[airjames]

I'm going to keep the 18-135 for it's versatility. 18mm is wide enough for me. If I needed wide, I'd rather go for the DA 15, or 12-24 anyways. The main reason for a variable aperture zoom is for the versatility. There is almost no real reason that 2 mm should be the reason to drop that versatility of 85-135. If it were 3mm however, it might keep me from having to pull out an ultrawide and that would be very interesting. Surprising how even that 1mm can change a lens complexion.

[filoxophy]

Ricoh didn't say the DA 18-135 is the kit lens. Instead, they mentioned the DA 16-85 is designed to be better than a kit lens.

Yeah, where did that come from? I keep seeing people post that this is a "kit" lens, and I don't remember that ever being said by Ricoh. Am I missing something?

[thibs]

Yeah, where did that come from? I keep seeing people post that this is a "kit" lens, and I don't remember that ever being said by Ricoh. Am I missing something?

Nope. It's just that some people here read 'kit lens' somewhere and 'f/3.5-5.6' about a lens and bury it as a result.

[macTak]

Nope. It's just that some people here read 'kit lens' somewhere and 'f/3.5-5.6' about a lens and bury it as a result.

I rather think it is that people are hoping that it will be the new kit lens for the top of the line APS-C, as with the higher MP counts the 18-55 is starting to show its weaknesses. "Kit lens" isn't necessarily a bad thing--one of the Canon "L" lenses is a kit lens, after all.

[Rondec]

Yeah, where did that come from? I keep seeing people post that this is a "kit" lens, and I don't remember that ever being said by Ricoh. Am I missing something?

I think the hope would be that there would be kits available for upper end cameras that would include the 16-85, just as there were kits that included the 18-135. But I don't think Ricoh has said that is their plan. But it would make sense.

[Nicolas06]

I'm going to keep the 18-135 for it's versatility. 18mm is wide enough for me. If I needed wide, I'd rather go for the DA 15, or 12-24 anyways. The main reason for a variable aperture zoom is for the versatility. There is almost no real reason that 2 mm should be the reason to drop that versatility of 85-135. If it were 3mm however, it might keep me from having to pull out an ultrawide and that would be very interesting. Surprising how even that 1mm can change a lens complexion.

That's a way to see it. But if you have a 16-85 you don't need a DA15 anymore in term of focal lenses, that for sure. 16mm is already quite wide and enough in most situations. Going wider is usefull but it also distord perspective so much that is difficult to achieve a nice result out of it anyway and when you really need that wide, 12mm is not even enough to embrace the whole subject. You need a fish for that . So you could get rid of that expensive 12-24 in addition to get ride of that expensive DA15.

So starting at 16 can be really interresting and finishing as 85 is already quite long and cover most needs. If you are really after a long tele, a 55-300 might do far better than 18-135 for that and I can really understand somebody going with 16-85 + 55-300... The 55-300 is better in the 55-135mm range than 18-135 and it goes up to 300. Many already need something like that because they want to go up to 200 or 300 at least.

So either they take a 18-270 or something either they go take 2 or 3 zooms to cover the same. Maybe for better quality.

Not saying you are anywhere wrong but that the reasoning can go different ways !

[LensBeginner]

Nope. It's just that some people here read 'kit lens' somewhere and 'f/3.5-5.6' about a lens and bury it as a result.

Well, kits and do-all lenses are useful... especially if WR.
I currently bring out the 18-55 WR and an expendable Sigma for trekking, but would surely reduce my kit to just one lens with either this one or the 18-135, especially considered how few I shoot at the long end of the Sigma and how cr***y the quality is at that range...

[audiobomber]

I rather think it is that people are hoping that it will be the new kit lens for the top of the line APS-C, as with the higher MP counts the 18-55 is starting to show its weaknesses. "Kit lens" isn't necessarily a bad thing--one of the Canon "L" lenses is a kit lens, after all.

The K-3 is only offered as a kit with the 18-135mm in North America, as confirmed with some of the largest dealers; B&H & Adorama in the US, and in Canada at Henry's and Vistek. Pentax UK shows both the 18-55 WR and 18-135 as kit options. Ricoh Pentax Japan only shows the 18-135mm kit. Clearly the 18-135mm is the official kit lens for the K-3:
K-3 | RICOH IMAGING

So when Ricoh says the 16-85 is intended as an upgrade from the kit lens, I take it to mean the 18-55 and the 18-135.

