[tibbitts]

After reading the quality control issues, i am confused now whether to get the 16-85 or not. For a walkaround lens.

or should i save that money for 16-50 PLM ?

With any lens of any brand you should be concerned about buying it if you can't return it for little or no cost. I wore out my welcome at Amazon by returning too many 16-85s and had to appeal to them via chat to be allowed to reorder more than twice. Obviously most people don't live where they can walk into a store stocked with 16-85s and even if you could, you might run into resistance if you ask to try more than a couple of copies. I've bought some used lenses that I couldn't have practically returned but oddly have had somewhat better luck with used lenses than with new, and in any case didn't pay as much for them. You shouldn't assume that a more expensive lens like a new 16-50 will necessarily have any better quality control; both my DA* lenses (one purchased new) needed a 10 or more PDAF adjustment on my bodies (so, they were basically out of range, even when new.) To me PDAF is nowhere near as much an issue as centering, because I believe that in almost every case Pentax can correct out-of-range PDAF, but not centering. PDAF for a zoom seems a little dubious on Pentax anyway, given that the bodies aren't capable of varying adjustments for various focal lengths.

[mikesbike]

There are many answers to the quest for a travel lens kit, in good part because "travel" can present a number of different conditions, each of which would have different requirements. There is certainly the matter of traveling under what circumstances, such as with a group, travel guide, on a cruise ship, etc. where pausing for lens changing might be impractical or awkward at best. If lens changing is something to be avoided, the good old DA 18-135mm is a great candidate. With it, one could pack along the DA 15mm Ltd and a 55-300mm, as well as a good fast prime for low light, if such needs and opportunity to use them should arise. Either the FA 35mm f/2 or the budget DA 35mm f/2.4 would do well and are very compact. I also have the HD 55-300mm WR lens, and I am very satisfied with it. I have found the HD version to be a significant improvement for superior imaging over the original non-HD version, which I had for numerous years. The main advantage for the PLM version is its faster AF. But the AF on my HD WR version is good enough for my needs, and even that has surprised me with noticeable AF performance improvement when used on a KP compared to having it on previous cameras.

If there is likely to be plenty of opportunity for lens changing, since you already have the still compact DA* 50-135mm f/2.8 and you are looking for the excellent IQ and the wider aperture capability it is capable of, it pairs well with the DA 20-40mm Ltd for a compact yet extra high-quality kit. The DA 15mm Ltd could be included with minimal weight addition.

[Levus]

Concerning the DA 12-24 mm f/4 zoom :

12 mm

My copy performs superbly at all focal lengths, whether it be at 12 or 24 mm.

Beautiful picture.

[Urnamaster13]

With any lens of any brand you should be concerned about buying it if you can't return it for little or no cost. I wore out my welcome at Amazon by returning too many 16-85s and had to appeal to them via chat to be allowed to reorder more than twice. Obviously most people don't live where they can walk into a store stocked with 16-85s and even if you could, you might run into resistance if you ask to try more than a couple of copies. I've bought some used lenses that I couldn't have practically returned but oddly have had somewhat better luck with used lenses than with new, and in any case didn't pay as much for them. You shouldn't assume that a more expensive lens like a new 16-50 will necessarily have any better quality control; both my DA* lenses (one purchased new) needed a 10 or more PDAF adjustment on my bodies (so, they were basically out of range, even when new.) To me PDAF is nowhere near as much an issue as centering, because I believe that in almost every case Pentax can correct out-of-range PDAF, but not centering. PDAF for a zoom seems a little dubious on Pentax anyway, given that the bodies aren't capable of varying adjustments for various focal lengths.

You make a good point. Issue is this lens( and most other lenses are very expensive where i live). I will wait to buy the 16-85 until i am reasonably sure i can get it replaced if i receive a faulty piece. Converted into US Dollars, it is 1100 dollars in my home country on amazon.

[tibbitts]

You make a good point. Issue is this lens( and most other lenses are very expensive where i live). I will wait to buy the 16-85 until i am reasonably sure i can get it replaced if i receive a faulty piece. Converted into US Dollars, it is 1100 dollars in my home country on amazon.

Wow $1100 USD; I'm glad I didn't pay that much for it new. As long as you have a longer lens you should certainly be open to one of the 17-50 or 17-70 lenses if you can obtain one for a significantly lower price, but also with the option to return or replace at low or no cost to you if you aren't happy with the copy you get.

