[cpk]

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.

I think this is the key to your decision making.

When I went digital in '07 I immediately upgraded the kit lenses to the 16-50 and 50-135 DA* lenses and used them extensively. When the 18-135 came out, I purchased it and tested it for overall, but specifically corner, sharpness. It is soft in the corners but DxO Optics Pro corrected that; so I kept it and it became my carry-around lens, effectively replacing the two DA* lenses.

I listed these two lenses in the Marketplace last year because they weren't getting enough use. I had second thoughts, however, when I realized that certain types of photography would not be possible without their zoom capability and maximum aperture. So I kept them. They will never be used as often as my 18-135, but they are there for when I need them.

These photos, except the first, were all taken on the 16-50 at 1/60 sec f/4 with focal lengths varying from 16 mm to 43 mm:

Michael In His Studio - Charles Kinghorn

[CarlJF]

Since you're in Canada, there's a used 16-50 converted to screwdrive at MacBain for 340 $CDN. You might even be able to barter a bit since I've seen it as low as 250$CDN when there was a clearance sale on used items a few weeks ago.

Edit: They also have an open box DA 17-70 which could be an interesting alternative to a used 16-50 or 18-135 since it should be covered by the 2 years Pentax Canada warranty...

[ThorSanchez]

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.

If five ounces is really a deal breaker, then you could save 14 ounces off the 16-50 and nine off the 18-135 by using an 18-50 WR. A KP and an 18-50 is under 30 ounces total. The 20-40 limited is WR and five ounces less than the 18-135. Of course none of these have the reach of the 18-135, but it certainly appears that (to you) weight is the #1 requirement.


Or really, if weight is that important that you'd completely rule out a 16-50 because of five ounces, I'd think you'd be seriously looking at micro 4/3rds, point-and-shoots or phones.

[cpk]

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.

Norm's points are excellent; but even with walking around the city for 6-7 hours, given my age and my back, I prefer carrying the 18-135 over the 16-50. And if I had to carry both the 16-50 and the 50-135 to be able to cover the same zoom range, well, the choice would be obvious.

Note: It's amazing how many comments I missed which were posted while I composed my first posting (including Norm's comments about not posting 16-50 photos).

---

Last edited by cpk; 04-05-2020 at 02:24 PM.

[normhead]

If five ounces is really a deal breaker, then you could save 14 ounces off the 16-50 and nine off the 18-135 by using an 18-50 WR. A KP and an 18-50 is under 30 ounces total. The 20-40 limited is WR and five ounces less than the 18-135. Of course none of these have the reach of the 18-135, but it certainly appears that (to you) weight is the #1 requirement.


Or really, if weight is that important that you'd completely rule out a 16-50 because of five ounces, I'd think you'd be seriously looking at micro 4/3rds, point-and-shoots or phones.

The forum doesn't seem to agree that the 16-50 will get you better images...
And the 18-50 is rated at 7.4 buy forum users.
The DA*16-50 and DA 18-135 are rated at 8.5. Regardless of the many criticisms of forum rating, I do find a 1 point difference is visible.

There are times you need every drop of dynamic range you can get.


For images like this I went larger sensor, not smaller.
Click on this and check out the shadow detail. Small sensors are inadequate for an image like this. Aps-c is not much different than FF, especially if shooting a K-5,. It all depends on how much you're willing to compromise on IQ. This is what I'm going for. If you're going for blacked out shadows, then there's no point in carrying a K-1. I hate them, so I carry it.



I'm recommending a particular lens for particular set of situations. It's not about absolute anything. It's about a system suited to the job at hand.

Next year, I'll also be carrying a 1 inch sensor for the times it's appropriate, just to save packing and unpacking the larger cameras. Great in bright light for day time shooting...but not at all what I carry DSLRs for.

Honestly dude, this is knowledge gained by trial and error in appropriate circumstances. You can say what about this and what about that, at your peril. I don't care what you do. I'm just trying to streamline your process. If you choose to ignore the voice of experience, no problem. Reinvent the wheel. No sweat off my back.

