[simsburyphoto]

As other have suggested if I am trying to travel as light as possible then I take the 18-135 with the 15mm limited. No camera bag needed for this combo I just put the 15mm in my pocket. If I want to carry the minimal set up with the greatest coverage and use a small bag, I take the 16-85 and 55-300 PLM.

[BryantCP]

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.

I think you will be pleased with the DA 18-135, although its often considered to be a kit lens, its significantly better than Pentax's other kit zoom lens. I got mine as part of a K-3 kit and use it much of the time as an alternative to my DA* 16-50. Its main advantages are that its compact for its focal length range, weather resistant, and reasonably sharp. Paired with a DA 15 Ltd it covers a pretty useful range.

[pentageek]

I had 18-135, and I have 16-85. Pros and cons of both:

18-135:
+ lighter, smaller, and cheaper
+ extra reach
- 2mm narrower on wide end, (if you need wide angle)
- for me image quality was a disappointment, but maybe my copy was flawed


16-85:
- bigger, heavier, and more expensive
- shorter reach (if you need sort of short tele like 135mm)
+ extra 2 mm on wide end (again, if you need it)
++ outstanding image quality

I sold my 18-135 and never regretted it.

[timb64]

Same as Pentageek I had an 18-135 and got very pleasing results from it,replaced it with a 16-85 and similarly have no regrets.I took it as a one lens solution for my K5ii on a ten week trip around SE Asia.This’ll give you an idea of what it’s capable of:

Best of Asia trip | Flickr

[sarge]

Same as Pentageek I had an 18-135 and got very pleasing results from it,replaced it with a 16-85 and similarly have no regrets.I took it as a one lens solution for my K5ii on a ten week trip around SE Asia.This’ll give you an idea of what it’s capable of:

Best of Asia trip | Flickr

Outstanding images! Thank You for sharing!

[UncleVanya]

I really think it’s hard to make a bad choice here as long as you are a decent photographer.

[mikesbike]

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 understand what you are saying, Sandy- very much! But I think what is being sought here is an alternative when not wishing to carry the larger heavier f/2.8 lens because the f/2.8 is really not needed, and instead a smaller, lighter one-lens easier to carry, yet offering more zoom range with good quality imaging. I am very happy with the fine performance of my Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC HSM lens, but for times when I want this same alternative- not needing the f/2.8 aperture but want more zoom range for one-lens shooting with less size and weight, my go-to is the DA 18-135mm DC WR.

I am not good for posting photos, this mac pro laptop is baffling in comparison to my easier to use old Dell desktop. But a few years back, I was lucky due to cancellations, so I could remain in Gettysburg during the week of November 19th, the anniversary of Lincoln's famous speech there, when accommodations are usually all booked up months in advance. It was a nice day, and I went to the breakfast room to find myself now surrounded by Civil War soldiers and their families, also in period dress! Luckily, I had my K-5 IIs with me already prepared, with this lens on it. Subsequently, I was amazed at the extensiveness of parades coming by, as the motel I habitually use when coming to Gettysburg is ideally located, so I could quickly get around on foot for some great shots. Uniforms were meticulously authentic. Unit after unit marched by. Proud horses strutted. Fife and drums sounded, one unit after another. Flags and banners were flying. Actual units present at the battle were represented, and many proceeded to positions they occupied back then. Very often, those very informed participants were themselves too old and too out of shape to accurately represent the actual troops, but still it was impressive. But some participants were quite young, and I was able to zero in on them for a composition that emphasizes those, to lend greater reality to the shot. This was quite a week with many activities, and I mostly chose this lens, which served beautifully. I also effortlessly got good closeups of generals and the like. Only recently I was looking over these photos and was marveling at the crisp images, and could hardly believe it was this lens that produced these results!

I also sometimes use it on the KP when I need its range, and it is likewise a good match in being so compact to complement the compact design of the camera.

I agree with Uncle V. Hard to make a bad choice here.

---

Last edited by mikesbike; 11-28-2021 at 07:10 PM.

[i_trax]

I really think it’s hard to make a bad choice here as long as you are a decent photographer.

Yes , I still have my beloved DA18-250 ( Tamron made ) and still love to use it.
That was the best walkabout / traveling lens at the time.
Then came Sigma 18-250 , 18 - 300 and DA 18 - 270 ( Tamron made) , used them all and enjoyed them all.

Just have a fun!

[pentaxus]

If you go to 16mm a lot a 16-85 would be best. If you spend a lot of time at the longer end the 18-135 is best. I have the 18-135 and if I anticipate needing anything wider I bring along my 10-24 Tamron. I am quite happy with the 18-135 as a walk around lens.

[Jonathan Mac]

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 have many lenses and I would say that the 16-85mm is the best for landscapes, trumping Limited primes, the 20-40 Limited zoom. If I were going out to do landscapes and wanted just one lens it would be the 16-85mm.

