lens thread. Us non-motorized outdoor types for the most part prefer the 18-135.

DA 18-135 WR, Show us what it can do - Page 217 - PentaxForums.com

At this point you'll notice a clear difference in the recommendations of other trippers, and over-night non-motorized enthusiasts and those who who don't really understand how demanding tripping is. You carry a lot of weight for a lot of distance.
Tent, sleeping bag, air mats, food, cooking lit, it all adds up, at the start of a trip one pack can weight 70 pounds.

You reach a point where an extra half pound means you can't lift or carry your packs. You go from "piece of cake" to "I can't do this" with an extra pound of weight.
I guess if you haven't been there and done that it's hard to understand. But Tess and I carry our limit on a regular basis. Packs so heavy you're afraid if you put them down, you'll need help getting them back up.

So why would one take an extra 150 grams for a lens with less range and nearly identical IQ ratings for a trip when 99% of you images are going to be ƒ5.6 or ƒ8?

Tripping is about doing more with less. The DA*16-50 has it's place, but not on canoe trips....

And I really hope people will stop filling the thread with DA*16-50 images. We know you can do it. I can shoot portraits with a 300mm lens, I can shoot moose or bears with wide angles, if I don't value my life. If you can only use one lens you can take everything with it, as those of us who grew up with an SV and 55mm 1.8 can tell you. But that doesn't make any of these lenses appropriate for the job.


Over the years there have been a lot of bull headed, obstinate first time photographer/trippers who didn't listen to my gear recommendations for tripping. Every one of them regretted it.

I understand a lot of people are enamoured with their lenses and will recommend them for anything any time to anyone.
But come on dudes, try and understand the context.

I almost wish I could divide the responses into two groups, non-motorized overnight hikers or canoe trippers in one thread, and day trippers who spend most of their time with the camera on their back seat on the other. You'd have two completely different recommendations. The difference being, once you've taken a trip where you overpacked and the weight ruined your enjoyment of the trip, you know the consequences of not shaving every gram you can.

And if you do overpack, it won't be an afternoon of discomfort like on a day hike. You'll experience it every day for a week or more, and you'll know it's coming. Kind of like a friends dad who used to hang the belt on the wall in the morning before school if he was going to beat the kid when he got home. You not only get the discomfort, you get the anticipation of the discomfort, often for a week or more.

[bertwert]

Hi Robert, you have a tough choice buddy.
The old wagon is the 16-50 and the cityscape is the 18-135. Good luck. They are both great lenses IMO.

Great shots Peter. I should be happy with the 18-135

[normhead]

That's good to hear, the nice thing with the 18-135 is that I can probably swing it without selling the 10-17, which I rarely use, but thinking now, I may miss it occasionally...

I took a number of trips with the 18-135 and 10-17. It's actually a fun combination.
As long as you're aware of how the distortion will affect the image, you can get some fine images with it.
I later replaced the 10-17 with the Sigma 8-16, my point being, despite being wider than the 18-135, even 16mm won't meet all your wide angle needs, and if you do take the fisheye or an UWA for any reason you're unlikely to miss the 16-18. That could also for tripping make the 15 ltd. a really worthwhile purchase.

Sometimes 16 isn't even close to enough...
Sigma 8-16 at 11mm...

[bertwert]

I might point out Mattb123 in the 18-135 lens thread. Us non-motorized outdoor types for the most part prefer the 18-135.

DA 18-135 WR, Show us what it can do - Page 217 - PentaxForums.com

At this point you'll notice a clear difference in the recommendations of other trippers, and over-night non-motorized enthusiasts and those who who don't really understand how demanding tripping is. You carry a lot of weight for a lot of distance.
Tent, sleeping bag, air mats, food, cooking lit, it all adds up, at the start of a trip one pack can weight 70 pounds.

You reach a point where an extra half pound means you can't lift or carry your packs. You go from "piece of cake" to "I can't do this" with an extra pound of weight.
I guess if you haven't been there and done that it's hard to understand. But Tess and I carry our limit on a regular basis. Packs so heavy you're afraid if you put them down, you'll need help getting them back up.

So why would one take an extra 150 grams for a lens with less range and nearly identical IQ ratings for a trip when 99% of you images are going to be ƒ5.6 or ƒ8?

Tripping is about doing more with less. The DA*16-50 has it's place, but not on canoe trips....

And I really hope people will stop filling the thread with DA*16-50 images. We know you can do it. I can shoot portraits with a 300mm lens, I can shoot moose or bears with wide angles, if I don't value my life. If you can only use one lens you can take everything with it, as those of us who grew up with an SV and 55mm 1.8 can tell you. But that doesn't make any of these lenses appropriate for the job.


Over the years there have been a lot of bull headed, obstinate first time photographer/trippers who didn't listen to my gear recommendations for tripping. Every one of them regretted it.

I understand a lot of people are enamoured with their lenses and will recommend them for anything any time.
But come on dudes, try and understand the context.

I almost wish I could divide the responses into two groups, non-motorized overnight hikers or canoe trippers in one thread, and day trippers who spend most of their time with the camera on their back seat on the other. You'd have two completely different recommendations. The difference being, once you've taken a try where you overpacked and the weight ruined your enjoyment of the trip, you know the consequences of not shaving every gram you can.

Valid points Norm. I have seen Matt's images and they are excellent.

All my outdoor recreation (which is where I'll be taking photos) is non-motorized, and I see it's easier to throw the camera in when the lens is less bulky and heavy. You make a good case for as light as possible kit, and me being young and foolish, I do have experience in over packing (and under packing for that matter...)

[Unregistered User 8]

I should be happy with the 18-135

I agree, excellent choice.

[bertwert]

I took a number of trips with the 18-135 and 10-17. It's actually a fun combination.
As long as you're aware of how the distortion will affect the image, you can get some fine images with it.

I should try and get out with the fisheye more, I have got some half decent shots from it...

[normhead]

You make a good case for as light as possible kit, and me being young and foolish, I do have experience in over packing (and under packing for that matter...)

Haven't we all?