[normhead]

The K-3 is only offered as a kit with the 18-135mm in North America, as confirmed with some of the largest dealers; B&H & Adorama in the US, and in Canada at Henry's and Vistek. Pentax UK shows both the 18-55 WR and 18-135 as kit options. Ricoh Pentax Japan only shows the 18-135mm kit. Clearly the 18-135mm is the official kit lens for the K-3:
K-3 | RICOH IMAGING

So when Ricoh says the 16-85 is intended as an upgrade from the kit lens, I take it to mean the 18-55 and the 18-135.

How could the 16-85 be an upgrade to an 18-135, it would be a downgrade in the long end? You might be getting caught up in semantics a bit here.

[audiobomber]

How could the 16-85 be an upgrade to an 18-135, it would be a downgrade in the long end? You might be getting caught up in semantics a bit here.

The upgrade would be in image quality, due to more corrective elements:

"DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6ED AL [IF] DC WR lens. With an equivalent focal length ranging from 27.5mm wide angle to 207mm telephoto, the weather-resistant lens is made up of 13 elements in 11 groups including ED glass, hybrid aspherical and glass-moulded aspherical elements."

"HD Pentax-DA 16-85mm F3.5-5.6 ED DC WR standard zoom. Covering an equivalent range of 24.5mm to 130mm, this lens uses Pentax's HD coating to cut down on flare and ghosting and offers a weather-resistant construction. Its 16 optical elements in 12 groups include one ED element and three aspherical elements."

[Pablom]

This whole thing also allow them to sell it 200€ in a kit and say that you really make a good deal, even through nobody would pay more than 400$ for such a lens.

I think you hit the nail in the head

[thibs]

How could the 16-135 be an upgrade to an 18-135, it would be a downgrade in the long end? You might be getting caught up in semantics a bit here.

For the same reasons a 50mm prime would no be a downgrade to a 18-135.

[Pablom]

Funny that you mention the DA15. You say better, but that's just a matter of opinion. It's a super slow F4 prime. Which only gets decently sharp very late at ~F10. Forever marrying it to a tripod or clear sunny days. Don't get me wrong, it's very good at what it does. But the slowness has restricted its use severely.

Am I correct to assume that you have no experience with the DA15? Because I have some experience with it and I can't relate to anything you wrote.

[normhead]

For the same reasons a 50mm prime would no be a downgrade to a 18-135.

Funny on many levels... since the 50s used to be the kit lenses.

The 16-85 and 18-135 are both zooms. Neither of them can be considered to be an upgrade to a prime in the primes focal length. So no, it's not the same.

If you have a situation where you want to shoot at 50mm... no zoom is going to give you what a 50 will, so I guess all zooms would be downgrades from a 50, so you really haven't made a point when comparing these two lenses.

Here's the problem, The 18-135 has excellent centre sharpness all through it's range... and good edge to edge sharpness up to 50mm... but it's CA numbers aren't the best.

So the areas where the 16-85 could be considered an upgrade to it would be control of aberrations, edge sharpness over 50mm and 16-18 mm, which is a pretty small difference.

The areas in which the 18-135 will be an upgrade over the 16-85... focal from 85-135... , the 18-135 has excellent centre sharpness in13 of 18 test focal lengths and F-stops combinations on photozone. If you've done any research at all on zooms, you know that without going to DA* lenses, that's going to be tough to match. I've already made the mistake once of going to a zoom with better edge to edge performance, but less centre sharpness. It turns out centre sharpness is a much bigger deal than I imagined, and edge sharpness is often irrelevant. But that's "the way people take pictures, not the way numerical evaluation of lenses works". SO from my perspective, it's probably not going to be better than the 18-135 in IQ. It's only hope is in CA control, and it's really hard to implement stellar CA control on a zoom. They are invariably inferior to the best primes.

Check the ratings for the DA*s if you don't believe me, near prime quality for resolution, but usually much higher CA values. And regardless of what people will say about it being correctable, it isn't. You can correct it so you don't see it, but you can't correct it so you get back the micro-contrast you would have had , had you used a prime. Both my Sigma 70 and Tamron 90 give me better better micro contrast than my DA*60-250... but you have to really nit pick to see it.

There just isn't that much room for improvement over the 18-135, straight up in IQ.

[lytrytyr]

It turns out centre sharpness is a much bigger deal than I imagined, and edge sharpness is often irrelevant.

Maybe for you, Norm, . . .

But that's "the way people take pictures, not the way numerical evaluation of lenses works".

. . . but the way I take pictures, edge performance is important, especially at longer focal lengths.