[renix]

Goodmorning everyone. After a long time I find myself here again for your precious advice.
I have my 16-85 in technical assistance because it no longer focused properly and, until I get it back, I thought I would buy a replacement that, obviously, must be a "replacement", a "reserve" and not the "main"
But I don't want to lose too much quality.
Considering that for me the wide side is not essential (I do portrait photography mainly and occasionally travel) I am looking for a good quality and affordable autofocus zoom (max 150 euros and 17-70 SDM excluded)
Tips?

---

Last edited by renix; 06-15-2020 at 01:34 AM.

[calsan]

Used Sigma 17-50 f/2.8
Tamron 17-50 f/2.8
or Sigma 17-70,
or a Pentax 16-45 f/4
would be the obvious choices for approximately that budget, depending on their condition...

Plan B for a bit more cash would be to get the Pentax 18-135 which isn't as high optical quality as the first three, but is small and waterproof and well liked by those who have it and actually produces nice pictures due to good bokeh. It would still be handy after you get your 16-85 back, in that you would have a lighter standard WR lens for when you can't be bothered carrying the 16-85.

[renix]

Used Sigma 17-50 f/2.8
Tamron 17-50 f/2.8

As quality is really good?

or Sigma 17-70,

I have ad a contemporary version... resell! Not good for my

or a Pentax 16-45 f/4

could be a choice but too short.. 45mm...

Plan B for a bit more cash would be to get the Pentax 18-135 which isn't as high optical quality as the first three, but is small and waterproof and well liked by those who have it and actually produces nice pictures due to good bokeh. It would still be handy after you get your 16-85 back, in that you would have a lighter standard WR lens for when you can't be bothered carrying the 16-85.

I head no good reviews about 18-135... but I don't tried it personally

[othar]

If the wide end is not that important to you, how about an old F 35-70mm lens, very cheap and usually sharp for APS-C sensor size.
And when your 16-85mm lens gets back and you should deside not to keep it, you probably can resell it without much loss.

edit: Admittedly for portrait photography you might need a faster lens.

Goodmorning everyone. After a long time I find myself here again for your precious advice.
I have my 16-85 in technical assistance because it no longer focused properly and, until I get it back, I thought I would buy a replacement that, obviously, must be a "replacement", a "reserve" and not the "main"
But I don't want to lose too much quality.
Considering that for me the wide side is not essential (I do portrait photography mainly and occasionally travel) I am looking for a good quality and affordable autofocus zoom (max 150 euros and 17-70 SDM excluded)
Tips?

Well I would say buy the 18-135 second hand. It is a very capable lens and delivers. I own this lens and it is actually a very good lens. Second hand the prices are quite interesting, has a DC motor, fast AF. I used it on Samsung GX-10, K-7 and K-3II. Initially bought it for the Samsung. See also the review here of the 16-85 and the remark in that review about the 18-135. I do not know which camera you use, but my experience is that with each upgrade of the camera, the 18-135 shows better results. With the K-3II the results are better than with the Samsung (and then they were already good). It seems, however, that from the suggestions I read and your reactions to them you better wait till the 16-85 returns. I am afraid that any other lens is only going to disappoint you based on your reaction. The Sigma 17-50 is good, but as you point out that 45mm it too short, 50mm will be the same.

[pres589]

There are so many positive user reviews for the 18-135 that I don't imagine you're really serious about this at all.

[bdery]

If the wide end is not that important to you, how about an old F 35-70mm lens, very cheap and usually sharp for APS-C sensor size.

That was my thought exactly, these lenses are better than they should be, really inexpensive, and reliable.

Given that the replacement is needed for only a short time, I would not be looking at spending tons of money.

[bassek]

That was my thought exactly, these lenses are better than they should be, really inexpensive, and reliable.

Given that the replacement is needed for only a short time, I would not be looking at spending tons of money.

Another vote for the F35-70. Or the F35-105 or F35-135...
Whichever you find at a decent price in a decent enough condition.

Seb

[Paul the Sunman]

The DA 18-135 is my replacement for the 16-85 when I need long rather than wide. Small and WR too. The adverse reviews of its IQ are mostly nitpicking; it's a great general purpose lens. If I wanted just one light lens on a hike, the 18-135 would be the one.

