[Hythloday]

There is a hidden quality in this lens that blooms with a better camera.

There are more lenses that get better with the newer cameras, e.g. the DA17-70mm. I bought one in 2009 and I bought one this year to replace my DA16-85mm, so I have two copies now. It has a constant aperture of 4.0 all through the range. Its weakest point is AF. But the lens is parfocal and when I focus at 70mm, lock focus and zoom out to the desired focal length, the pictures are always sharp.

[Sandy Hancock]

I don't understand your question. You already own the best standard zoom Pentax has ever made. You also have the 55-300 PLM and The DA*11-18: basically crop zoom nirvana.

Get some primes.

[Paul the Sunman]

I don't understand your question. You already own the best standard zoom Pentax has ever made. You also have the 55-300 PLM and The DA*11-18: basically crop zoom nirvana.

Get some primes.

The OP later clarified his question: which is the better one-lens solution?

[5ks]

Also , the 18-135 is much more common and number of them are always available on the used market.
It is much harder to find used 16-85.

Which one is more easily available on the used market ... you might also ask, why? Why do those (such as myself) having DA 16-85 wanto to keep it rather than sell?

Both are worth buying, of course, and deliver a lot for the money. When 18-135 was launched, I was very excited to get it. Very versatite, DC auto focus, WR and a compact size = should be everything needed from a walk-around lens. (I had DA 17-70 those days as my walk-around zoom. Optically brilliant, but some defects with the autofocus.)


However, I soon learned that the long end (ie. what was one of the most interesting feature of 18-135 for me) was probably not as sharp as I had hoped. So I did not buy it. A couple of years later I bought 16-85 and am very satisfied with it.


For you, I guess, size and weight may be more important now, as you have the 16-50 PLM. In that situation, 18-135 might well be a good choice, after all.

[RICHARD L.]

@ 18 mm

@ 135 mm

[Hythloday]

I also checked out the weight of both, the 18-135 is several oz lighter.

If weight is your main concern, you might also consider a compact camera such as a Pentax MX-1. It weighs 13.79 Oz and has an excellent lens:

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/smc-pentax-6-24mm-f-1-8-2-5--pentax-mx-1-...-35473/verdict

In fact it is a Pentax camera with an Olypumpus (XZ1) lens.

[jgnfld]

While the Quebec landscapes frrm the 18-135 above are fine, I could never warm to my own landscapes with it. (Same with my copy of the Sigma 17-50, btw, a lens which I do use indoors and on the street esp. at night.) As well I also have a 55-300 (PLM version now).


Given all the above caveats, 16-85 is what I found and settled on. Wonderful landscape rendering. Beautiful for my normal uses while hiking/sailing. Paired with a 55-300, I have a fine, easily portable kit (though I have been known to carry a 40 or 70mmLtd in my pocket as well especially around golden hour and for portraitish outdoors subjects like 'shrooms).

---

Last edited by jgnfld; 11-28-2021 at 08:10 AM.

[sarge]

I don't understand your question. You already own the best standard zoom Pentax has ever made. You also have the 55-300 PLM and The DA*11-18: basically crop zoom nirvana.

Get some primes.

I did clarify that I am looking for one walk around lens that is lighter than the 16-50 PLM.

---------- Post added 11-28-21 at 08:26 AM ----------

Which one is more easily available on the used market ... you might also ask, why? Why do those (such as myself) having DA 16-85 wanto to keep it rather than sell?

Both are worth buying, of course, and deliver a lot for the money. When 18-135 was launched, I was very excited to get it. Very versatite, DC auto focus, WR and a compact size = should be everything needed from a walk-around lens. (I had DA 17-70 those days as my walk-around zoom. Optically brilliant, but some defects with the autofocus.)


However, I soon learned that the long end (ie. what was one of the most interesting feature of 18-135 for me) was probably not as sharp as I had hoped. So I did not buy it. A couple of years later I bought 16-85 and am very satisfied with it.


For you, I guess, size and weight may be more important now, as you have the 16-50 PLM. In that situation, 18-135 might well be a good choice, after all.

I am thinking the 18-135 probably is going to be the best choice.

[UncleVanya]

Here’s the thing. If you buy a used copy your resale opportunity for the lens is probably not going to take a big hit. Try it and sell it if it doesn’t live up to expectations.

That goes for any of the standard zooms.

[robgski]

I am thinking the 18-135 probably is going to be the best choice.

Before you buy, there are threads for both the 16-85 and the 18-135, each full with 100's of examples.

[jgnfld]

I would only add that since you already have 55-300 PLM, between 85 and 135 you might be better served by using it in such situations instead of the slower end of the 18-135's range.

[normhead]

I own both.
For a one lens solution the DA 18-135 is best. More range, fewer lens changes, very strong in the wide end 20mm-40mm, as strong as any lens out there. Excellent centre sharpness from 60-135mm. Everyone says the DA 16-85 is stronger in the long end but, it doesn't work at all from 85-135 so what the heck is that?

Our 16-85 has yet to find a use. I think I'd like if as a second lens when I take out the DA 55-300 PLM, but I've never actually used it, in that capacity, though I've carried it many times. T tried it out, she won't use it. She likes the Tamron 17-50 with her Tamron 90. Both 2.8 lenses and very good.

