Help me decide 18-135 or 16-85

**Des** · 11-27-2021, 09:33 PM - **3 Likes**

Originally posted by sarge

Thanks so much for this! I truly appreciate you taking time to write this comparison. ...
I must admit I am leaning towards the 18-135.

Happy to help. If you get the 18-135, the very pocketable DA 15 Ltd is a great companion for it. Covers off the extra width brilliantly.

**UncleVanya** · 11-27-2021, 10:13 PM - **4 Likes**

I love my 18-135. It’s versatile.

Portraits (@78mm)

IMGP9309_DxO by -vanya_42nd-

IMGP8215_DxO by -vanya_42nd-

Leaves (@135mm)

IMGP8189_DxO by -vanya_42nd-

IMGP8189_DxO_2 by -vanya_42nd-

Flowers (@135mm)

IMGP9308_DxO by -vanya_42nd-

IMGP9168_DxO by -vanya_42nd-

Abstract (@40mm)

IMGP8243 by -vanya_42nd-

Industrial (@18mm)

IMGP8234_DxO_2 by -vanya_42nd-

Astro (Exif missing)

IMGP1226-pp by -vanya_42nd-

sundown · 11-27-2021, 10:56 PM - **1 Like**

16-85 + 55-300 plm

Paul the Sunman · 11-27-2021, 10:58 PM - **3 Likes**

I have both. Yesterday I was out with the DFA 150-450 looking for birds, but also wanted a shorter zoom for general scenery. I took the 18-135, as a better fit, and am very happy that I did; ideal for echidnas!

On the other hand, if I was sight-seeing in a city or around other architecture, I would take the 16-85 for the wider end, and a great fit with my 55-300 or DFA* 70-200. The optics is a little superior, but the coverage is a more important determinant.

Horses for courses.

officiousbystander · 11-27-2021, 11:51 PM - **1 Like**

Looks like you get what you pay for which for some may be the most important part of the equation. Whatever you can afford you can't go wrong.

Jonathan Mac · 11-28-2021, 12:15 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by 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?

I remember someone tested cropping an image from the 16-85mm for the field of view of the 18-135mm (both at max zoom of course) and they were of similar quality, the extra sharpness of the 16-85mm compensating for the extra reach that the 18-135mm has.

I have only used the 16-85mm but it's a superb lens and I would highly recommend it. The only real reason I see to get the 18-135mm is price.

Bertrand3000 · 11-28-2021, 12:41 AM - **1 Like**

Hi,

I also had to choose between 16-85 and 18-135. Fate decided to choose for me though, with the 18-135 being somehow unavailable new at this time, and the 16-85 found new at a wonderful price.

The 16-85 is a superb lens, great indeed for landscape, its 16mm setting is invaluable. But I also occasionally do miss a little bit extra reach. Still, I think it is the better lens of the two, at least for my usage.

Settesz · 11-28-2021, 01:27 AM - **1 Like**

16-85 hands down.
I don't see any real difference in rendering between it and 20-40 Ltd.

That being said the 18-135 is a good kit lens, but 16-85 is the best.

sarge · 11-28-2021, 02:16 AM - **1 Like**

I guess I should clarify. When I said I wanted a walk around lens I meant a single lens I could put on my camera and put it in my Think Tank Digital Holster 40 bag and go. If I am going out to do specific types of photography such as landscape, portraits, macro, or wildlife I will take the proper lenses for those disciplines. Lenses that I currently have.

Lev · 11-28-2021, 02:19 AM

I'd pick 18-135 because of the range it gives, but optically I can't be sure here, the IQ of 16-85 is just great.

Edit
I wanted to say that if the IQ of 18-135 is same then why not pick up this one because of its range for walk around,

**Des** · 11-28-2021, 02:24 AM - **4 Likes**

Originally posted by Jonathan Mac

I remember someone tested cropping an image from the 16-85mm for the field of view of the 18-135mm (both at max zoom of course) and they were of similar quality, the extra sharpness of the 16-85mm compensating for the extra reach that the 18-135mm has.

That was @Heie in his review of the 16-85: HD Pentax-DA 16-85mm F3.5-5.6 ED DC WR Reviews - DA Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database But I think it proved the opposite - that results from the 18-135 at 135mm had better resolution than upscaling images from the 16-85 at 85mm, at both f5.6 and f8.

Without doing a proper controlled comparison, I would say unequivocally that that is my experience too. I have tried photographing some tame birds with the 16-85mm at 85mm at about 1.5-2m and haven't got a decent image. Whereas with the 18-135, I've got a few over the years at 135mm, like this:

The extra 50mm does matter in real world use.

But what Heie's comparison did show was a big difference between them in edge and corner performance. The 16-85 was clearly better at each tested focal length and aperture. Which is one reason why it's a clear choice for landscapes - another being the significant difference in field of view between 16mm and 18mm.