It's not about just weight, or just IQ or just anything. it's about a combo that will do the most of what you want to acceptable standards in the lightest package.
Unfortunately for me, the cost of 4/3 systems is such that I can't even imagine buying one just to fool around with. It doesn't use the lenses I own. The lenses won't be of use on my other bodies. If someone wants to lend me one for a month, I'll report back.

But if as I suspect my assessment is correct, in other words, I only prove what I already know, I would expect to be paid for doing so. I waste enough time answering posts like the above. Have you any idea how hard it is answering why you choose one set of abilities over a slightly different set. It takes nothing at all to ask. It takes a lot of work to exactly explain your preference. Usually, it's a lot of different things all taken together.

I'm not sure why this just so hard for folks to read and accept. I don't recommend flash set ups or triggers because I don't use them and know next to nothing about them. I'm not sure why every Tom Dick and Harry thinks they know better than I do what I know about. As a canoe guide and expert (Level 3 three canoe tripping qualification and many other qualifications, an APS-c Pentax and 18-135 is what I recommend,( so pro qualifications in both tripping and photography). I also recommend taking an WG waterproof shock proof or something like my Panasonic ZS100 for day use while tripping, and if there's any chance at all you might sell some images, I recommend a K-1 and DFA 28-105. If you don't want what an APS_c or bigger DSLR has to offer, it makes no difference to me.

But, for the frugal, a K-mount APS-c with the 18-135 is in my opinion the best tripping option for a one camera plus most used lens solution. And it's small enough to fit a couple of batteries and other stuff, even another small lens in a small easy to carry case if you buy compact lenses. Promote whatever you want. Maybe start with photos like the one I posted above, taken on the 10th day of your 19 day trip like that one was, so we know you have clue what you're discussing.

The explanations as to why, would take lectures on different sensors and the advantages of each, the quality of the various lenses and their characteristics, I'm guessing 2 to 3 90 minute lectures for folks who understand basic concepts. I could answer your questions exactly and precisely, but who's going to pay for that? The research to back up the answers would take at least 3 or 4 days, longer f I have to produce different photos for different formats, and I'm going to have to rent gear. I can do it. But no one wants to pay for it, and there's no way I should be bearing the cost to defend what to me is the obvious. I've taken my A400, DA*60-250, DA* 200, DA* 55 1.4, FA 50 1.7, DA 35 2.4, DA 18-55, Sigma 18-250, DFA 28-105, DA 55-300 PLM, Sigma 70-300, Sigma 8-16, DA 10-17, Tamron 17-50, Tamron 90, FA 50 macro, Sigma 70 macro, DFA 100 macro, Optio W80 and W90 Nikon AW 130, Pentax Prgram plus, Mamiya 645, Pentax XG-1, Pentax Q, *ist, K-100D, K-20D, K-x, K-5, K-3, K-1 on trips. Ive done over 2000 miles in boats and portages, (over a hundred last year alone) over 40 years. I started with a Program plus and Tamron adaptable 18-300. I've done at least 40,000-50,000 exposures averaging 400 a year with film and 2,000-10,000 a year shooting digital. The first DSLR image I sold from a canoe trip was taken with a K20D and an 18-55 that wasn't even all that good. I've shot with people using point and shoots, and trippers with D800 series cameras with the Trinity and a 150-600 and everything in between. And I've talked to hundreds of out door photographers.

I think I know how to answer the question with some authority. Do 1/4 what I've done and we can probably have a pretty good discussion and share some great stories. I'll even buy my own beer.

[luftfluss]

I should be happy with the 18-135

I've never used the 18-135, but if you find you are happy with it, I'd suggest to consider buying the Raynox DCR-150 to go with it. The Raynox will turn your lens into an impromptu macro lens, without the hassle and exposure of switching lenses - particularly valuable if you intend to shoot in inclement weather.

Anyway, happy shooting!

[Austro-Diesel]

Look for a DA 16-85 WR. It's much sharper than the DA 18-135 WR across the frame, shows much less CAs, has a fast and reliable AF, is relatively compact and light weight. I immediately sold my DA 18-135 WR after a short shoot-out.

