[sarge]

I am looking to get a lighter weight walk around lens than my 16-50 PLM. I can’t decide between the 18-135 or the 16-85. Which one would you folks recommend and why?

[robgski]

The DA 18-135 WR is a great walk around lens. Lightweight, durable, relatively compact , good range of focal length, delivers grear results, can be purchased used on PF and elsewhere for a very good price.

[jddwoods]

I have the 16-85 and highly recommend it. Well built very sharp and reliable autofocus. As for comparison with the 18-135, I really can't speak to that since I do not have one. I will let others weigh in on that and you should get enough feedback that you can decide which one is best for you.

[i_trax]

On K-30 , K-50 , K-S1 , K-S2 , K-70 and even KP , the DA18-135 seems to be somehow more logical.
On K-5 , K-3 the DA16 - 85.

[carlb]

I don't really think you can go wrong with either. I have both and prefer the 16 - 85 because it's a range that I use more but it's more expensive. The 18 - 135 can be found quite cheaply by comparison.

[ramseybuckeye]

I am looking to get a lighter weight walk around lens than my 16-50 PLM. I can’t decide between the 18-135 or the 16-85. Which one would you folks recommend and why?

How about the 20-40. I replaced a Sigma 17-50 with it and couldn’t be happier.

[Unregistered User 8]

Hey Mark, I would ask you whether you would use the 16 end or the 135 end of either lens more.
For me, the added reach of the 18-135 guided my choice in getting it. Being a walk around lens, the greater zoom range gives me more options for what might be just around the corner........

Edit - Good luck.................both great lenses from all accounts.

---

Last edited by Unregistered User 8; 11-27-2021 at 07:13 PM.

[sarge]

I just checked new prices and the 16-85 is quite a bit more expensive. I also checked out the weight of both, the 18-135 is several oz lighter. I am in the research stage at this point. This purchase will be after Christmas.
I had the 20-40 years ago when I shot Pentax before. I ended up trading it for a Sigma 17-50 2.8. I found the zoom range to small for my tastes.

[i_trax]

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.

[Des]

I've got both (and the 20-40 which Tom mentioned). I've had the 18-135 for years (see my review); only got the 16-85 this year and am still getting to know it. Each is a good lens.

Pros for the 18-135:
- Cheaper
- 50mm longer reach. For a one-lens carry this is a significant advantage.
- Slightly lighter weight (405g v 488g - not enough to be a big factor IMO)
- More compact. (Fits into a small bag I have, together with the 55-300 mounted on the camera, which the 16-85 doesn't)
- 62mm filters rather than 72mm
- Occasional 3D effect which I am yet to see on the 16-85.

Pros for the 16-85:
- Extra width is really useful
- HD coatings - less flare/ghosting, less purple fringing
- super protect coating against fingerprints etc
- Better bokeh and smoother transitions (more like the 55-300 PLM) [the 18-135 is OK, but can produce ugly nisen bokeh]
- Sharper edges and corners, especially at the long end

Common strengths:
- Both WR
- Both fast and quiet AF
- similar handy MFD and magnification
- Both very good to excellent centre sharpness
- Each produces vivid images with good colour and contrast

Common weakness:
- Similar slow maximum apertures
- Both weak wide open at the wide end (not a setting I use often anyway)

For landscapes, the 16-85 is a better choice (although the 18-135 is pretty good stopped down). For pets, insects, etc, the 18-135 is better because of the extra reach; also the centre-sharp, corner-soft combination can often make subjects stand out.

Neither has that extra touch of magic that the DA 20-40 Limited can offer.

[Unregistered User 8]

Great that an owner of both lenses has given such appraisals/insights of each lens. Thanks, Des.

[dneira29]

I would personally go with the one that has better picture quality. Both are very good focal lengths. Personally I would prefer the 16-85

[mikesbike]

I am looking to get a lighter weight walk around lens

This is it!! Amazingly compact, especially for what it can do, and the quality it is capable of. Its AF is also especially fast and accurate, tested better than the DA16-85 according to Opticalimits. I have it and AF is great even on my old K-5. It can even get you some very nice closeups, usually with very good bokeh. Take a look at the thread- "DA 18-135mm WR, Show us what it can do" for examples of its capabilities. Start with the last page and work backwards for examples with more up to date camera models.

The DA 16-85mm can provide better image edges and corners performance especially at longer FLs, if you get a good copy, while the DA 18-135mm is close at shorter FLs, especially if stopped down even a little. Opticalimits I think made too much issue over corners at longer FLs. In my experience, going more into the tele range, corners and edges tend to become less important anyway.

You already have the excellent DA*16-50mm PLM for more WA, more aperture at f/2.8, and more critical work. The DA 18-135mm would provide the most contrast in versatility for a walk-around lens.

Des gives a good assessment.

[MaineNative]

I have both lenses and agree with Des on his assessment. I use the 18-135 as a lightweight walk around or my lens for airline travel. The 16-85 has better image quality in my opinion. I use the 16-85 for landscapes, especially if I am driving to a location where weight or bulk isn’t an issue. I think the 18-135 is what you are looking for.

[sarge]

I've got both (and the 20-40 which Tom mentioned). I've had the 18-135 for years (see my review); only got the 16-85 this year and am still getting to know it. Each is a good lens.

Pros for the 18-135:
- Cheaper
- 50mm longer reach. For a one-lens carry this is a significant advantage.
- Slightly lighter weight (not enough to be a big factor IMO)
- More compact. (Fits into a small bag I have with the 55-300 mounted on the camera, which the 16-85 doesn't)
- 62mm filters rather than 67mm
- Occasional 3D effect which I am yet to see on the 16-85.

Pros for the 16-85:
- Extra width is really useful
- HD coatings - less flare/ghosting, less purple fringing
- super protect coating against fingerprints etc
- Better bokeh and smoother transitions (more like the 55-300 PLM) [the 18-135 is OK, but can produce ugly nisen bokeh]
- Sharper edges and corners, especially at the long end

A wash:
- Both WR
- Both fast and quiet AF
- Similar maximum apertures
- Both weak wide open at the wide end (not a setting I use often anyway)
- Each produces vivid images with good colour and contrast

For landscapes, the 16-85 is a better choice (although the 18-135 is pretty good stopped down). For pets, insects, etc, the 18-135 is better because of the extra reach; also the centre-sharp, corner-soft combination can often make subjects stand out.

Neither has that extra touch of magic that the DA 20-40 Limited can offer.

Thanks so much for this! I truly appreciate you taking time to write this comparison.

---------- Post added 11-27-21 at 10:04 PM ----------

This is it!! Amazingly compact, especially for what it can do, and the quality it is capable of. Its AF is also especially fast and accurate, tested better than the DA16-85 according to Opticalimits. I have it and AF is great even on my old K-5. It can even get you some very nice closeups, usually with very good bokeh. Take a look at the thread- "DA 18-135mm WR, Show us what it can do" for examples of its capabilities. Start with the last page and work backwards for examples with more up to date camera models.

The DA 16-85mm can provide better image edges and corners performance especially at longer FLs, if you get a good copy, while the DA 18-135mm is close at shorter FLs, especially if stopped down even a little. Opticalimits I think made too much issue over corners at longer FLs. In my experience, going more into the tele range, corners and edges tend to become less important anyway.

You already have the excellent DA*16-50mm PLM for more WA, more aperture at f/2.8, and more critical work. The DA 18-135mm would provide the most contrast in versatility for a walk-around lens.

Des gives a good assessment.

I must admit I am leaning towards the 18-135.