Paul the Sunman · 11-28-2021, 02:26 AM - **3 Likes**

Originally posted by sarge

I guess I should clarify. When I said I wanted a walk around lens I meant a single lens I could put on my camera and put it in my Think Tank Digital Holster 40 bag and go. If I am going out to do specific types of photography such as landscape, portraits, macro, or wildlife I will take the proper lenses for those disciplines. Lenses that I currently have.

I've said for years that the one-lens solution on Pentax is the DA 18-135, and I stick to that.

Adam · 11-28-2021, 03:11 AM

The 16-85mm will generally get you better image quality, and is quite bit wider: the two extra mm amount of 7 degrees of field of view. Check out the review for more details:

HD Pentax-DA 16-85mm F3.5-5.6 Review - Introduction | PentaxForums.com Reviews

It does cost a bit more than the 18-135mm, which is a bit smaller as well. If those are key considerations, or if you prefer tele reach over wide angle, then I'd consider the 18-135mm. Otherwise, the 16-85mm is the one to go for. It's among the best values in the current lineup IMO.

AfterPentax Mark II · 11-28-2021, 03:18 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by sarge

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

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

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

To topple you, buy that 18-135 it is such a great lens! I like it much more than the 16-85, which I got with the K-3 II in a kit. I found out that the 18-135 gets better and better with the newer camera's. On my KP it gives better pictures than with the K-3 II and the Samsung GX-10 (for which camera I bought it). I also tried it with a K-7 and a K-01. There is a hidden quality in this lens that blooms with a better camera.

VictorDA · 11-28-2021, 03:31 AM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by pjv

Hey Mark, I would ask you whether you would use the 16 end or the 135 end of either lens more.

This is exactly it...
I had the 18-135 for a long while and liked it a lot. It is also the lighter and smaller (and cheaper) of the two. My only regret what that it wasn't wider. But I don't think you can go wrong with either one

11-28-2021, 01:27 AM - 1 Like	#23
Settesz Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2021 Posts: 65	16-85 hands down. I don't see any real difference in rendering between it and 20-40 Ltd. That being said the 18-135 is a good kit lens, but 16-85 is the best. Last edited by Settesz; 11-28-2021 at 01:32 AM.

11-28-2021, 02:24 AM - 4 Likes	#26
Des Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Victoria Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 6,423	Originally posted by Jonathan Mac I remember someone tested cropping an image from the 16-85mm for the field of view of the 18-135mm (both at max zoom of course) and they were of similar quality, the extra sharpness of the 16-85mm compensating for the extra reach that the 18-135mm has. That was @Heie in his review of the 16-85: HD Pentax-DA 16-85mm F3.5-5.6 ED DC WR Reviews - DA Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database But I think it proved the opposite - that results from the 18-135 at 135mm had better resolution than upscaling images from the 16-85 at 85mm, at both f5.6 and f8. Without doing a proper controlled comparison, I would say unequivocally that that is my experience too. I have tried photographing some tame birds with the 16-85mm at 85mm at about 1.5-2m and haven't got a decent image. Whereas with the 18-135, I've got a few over the years at 135mm, like this: The extra 50mm does matter in real world use. But what Heie's comparison did show was a big difference between them in edge and corner performance. The 16-85 was clearly better at each tested focal length and aperture. Which is one reason why it's a clear choice for landscapes - another being the significant difference in field of view between 16mm and 18mm. Last edited by Des; 11-28-2021 at 02:29 AM.

11-28-2021, 03:11 AM	#28
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,595	The 16-85mm will generally get you better image quality, and is quite bit wider: the two extra mm amount of 7 degrees of field of view. Check out the review for more details: HD Pentax-DA 16-85mm F3.5-5.6 Review - Introduction \| PentaxForums.com Reviews It does cost a bit more than the 18-135mm, which is a bit smaller as well. If those are key considerations, or if you prefer tele reach over wide angle, then I'd consider the 18-135mm. Otherwise, the 16-85mm is the one to go for. It's among the best values in the current lineup IMO. Adam PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide \| Site Help \| My Photography) PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
HD DA 16-85... Vs.....DA 16-45 .. sharpness and colors at the wider end (16-20mm)	Ronald Oakes	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	94	12-26-2021 09:17 PM
A comparison between DFA 85, FA 85 and A 85	kinkindoll	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	47	07-17-2020 04:11 PM
For a beginner, is the price premium of 16-85 lens over the 18-135 worth paying for	Gbhati01	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	49	01-15-2019 07:11 AM
Help me choose Pentax 16-85 vs Sigma 18-35	Deedee	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	21	08-13-2018 02:44 AM
Help me decide: Tamron 17-50, Pentax DA 16-45, or Sigma 17-50 for my K-01	yellowbrick	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	38	04-30-2016 07:26 AM

11-27-2021, 09:33 PM - 3 Likes	#16
Des Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Victoria Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 6,423	Originally posted by sarge Thanks so much for this! I truly appreciate you taking time to write this comparison. ... I must admit I am leaning towards the 18-135. Happy to help. If you get the 18-135, the very pocketable DA 15 Ltd is a great companion for it. Covers off the extra width brilliantly.