For pictures look here: https://forum.digitalfotonetz.de/viewtopic.php?t=108580&start=5


The DA* 16-50 isn't as versatile as the DA 16-85 and you have to carry the weight for "useless" f/2.8. Joke, this is bullshit, you can use the lens at f/2.8 too, but there are optical better and cheaper alternatives (e.g. Sigma 17-50 EX HSM) -- but only without WR.

---

Last edited by Austro-Diesel; 04-05-2020 at 11:16 AM.

[bertwert]

I think this is the key to your decision making.

When I went digital in '07 I immediately upgraded the kit lenses to the 16-50 and 50-135 DA* lenses and used them extensively. When the 18-135 came out, I purchased it and tested it for overall, but specifically corner, sharpness. It is soft in the corners but DxO Optics Pro corrected that; so I kept it and it became my carry-around lens, effectively replacing the two DA* lenses.

I listed these two lenses in the Marketplace last year because they weren't getting enough use. I had second thoughts, however, when I realized that certain types of photography would not be possible without their zoom capability and maximum aperture. So I kept them. They will never be used as often as my 18-135, but they are there for when I need them.

These photos, except the first, were all taken on the 16-50 at 1/60 sec f/4 with focal lengths varying from 16 mm to 43 mm:

Michael In His Studio - Charles Kinghorn

Norm's points are excellent; but even with walking around the city for 6-7 hours, given my age and my back, i prefer carrying the 18-135 over the 16-50. And if I had to carry both the 16-50 and the 50-135 to be able to cover the same zoom range, well, the choice would be obvious.

Note: It's amazing how many comments I missed which were posted while I composed my first posting (including Norm's comments about not posting 16-50 photos).

More good thoughts, steering me to the 18-135 for my purpose

[normhead]

The DA* 16-50 isn't as versatile as the DA 16-85 and you have to carry the weight for "useless" f/2.8. Joke, this is bullshit, you can use the lens at f/2.8 too, but there are optical better and cheaper alternatives (e.g. Sigma 17-50 EX HSM) -- but only without WR.

A large percentage of my canoe trip pictures are shot at 135mm.. a DA 16-85 doesn't even qualify for those. Not being sharp across the frame is actually better if the the edges are out of focus because the centre sharpness is excellent and the soft edges smooth out the bokeh . The DA 18-135 is rated excellent for centre sharpness at every focal length. That in itself is amazing for lens of this cost and quality. The 18-135 is good enough from 18-50 and excellent from say 22 to 35. Rated by optical limits the DA 16-85 is rated excellent or very near excellent in 13 categories, the DA 18-135 in 16 or 17 depending on how you define "near excellent." Most of the negative comments vs. the 16-85 can be attributed to sample variation. The lenses are close enough that which lens is better depends on your samples. When lenses are this close of course some will prefer one, some will prefer the other based on the samples they own. There are just as many doing well with the 18-135, they never bothered even trying out the 16-85. This endless parade of switchers (the DA 16-85 was released later), thinking their experience is relevant to every discussion is truly annoying. As is the endless parade of 16-50 shooters. Why can't you folks just accept, your lens may not be the best option for everything? The OP asked for one cheap lens. I personally wouldn't recommend the 16-85 unless you were buying a DA 55-300 PLM as a companion lens, so not only is it not as inexpensive, you have to spend even more money to make it relevant.. One lens for everything, the DA 18-135 is the best I've seen at doing everything with the least number of overall compromises.

He asked for an inexpensive lens and you pile it on with two lenses that aren't even that cheap and he'd have to buy a second lens to compliment them to surpass what the 18-135 does. Just the basic criteria should have dismissed them from consideration. Are you people serious?

With the 16-85 you've pretty much taken yourself out of telephoto and wildlife. At 135 mm it's still to short, but the 16-85 is obviously even shorter.
You can go to something like an 18-250 but the number of excellent measurements falls to about 5.

You guys just don't understand the situation. It's a canoe trip, you can't go back to your house and pick up a more appropriate lens. The lens has to do everything, For not wide enough you can paste together two or more images. For not long enough for telephotos there's nothing you can do. Hence ultimately the long reach is more valuable than the wider setting.

