Originally posted by normhead I'm gong with the 16-85 as a replacement for the 18-55. I doubt anyone who loves their 18-135 is going to consider this lens an upgrade... based on what? The 18-55 is the weakest lens in the Pentax line-up. The 18-135 for us out doors types is the most useful, and losing 50 mm in the long end is a no go. Often for the wildlife we shoot 135 is long enough, and the 18-135 still has excellent center sharpness ( and my copy is not bad for edge sharpness either). When Tess is shooting beside me , often with the Tamron 90, she finds it a 90 a little short. So based on our usage, this lens won't replace my 18-135, or Tess' Tamron 17-50 2.8. But the two 18-55s, with extended range and WR, if it came cheap on a camera body, I might be tempted. I need one more body cap for one of my film cameras, it could look good in this capacity. And 16mm is a nice touch...formerly a focal length only addressed with the 16-50. 16mm for us poor people/
I'm going to consider the new 16-85 to replace my 18-135. True, my 18-135 is my workhorse, that gets the most usage because of its versatile FL and WR. But I only got it to replace my
THIRD DA 16-45. All three 16-45 suffered wobbly barrels after some time. And that 18-135 is still going as strong as day one. Fact remains that its IQ is not all that good. Especially in the longer end. If the 16-85 is only slightly better, me, my LBA and my weak backbone are gonna go get it.