11-27-2021, 10:13 PM - 4 Likes	#17
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,401	I love my 18-135. It’s versatile. Portraits (@78mm) IMGP9309_DxO by -vanya_42nd- IMGP8215_DxO by -vanya_42nd- Leaves (@135mm) IMGP8189_DxO by -vanya_42nd- IMGP8189_DxO_2 by -vanya_42nd- Flowers (@135mm) IMGP9308_DxO by -vanya_42nd- IMGP9168_DxO by -vanya_42nd- Abstract (@40mm) IMGP8243 by -vanya_42nd- Industrial (@18mm) IMGP8234_DxO_2 by -vanya_42nd- Astro (Exif missing) IMGP1226-pp by -vanya_42nd-

11-27-2021, 10:56 PM - 1 Like	#18
sundown Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 588	16-85 + 55-300 plm

11-27-2021, 10:58 PM - 3 Likes	#19
Paul the Sunman Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Melbourne Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,843	I have both. Yesterday I was out with the DFA 150-450 looking for birds, but also wanted a shorter zoom for general scenery. I took the 18-135, as a better fit, and am very happy that I did; ideal for echidnas! On the other hand, if I was sight-seeing in a city or around other architecture, I would take the 16-85 for the wider end, and a great fit with my 55-300 or DFA* 70-200. The optics is a little superior, but the coverage is a more important determinant. Horses for courses.

11-27-2021, 11:51 PM - 1 Like	#20
officiousbystander Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2014 Location: Sydney Photos: Gallery Posts: 912	Looks like you get what you pay for which for some may be the most important part of the equation. Whatever you can afford you can't go wrong.

11-28-2021, 12:15 AM - 1 Like	#21
Jonathan Mac Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Madrid, Spain Posts: 10,894	Originally posted by 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? I remember someone tested cropping an image from the 16-85mm for the field of view of the 18-135mm (both at max zoom of course) and they were of similar quality, the extra sharpness of the 16-85mm compensating for the extra reach that the 18-135mm has. I have only used the 16-85mm but it's a superb lens and I would highly recommend it. The only real reason I see to get the 18-135mm is price.

11-28-2021, 12:41 AM - 1 Like	#22
Bertrand3000 Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2019 Posts: 2,009	Hi, I also had to choose between 16-85 and 18-135. Fate decided to choose for me though, with the 18-135 being somehow unavailable new at this time, and the 16-85 found new at a wonderful price. The 16-85 is a superb lens, great indeed for landscape, its 16mm setting is invaluable. But I also occasionally do miss a little bit extra reach. Still, I think it is the better lens of the two, at least for my usage.

11-28-2021, 02:16 AM - 1 Like	#24
sarge Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2016 Location: Illinois Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 460 Original Poster	I guess I should clarify. When I said I wanted a walk around lens I meant a single lens I could put on my camera and put it in my Think Tank Digital Holster 40 bag and go. If I am going out to do specific types of photography such as landscape, portraits, macro, or wildlife I will take the proper lenses for those disciplines. Lenses that I currently have.

11-28-2021, 02:19 AM	#25
Lev Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2015 Location: Tbilisi, Georgia Posts: 1,197	I'd pick 18-135 because of the range it gives, but optically I can't be sure here, the IQ of 16-85 is just great. Edit I wanted to say that if the IQ of 18-135 is same then why not pick up this one because of its range for walk around,

11-28-2021, 02:26 AM - 3 Likes	#27
Paul the Sunman Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Melbourne Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,843	Originally posted by sarge I guess I should clarify. When I said I wanted a walk around lens I meant a single lens I could put on my camera and put it in my Think Tank Digital Holster 40 bag and go. If I am going out to do specific types of photography such as landscape, portraits, macro, or wildlife I will take the proper lenses for those disciplines. Lenses that I currently have. I've said for years that the one-lens solution on Pentax is the DA 18-135, and I stick to that.

11-28-2021, 03:18 AM - 1 Like	#29
AfterPentax Mark II Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2021 Posts: 1,461	Originally posted by sarge Thanks so much for this! I truly appreciate you taking time to write this comparison. ---------- Post added 11-27-21 at 10:04 PM ---------- I must admit I am leaning towards the 18-135. To topple you, buy that 18-135 it is such a great lens! I like it much more than the 16-85, which I got with the K-3 II in a kit. I found out that the 18-135 gets better and better with the newer camera's. On my KP it gives better pictures than with the K-3 II and the Samsung GX-10 (for which camera I bought it). I also tried it with a K-7 and a K-01. There is a hidden quality in this lens that blooms with a better camera.

11-28-2021, 03:31 AM - 2 Likes	#30
VictorDA Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Lyon area, France Posts: 718	Originally posted by pjv Hey Mark, I would ask you whether you would use the 16 end or the 135 end of either lens more. This is exactly it... I had the 18-135 for a long while and liked it a lot. It is also the lighter and smaller (and cheaper) of the two. My only regret what that it wasn't wider. But I don't think you can go wrong with either one