I participate in threads like this and I wonder "What's wrong with people?" It's a simple question, that requires folks not expressing only their biases because they feel the need to defend the lens they own, and interject it into every conversation, relevant or not.

Personally, with my experience, I'd shoot with an 18-55 and Sigma 70-300, for which I'd pay half the cost of either a 16-50 or a 16-85, and I'd come home with better images. Not every image would be better, but on average they'd be in first place by a good margin.

[bertwert]

If five ounces is really a deal breaker, then you could save 14 ounces off the 16-50 and nine off the 18-135 by using an 18-50 WR. A KP and an 18-50 is under 30 ounces total. The 20-40 limited is WR and five ounces less than the 18-135. Of course none of these have the reach of the 18-135, but it certainly appears that (to you) weight is the #1 requirement.


Or really, if weight is that important that you'd completely rule out a 16-50 because of five ounces, I'd think you'd be seriously looking at micro 4/3rds, point-and-shoots or phones.

Every ounce adds up.

As far as taking a DSLR... that's what I own and enjoy using. I dislike taking photos without an OVF, and anyways I'm not buying a new setup...

Weight is not the #1 requirement. Price effectively is...

Anyways, I've got some old manual lenses with similar weights... the 150 grams makes a surprising difference overall... especially one handed.

[bertwert]

Since you're in Canada, there's a used 16-50 converted to screwdrive at MacBain for 340 $CDN. You might even be able to barter a bit since I've seen it as low as 250$CDN when there was a clearance sale on used items a few weeks ago.

Edit: They also have an open box DA 17-70 which could be an interesting alternative to a used 16-50 or 18-135 since it should be covered by the 2 years Pentax Canada warranty...

There's quite a few good other options, but for this purpose I've decided WR is a requirement

(Anyways, where are you seeing this, I can't find them on McBain's website...)

[bertwert]

I've never used the 18-135, but if you find you are happy with it, I'd suggest to consider buying the Raynox DCR-150 to go with it. The Raynox will turn your lens into an impromptu macro lens, without the hassle and exposure of switching lenses - particularly valuable if you intend to shoot in inclement weather.

Anyway, happy shooting!

Good point. I considered getting a Raynox thing a while back, but never did.

[bertwert]

Look for a DA 16-85 WR. It's much sharper than the DA 18-135 WR across the frame, shows much less CAs, has a fast and reliable AF, is relatively compact and light weight. I immediately sold my DA 18-135 WR after a short shoot-out.

For pictures look here: DigitalFotoNetz.de :: Thema anzeigen - Pentax DA 16-85/3.5-5.6 DC WR AL


The DA* 16-50 isn't as versatile as the DA 16-85 and you have to carry the weight for "useless" f/2.8. Joke, this is bullshit, you can use the lens at f/2.8 too, but there are optical better and cheaper alternatives (e.g. Sigma 17-50 EX HSM) -- but only without WR.

The 16-85 is certainly an interesting lens, but out of my budget.

[bertwert]

The forum doesn't seem to agree that the 16-50 will get you better images...
And the 18-50 is rated at 7.4 buy forum users.
The DA*16-50 and DA 18-135 are rated at 8.5. Regardless of the many criticisms of forum rating, I do find a 1 point difference is visible.

There are times you need every drop of dynamic range you can get.


For images like this I went larger sensor, not smaller.
Click on this and check out the shadow detail. Small sensors are inadequate for an image like this. Aps-c is not much different than FF, especially if shooting a K-5,. It all depends on how much you're willing to compromise on IQ. This is what I'm going for. If you're going for blacked out shadows, then there's no point in carrying a K-1. I hate them, so I carry it.



I'm recommending a particular lens for particular set of situations. It's not about absolute anything. It's about a system suited to the job at hand.

Next year, I'll also be carrying a 1 inch sensor for the times it's appropriate, just to save packing and unpacking the larger cameras. Great in bright light for day time shooting...but not at all what I carry DSLRs for.

Honestly dude, this is knowledge gained by trial and error in appropriate circumstances. You can say what about this and what about that, at your peril. I don't care what you do. I'm just trying to streamline your process. If you choose to ignore the voice of experience, no problem. Reinvent the wheel. No sweat off my back.