[cxdoo]

After years of using Tamron 17-50 as standard zoom I got 16-85 last year shortly after getting K3III. Tammy was already on the way to fall apart but still usable, yet it sits in the cupboard since.
Yes, it is sharper and brighter however it renders somewhat dull and, at least in my eyes, introduces much more distortion at wide end. Pentax also gets nicer colors in non-ideal light. Still, at 1100USD it's a murder; I paid less than 300 EUR for new Tammy several years ago.

And then I put on 15/31/43 and 16-85 starts looking flat and dull. Anyway, it's my first choice for one lens situations.

[Jonathan Mac]

After years of using Tamron 17-50 as standard zoom I got 16-85 last year shortly after getting K3III. Tammy was already on the way to fall apart but still usable, yet it sits in the cupboard since.
Yes, it is sharper and brighter however it renders somewhat dull and, at least in my eyes, introduces much more distortion at wide end. Pentax also gets nicer colors in non-ideal light. Still, at 1100USD it's a murder; I paid less than 300 EUR for new Tammy several years ago.

And then I put on 15/31/43 and 16-85 starts looking flat and dull. Anyway, it's my first choice for one lens situations.

I have to say the output from the 16-85mm never looks dull to me, even compared to that of some very nice primes.

I also had the Tamron and found it to be excellent but I swapped it for the Sigma version a few years ago as it's better built and has an in-lens focus motor. If I need one lens with speed then I use the Sigma, if I need range or WR then I use the Pentax.

[ThorSanchez]

My normal travel kit is something like a 15, 21, 40, 55-300PLM, along with my K-3 Mark III. But in April I'm going to New York City for a few days, and I'm going to modify. I doubt that the 55-300 is going to get any use, so I think I'll replace that with my Rokinon 8mm fisheye, and to keep the kit as simple as possible and weather resistant I'll bring the 20-40LTD instead of the 21/40 primes. Don't know if I'll really need the 15mm, but it's tiny and does great starbursts at night, so it'll probably end up in the bag.

[UncleVanya]

My normal travel kit is something like a 15, 21, 40, 55-300PLM, along with my K-3 Mark III. But in April I'm going to New York City for a few days, and I'm going to modify. I doubt that the 55-300 is going to get any use, so I think I'll replace that with my Rokinon 8mm fisheye, and to keep the kit as simple as possible and weather resistant I'll bring the 20-40LTD instead of the 21/40 primes. Don't know if I'll really need the 15mm, but it's tiny and does great starbursts at night, so it'll probably end up in the bag.

The only possible caveat is that of you get put in the harbor on a boat or in the park there are long shots - and for portraits a longer than 40mm might be useful. But I personally like the minimalist kit you picked. For me the 10-17 be the fisheye of choice.

[JensE]

Don't know if I'll really need the 15mm, but it's tiny and does great starbursts at night, so it'll probably end up in the bag.

I would definitely recommend a wider than 20mm non-FE lens, but that depends on your style, of course. I would personally add the SMC D FA 100mm f/2.8 WR as well, because I like the perspective compression option in cities and never like to go without some macro option. Not minimalist, but altogether still easy to stow and carry.

[ThorSanchez]

The only possible caveat is that of you get put in the harbor on a boat or in the park there are long shots - and for portraits a longer than 40mm might be useful. But I personally like the minimalist kit you picked. For me the 10-17 be the fisheye of choice.

I would definitely recommend a wider than 20mm non-FE lens, but that depends on your style, of course. I would personally add the SMC D FA 100mm f/2.8 WR as well, because I like the perspective compression option in cities and never like to go without some macro option. Not minimalist, but altogether still easy to stow and carry.

I would like to have the 55-300 for just in case scenarios like Vanya describes, but my go-to travel bag is a very small Domke shoulder bag with room for a camera with a lens, 1-2 limited prime-sized lenses, and a few batteries. I'll probably just make creative use of the minimalist kit. I once went to Munich for a week with just a K-3 II, 15, 40, and it worked.

I will also have my Google Pixel 6 with a roughly 100mm FF equivalent optical zoom (along with an ultrawide and a normal), so I'll use that in a pinch. It's really quite decent and obviously pocketable for when the camera bag stays in the room.