And I prefer the fewer lens changes I get with my DA 18-135.

For a time I couldn't understand why so much love for the DA 16-85, I assumed it was because I didn't own one with all the negative DA18-135 pro 16-85 comments here on the forum. Now my opinion is the extra reach of the DA 18-135 is worth way more to me (but obviously not to everyone) than the extra wide end of the DA 16-85. SO buying a DA 16-85 didn't end my confusion. It just makes me suspicious of using the advice of those who recommended it for my gear choices. After all, they value something I don't, and don't value what I value.

A few months ago, a friend brought home a phone picture of a groundhog sunning on neighbour's property. I grabbed my camera and hopped in the car for a better shot. It seemed I was getting a disappointingly small image.

I realized I'd accidentally picked up the DA 16-85 instead of the DA 18-135 in my hurry. I now store it where it isn't easy to find. I'm not going to let that happen again.

The last point would be that I for the most part use my K-1 for landscape. Maybe if used my K-3 for landscape I'd think differently.

I much prefer the 18-135 for macros, even though I own the 50 macro and Sigma 70 macro, the 100 macro is the macro I prefer and I prefer the longer distance from subject the DA 18-135 provides.


And for many images, the lack of edge sharpness in the long end isn't even real, as the edges are out of focus.



The DA16-85 might have had sharper edges, but since I want clean out of focus areas, that's actually a disadvantage. Buy the time you crop the DA 16-85 to the 135mm field of view, the image will be considerable weaker than a DA 18-135 of the same subject and distance.

The DA 18-135 isn't good for landscapes?




I guess I better reshoot these.



Sorry I can't post comparative images, between my wife and I we have not one keeper taken with the DA 16-85. Everything has been deleted, it's been a waste of time to date. No particular reason, not that we can define precisely, maybe it's just bad luck. Not to say that will always be true, it's just when you have something you have confidence in, it's hard to take time to use a lens where you might be disappointed. I like the the DA 18-135 for its range. T likes the Tamron 17-50 and Tamron 90 for thier sharpness. The poor DA 16-85 will probably be looking for a home soon.

[sarge]

I own both.
For a one lens solution the DA 18-135 is best. More range, fewer lens changes, very strong in the wide end 20mm-40mm, as strong as any lens out there. Excellent centre sharpness from 60-135mm. Everyone says the DA 16-85 is stronger in the long end but, it doesn't work at all from 85-135 so what the heck is that?

Our 16-85 has yet to find a use. I think I'd like if as a second lens when I take out the DA 55-300 PLM, but I've never actually used it, in that capacity, though I've carried it many times. T tried it out, she won't use it. She likes the Tamron 17-50 with her Tamron 90. Both 2.8 lenses and very good.

And I prefer the fewer lens changes I get with my DA 18-135.

For a time I couldn't understand why so much love for the DA 16-85, I assumed it was because I didn't own one with all the negative DA18-135 pro 16-85 comments here on the forum. Now my opinion is the extra reach of the DA 18-135 is worth way more to me (but obviously not to everyone) than the extra wide end of the DA 16-85. SO buying a DA 16-85 didn't end my confusion. It just makes me suspicious of using the advice of those who recommended it for my gear choices. After all, they value something I don't, and don't value what I value.

A few months ago, a friend brought home a phone picture of a groundhog sunning on neighbour's property. I grabbed my camera and hopped in the car for a better shot. It seemed I was getting a disappointingly small image.

I realized I'd accidentally picked up the DA 16-85 instead of the DA 18-135 in my hurry. I now store it where it isn't easy to find. I'm not going to let that happen again.

The last point would be that I for the most part use my K-1 for landscape. Maybe if used my K-3 for landscape I'd think differently.

I much prefer the 18-135 for macros, even though I own the 50 macro and Sigma 70 macro, the 100 macro is the macro I prefer and I prefer the longer distance from subject the DA 18-135 provides.


And for many images, the lack of edge sharpness in the long end isn't even real, as the edges are out of focus.



The DA16-85 might have had sharper edges, but since I want clean out of focus areas, that's actually a disadvantage. Buy the time you crop the DA 16-85 to the 135mm field of view, the image will be considerable weaker than a DA 18-135 of the same subject and distance.

The DA 18-135 isn't good for landscapes?




I guess I better reshoot these.



Sorry I can't post comparative images, between my wife and I we have not one keeper taken with the DA 16-85. Everything has been deleted, it's been a waste of time to date. No particular reason, not that we can define precisely, maybe it's just bad luck. Not to say that will always be true, it's just when you have something you have confidence in, it's hard to take time to use a lens where you might be disappointed. I like the the DA 18-135 for its range. T likes the Tamron 17-50 and Tamron 90 for thier sharpness. The poor DA 16-85 will probably be looking for a home soon.

Thanks for your input. I think I will be looking for a mint 18-135 and if it doesn't fill my needs then I can always sell it without taking a big hit.

[Paul the Sunman]

Glad you've come to a decision. Please report back with your impressions once you've used it for a while.

[sarge]

Glad you've come to a decision. Please report back with your impressions once you've used it for a while.

It will be after Christmas before I pick one up, but I will make sure and share my feelings on it once I do.