[calsan]

Holy moley.

[timb64]

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?

Phew,what a rant,Farmer Giles playing up again Norm?!

As someone who "upgraded" from the 18-135 to the 16-85 I am more than happy to recommend the 18-135 as a cheaper backup.I was very pleased with results it gave,the main concern,depending on what you shoot,is the loss at the wider end.

[normhead]

Here's a tip. Reconsider the Pentax 17-70 SDM, six month warranty with this one.

Work horse, make money lens. Constant aperture, very good IQ. My cameras stay in "M", constant aperture a must.

Bought mine used, same place, eight years ago. Heavily used and zero failures.

The various 17-70s should definitely be considered.

Less range instead of more, and if he currently uses a 16-85, it would represent a small reduction in range.

But all the 17-70s seem to be well loved by those who own them, just as a general observation. Based on forum comments I wouldn't hesitate to try one.

[pres589]

At this point I'm really curious what the OP in this thread brings home. It doesn't seem like any glass in Pentax's arsenal, 3rd party included, is going to be acceptable.

[normhead]

If it's a back up for the 16-85, it probably just needs to be there and take images.

[pres589]

You'd think...

[renix]

Hi everyone and thank you for your suggestions. In fact, I'm a little confused because:
- on digital body I don't know how good a powerzoom can be as IQ
- 17-70 would not be the right choice because when came back to me the 16-85 it would remain in the drawer
- 18-135 might be the right choice, but I can't find it at a good price
- the various 17-50 for me are short (50mm)
I don't know, I also evaluate a handyman zoom (like an 18-250) but I don't know how good they can be. In any case, as soon as I have decided I will let you know. Thank you all

[BigMackCam]

I don't know, I also evaluate a handyman zoom (like an 18-250) but I don't know how good they can be. In any case, as soon as I have decided I will let you know. Thank you all

Having acess to such a wide range of focal lengths without needing to swap lenses can be really useful and, on occasion, the flexibility and convenience can be a bigger priority than optimal image quality... BUT, it comes with costs. Usually, there are not-insignificant compromises in IQ depending on the selected focal length - including pronounced (and, sometimes, complex) distortion, considerable vignetting, poor edge and corner performance, chromatic aberrations, highly variable field curvature, and occasionally slightly odd out-of-focus rendering (specular highlights, for example). Distortion, vignetting and (for the most part) CA can be dealt with in post-processing if shooting raw, while selective sharpening can help somewhat in the image borders, but you just have to live with the other aspects. As a general rule, most of these "handyman zoom" lenses perform best around f/8 - f/11, which also means they're poorly suited to low ambient light situations if you want the best out of them. In terms of image quality, they rarely match good, shorter-range zooms or half-decent modern primes at any focal length.

All of that said, I own a couple of super-zooms for the different systems I shoot, they can be very handy, and it's definitely possible to take very good photos with them. I don't use them very often, and I've considered selling them on numerous occasions, but I've never quite managed to convince myself to do so My current K-mount superzoom is the Sigma 18-300, and whilst it demonstrates some of the afore-mentioned IQ compromises, they're quite well-controlled. It's a good lens of its type, IMHO...

[Hayashi]

I would go for the 18-135 as an alternative.

Similar weight and size, a bit different range of use.

Similar joy and result