[aslyfox]

. . . I do not know which camera you use, but my experience is that with each upgrade of the camera, the 18-135 shows better results. . . .

according to the OP's profile

Pentax Cameras
K-3, K-5

[normhead]

I head no good reviews about 18-135... but I don't tried it personally

In the 18-135 thread, 3,325 posts, almost 5k likes 539,000 views.
In the lens review section. 130 reviews, recommended by 92% of reviewers.

But you've never read a positive review? What have you been reading?
Must be the posts of 16-85 users. They tend to be a pretty virulent anti-18-135 bunch.

The ratio recommending the 18-135 is 92% to 8% not recommending. But that 8% contribute to every thread it would seem.
If I already had a 16-85 and wanted a back up I'd consider that the DC motor is excellent interns of speed and reliability and it's affordable second hand. I'd take it over any of the other suggested alternatives. It's a similar type of lens to the 16-85 with more range.

Before the K-1 it was my most used lens. I never had cause to switch. And I never saw enough in the 16-85 to make it worth switching. But 8% don't agree with me, so there's an 8% chance you won't be happy with your copy if you buy one.

It actually has a higher forum rating than the 16-85 for being recommended by forum reviewers, which has only 34 reviews and a 91% approval rating.

sigh
The incredible 10 year campaign against the 18-135 started by Photozone, where they rated the lens lower than many lenses that didn't test as well and carried on by certain forum members continues. If the lens suits your style and you get a good copy, it punches well above it's weight. And real world satisfaction numbers contradict the opinions of the nay sayers.

At least at this point we can safely say, critics of the 18-135 are small but vocal minority. Exactly why they are so persistent and adamant is unknown. It can't be rationally explained. Why do 8% constantly try to shout down 92%

At this point 10 years later, it's pretty safe to say 18-135 critics are out of touch with reality. The numbers don't support them. They know what they like, but their views aren't in alignment with the overwhelming majority of users.

Approx. 12 out of 130 users don't recommend the 18-135, and we hear from a couple of them every time the 18-135 is mentioned. Now it isn't even them. It's people who never owned the lens but have been influenced by them. Words fail me.

Just what is it they are trying to accomplish?

[D1N0]

This one. A decent lens Tamron AF Aspherical LD 28-200mm F3.8-5.6 [Model 171D, 271D, 571D, 171A] Lens Reviews - Tamron Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database There is also a Pentax FA version. You'll have some more reach when you get the 16-85 back.

according to the OP's profile

I always have the idea that if you need advice you inform your fellow Pentaxians of the facts that matter. I do not like to go into ones profile but in this case I could do without it. My advice is buy the 18-135, because it is the lens that is closest to 16-85 in performance and reach. But another one that might be of interest is an F 28-70 F4.

[ChristianRock]

If you do portrait photography, I suggest finding an SMC-F 50mm f/1.7 lens. I found information that stated that the Pentax 50mm f/1.7 lenses are in fact 52mm lenses, which on APS-C will give you 77.5mm - exactly the 77mm of the legendary Pentax FA 77mm Limited, the Pentax premium portrait lens.
I would pair it with the DA 16-45mm for your travel needs, but make sure that you get a copy in good condition without much "barrel wobble" (which is, extending the barrel while zooming, and the barrel feeling loose). Mine has the wobble and I think it got hit when my kids were using it one day and now it has some decentering at 16mm. Otherwise a great lens that I have enjoyed for a few years, but do make sure you take good care of it.
The 18-135mm might be an even better option for traveling due to its range, if you can afford having both those lenses....
Another option would be a Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 lens, which is not very wide at tne end but would give you a good working range for portraits.

[Des]

Words fail me.

That's a first. ;-)

Considering that for me the wide side is not essential (I do portrait photography mainly and occasionally travel) I am looking for a good quality and affordable autofocus zoom (max 150 euros and 17-70 SDM excluded)

I head no good reviews about 18-135... but I don't tried it personally

As an affordable replacement for the DA 16-85, for the mix of travel and portraits, the DA 18-135 is the obvious choice, if you want WR and don't crave a faster aperture.

I would endorse Norm's point. Never mind test charts, this is a lens that produces very good results in real world use by any competent user. It has exceptional centre sharpness.


The colours and contrast are very good for a consumer zoom.


It even does pretty good landscapes, when stopped down.






But then, if you weren't happy with the Sigma 17-70C, maybe you are looking for something that doesn't exist in this price range.