It's not about just weight, or just IQ or just anything. it's about a combo that will do the most of what you want to acceptable standards in the lightest package.
Unfortunately for me, the cost of 4/3 systems is such that I can't even imagine buying one just to fool around with. It doesn't use the lenses I own. The lenses won't be of use on my other bodies. If someone wants to lend me one for a month, I'll report back.

But if as I suspect my assessment is correct, in other words, I only prove what I already know, I would expect to be paid for doing so. I waste enough time answering posts like the above. Have you any idea how hard it is answering why you choose one set of abilities over a slightly different set. It takes nothing at all to ask. It takes a lot of work to exactly explain your preference. Usually, it's a lot of different things all taken together.

I'm not sure why this just so hard for folks to read and accept. I don't recommend flash set ups or triggers because I don't use them and know next to nothing about them. I'm not sure why every Tom Dick and Harry thinks they know better than I do what I know about. As a canoe guide and expert (Level 3 three canoe tripping qualification and many other qualifications, an APS-c Pentax and 18-135 is what I recommend,( so pro qualifications in both tripping and photography). I also recommend taking an WG waterproof shock proof or something like my Panasonic ZS100 for day use while tripping, and if there's any chance at all you might sell some images, I recommend a K-1 and DFA 28-105. If you don't want what an APS_c or bigger DSLR has to offer, it makes no difference to me.

But, for the frugal, a K-mount APS-c with the 18-135 is in my opinion the best tripping option for a one camera plus most used lens solution. And it's small enough to fit a couple of batteries and other stuff, even another small lens in a small easy to carry case if you buy compact lenses. Promote whatever you want. Maybe start with photos like the one I posted above, taken on the 10th day of your 19 day trip like that one was, so we know you have clue what you're discussing.

The explanations as to why, would take lectures on different sensors and the advantages of each, the quality of the various lenses and their characteristics, I'm guessing 2 to 3 90 minute lectures for folks who understand basic concepts. I could answer your questions exactly and precisely, but who's going to pay for that? The research to back up the answers would take at least 3 or 4 days, longer f I have to produce different photos for different formats, and I'm going to have to rent gear. I can do it. But no one wants to pay for it, and there's no way I should be bearing the cost to defend what to me is the obvious. I've taken my A400, DA*60-250, DA* 200, DA* 55 1.4, FA 50 1.7, DA 35 2.4, DA 18-55, Sigma 18-250, DFA 28-105, DA 55-300 PLM, Sigma 70-300, Sigma 8-16, DA 10-17, Tamron 17-50, Tamron 90, FA 50 macro, Sigma 70 macro, DFA 100 macro, Optio W80 and W90 Nikon AW 130, Pentax Prgram plus, Mamiya 645, Pentax XG-1, Pentax Q, *ist, K-100D, K-20D, K-x, K-5, K-3, K-1 on trips. Ive done over 2000 miles in boats and portages, (over a hundred last year alone) over 40 years. I started with a Program plus and Tamron adaptable 18-300. I've done at least 40,000-50,000 exposures averaging 400 a year with film and 2,000-10,000 a year shooting digital. The first DSLR image I sold from a canoe trip was taken with a K20D and an 18-55 that wasn't even all that good. I've shot with people using point and shoots, and trippers with D800 series cameras with the Trinity and a 150-600 and everything in between. And I've talked to hundreds of out door photographers.

I think I know how to answer the question with some authority. Do 1/4 what I've done and we can probably have a pretty good discussion and share some great stories. I'll even buy my own beer.

I think Norm understand's where I'm coming from... especially with the frugal part... and I believe him when he says a Pentax APS-C with 18-135 is a darned good option for tripping. I'll have to see if he's right once I get one and the snow's melted a bit.


Anyways, you'd have to buy your own beer, they won't let me buy them... yet...

[RICHARD L.]

Once I discovered the magnificent performance of the Pentax K1 + DFA 28-105 mm, I never looked back. Only the 645Z with an array of heavy and expensive lenses can beat this combo.

Regards,
Richard