[normhead]

I was out today for my dog walk, and took a couple comparison images....
I think these images define the DA 18-135 and DA 16-85
I used the DA 18-135 on the way up to the ridge, both on the ridge and the DA 16-85 on the way home. The DA 18-135 won the day in terms of keepers, but I also took more 18-135 images, I get tired doing the 300 foot vertical up to the ridge and have less patience taking pictures on the way home.

First, I didn't nail 85mm on the DA 18-135, I got a 78 mm image, meaning absolutely direct comparisons are impossible.

DA 16-85


DA 18-135


With T looking over my shoulder we compared the images at full resolution, something you guys won't get a chance to do.

Our impressions were we suspect the DA 16-85 is a little sharper on the edges.
We think the DA 18-135 is a little sharper in the middle.

Overall, the rendering of the DA 16-85 is slightly better, but you have to have the images side by side to notice. It's not a significant difference.

So all that's been said is still there for us. The DA 16-85, slightly better rendering and edge sharpness, the DA 18-135 more range, better centre.

That said, I missed 4 or 5 images I wanted to take (because I'm used to the DA 18-135) but didn't even attempt because of the lack of range on the DA 16-85. And that for me highlights the trade off.

It should come as no surprise that in incorporating more range into a zoom 5.3:1 for the DA 16-85 to 7.5:1 for the DA 18-135 the DA 16-85 will perform marginally better. It comes down to, do you want maximum range for a walk around or maximum IQ for prints. Which is why my DA 18-135 is preferred as a one lens solution, and my DA 16-85 is preferred as part of a two lens kit with the DA 55-300 PLM.

Really there are no bad choices here. It depends on what and how you shoot which lens will favour your style.

It's always nice when your real world assumptions are backed up by real world photo examples.
Hopefully this help evaluate, what you give up in IQ to get the extra range. I said "I'll take the extra range. I can easily understand someone else saying "I'll take the extra IQ."

Incidentally, I used the same camera and settings, I and the same (copy pasted) image processing. Optimized first for the DA 18-135, but the DA 16-85 images are slightly better with the same processing.

[sarge]

I was out today for my dog walk, and took a couple comparison images....
I think these images define the DA 18-135 and DA 16-85

First, I didn't nail 85mm on the DA 18-135, I got a 78 mm image, meaning absolutely direct comparisons are impossible.

DA 16-85


DA 18-135


With T looking over my shoulder we compared the images at full resolution, something you guys won't get a chance to do.

Our impressions were we suspect the DA 16-85 is a little sharper on the edges.
We think the DA 18-135 is a little sharper in the middle.

Overall, the rendering of the DA 16-85 is slightly better, but you have to have the images side by side to notice. It's not a significant difference.

So all that's been said is still there for us. The DA 16-85, slightly better rendering and edge sharpness, the DA 18-135 more range, better centre.

That said, I missed 4 or 5 images I wanted to take (because I'm used to the DA 18-135) but didn't even attempt because of the lack of range on the DA 16-85. And that for me highlights the trade off.

It should come as no surprise that in incorporating more range into a zoom 5.3:1 for the DA 16-85 to 7.5:1 for the DA 18-135 the DA 16-85 will perform marginally better. It comes down to, do you want maximum range for a walk around or maximum IQ for prints. Which is why my DA 18-135 is preferred as a one lens solution, and my DA 16-85 is preferred as part of a two lens kit with the DA 55-300 PLM.

Really there are no bad choices here. It depends on what and how you shoot which lens will favour your style.

It's always nice when your real world assumptions are backed up by real world photo examples.
Hopefully this help evaluate, what you give up in IQ to get the extra range. I aid "I'll take the extra range. I can easily understand someone else saying "I'll take the extra IQ."

Incidentally, I used the same camera and settings, I and the same (copy pasted) image processing. Optimized first for the DA 18-135, but the DA 16-85 images are slightly better with the same processing.

Thanks for this comparison! Very helpful.

[mikesbike]

Nice going, Norm! Very good real-life comparisons and evaluations. Both are very capable with different advantages. Throwing in that the OP also already has the new DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 PLM as a factor, might weigh into a decision between these two for the OP, as to which of these two zoom lenses would offer the greatest difference to address alternative usage needs.

[sarge]

Nice going, Norm! Very good real-life comparisons and evaluations. Both are very capable with different advantages. Throwing in that the OP also already has the new DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 PLM as a factor, might weigh into a decision between these two for the OP, as to which of these two zoom lenses would offer the greatest difference to address alternative usage needs.

I do own the DA* 11-18 and DA* 16-50 PLM lenses. If I am planning going out to do landscape or architecture I will take those along with a backpack, tripod, filters and all the stuff that goes along with it.
This lens is for going out with just the camera, one lens in my Digital Holster.

[normhead]

Nice going, Norm! Very good real-life comparisons and evaluations. Both are very capable with different advantages. Throwing in that the OP also already has the new DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 PLM as a factor, might weigh into a decision between these two for the OP, as to which of these two zoom lenses would offer the greatest difference to address alternative usage needs.

Thanks, when I think about theses things, my curiosity always gets the better of me. I simply can't handle it when someone asks about something I might want to know that I can actually find out.