[GearHead]

I, for one (and maybe the only one here), am looking forward to it. I really like the DA 16-45mm and if it sounds like exactly what I could use. Same extra little bit on the wide side (compared to 18mm) and a longer reach - the one thing I always wanted out of the 16-45. A 24-127mm 35mm equiv sounds great to me. A nice alternative to the kit lens, like the 16-45 is, but better.

[TedH42]

I, for one (and maybe the only one here), am looking forward to it. I really like the DA 16-45mm and if it sounds like exactly what I could use. Same extra little bit on the wide side (compared to 18mm) and a longer reach - the one thing I always wanted out of the 16-45. A 24-127mm 35mm equiv sounds great to me. A nice alternative to the kit lens, like the 16-45 is, but better.

You're not the only one. I've been thinking of getting the DA18-135 for its range and WR, but the announcement of the HD DA 16-85 WR has got me waiting for the comparison between the two. For me, the HD DA 16-85 WR would be a better walk-around lens for any condition, if the IQ is high enough. Right now, I'm kicking around with the FA 24-90, trading off with the FA 20-35. For wet weather, the DA 18-55 comes out, and it has been proven in drenching rain, so I have confidence in my K-5/DA 18-55 setup when the going gets rough. And I've gotten the HD DA 55-300 WR for the wet weather long end (not yet proven in a downpour).

For me, the HD DA 16-85 could be my single-lens kit. No extra baggage hiking over 11,000 feet. Hope it's good enough.

[Nicolas06]

Cheers Nicolas. I was thinking in terms of a quality zoom that would mainly be used for shooting people indoors, singly or in groups. My thinking was that I could give up the speed of the Tamron if the Pentax has comparable IQ and a measure of pixie dust. But if, as you say, the Pentax has lower optical quality, I'm back to the Tamron.

For cities etc I'd reach for either my DA15 or Sigma 10-20.

It could be of same quality as the 28-75, but first the 28-75 is very fine zoom (with some quality control problems...) and the task to have good optical results is made easier by the short range. The 16-85 is a 5X zoom, this is more complex to maintain the same level of quality. And for the apperture and shooting people indoor (not big groups, it is not wide enough) the 28-75 has a huge adventage compared to the 16-85 with more possibilities for subject isolation.

If you don't need it to be wide and think of shooting events, I'd say the 28-75 is really good choice.

---------- Post added 10-15-14 at 09:21 PM ----------

IPentax covers 16-135 in 2.8 glass and 60-300 in ƒ4 glass. As well it has A 50, a 55, a 31, and the 77 in sub ƒ2 glass. If you need glass in those Apertures, it's there.

There also the FA43 f/1.9... a 200mm f/2.8 prime, likely soon a 70-200 zoom f/2.8 and at the limit of sub f/2 prime, an FA35 f/2

[filoxophy]

I, for one (and maybe the only one here), am looking forward to it. I really like the DA 16-45mm and if it sounds like exactly what I could use. Same extra little bit on the wide side (compared to 18mm) and a longer reach - the one thing I always wanted out of the 16-45. A 24-127mm 35mm equiv sounds great to me. A nice alternative to the kit lens, like the 16-45 is, but better.

I'm certainly interested in it, though I know I won't be an early adopter for a couple reasons. I think I was expecting something unique spec-wise from this lens (though of course it does have WR over its Canikon equivalents)...whether a couple extra millimeters at either end of the range, a smaller size (it's larger than the 18-135), an extra half stop over its competitors/alternatives, or whatever.

BUT, we all know the wildcard is IQ, which remains to be seen. As is the saying, "IQ covers a multitude of measurebator sins". Since the 18-135 appears to be staying around alongside the 16-85 and I KNOW (okay, I don't) that it'll be significantly more $$$ than the 18-135, I ANTICIPATE that the 16-85 will have superior IQ.

If I were in the market for a kit-zoom upgrade, I'd be looking long and hard at the 18-135 and especially the 17-70 before I'd pull the trigger on this new lens. (I still think they should have just revamped the 17-70 with DC and WR). But that's just me. I hope it is an awesome lens and sells well.

My prediction is an $800 release price, settling down to $600+ maybe after a couple years.

[Nicolas06]

My prediction is an $800 release price, settling down to $600+ maybe after a couple years.

Isn't it too expensive compared to 17-70 f/2.8-4 sigma, 17-70 pentax and 17-50 f/2.8 lenses from Sigma and tamron ? The IQ factor is unknown but $800 seem quite a lot for 3.5-.5.6. I know the 18-135 was stupidly priced as almost the price of 16-50 at the begining... But this would have been very uninterresting buy compared to today prices.

[filoxophy]

Isn't it too expensive compared to 17-70 f/2.8-4 sigma, 17-70 pentax and 17-50 f/2.8 lenses from Sigma and tamron ? The IQ factor is unknown but $800 seem quite a lot for 3.5-.5.6. I know the 18-135 was stupidly priced as almost the price of 16-50 at the begining... But this would have been very uninterresting buy compared to today prices.

I'm just looking at the current Pentax lineup and the Canikon equivalents. The 18-135 is $500, the 17-70 is $600. The Canon 15-85 has been out for years and is $800. The Nikon 16-85 is $630. (All from B&H).

Besides, we know it will launch high and then settle somewhere. $800 is my launch prediction.

[fsge]

I'm just looking at the current Pentax lineup and the Canikon equivalents. The 18-135 is $500, the 17-70 is $600. The Canon 15-85 has been out for years and is $800. The Nikon 16-85 is $630. (All from B&H).

Besides, we know it will launch high and then settle somewhere. $800 is my launch prediction.

I would be shocked if 16-85 ends up being more pricey than 18-135!
I was expecting a DA* type of standard whereas it is a kit lens eventually...

[boriscleto]

I would be shocked if 16-85 ends up being more pricey than 18-135!
I was expecting a DA* type of standard whereas it is a kit lens eventually...

Then prepare to be shocked.

[Nakedgun]

Price aside, it looks like it will be a good match-up with the DA55-300 for a two-lens, or with DA10-17, three-lens all-zoom travel kit. Pretty sure I'll have one.

[cali92rs]

Besides, we know it will launch high and then settle somewhere. $800 is my launch prediction.

For bodies, that is true but I don't think so for lenses. With lenses, they pretty much stay at the launch price...with a few sale prices throughout the year.

---------- Post added 10-16-14 at 10:03 AM ----------

Price aside, it looks like it will be a good match-up with the DA55-300 for a two-lens, or with DA10-17, three-lens all-zoom travel kit. Pretty sure I'll have one.

I like the focal length...people sometimes discount the difference between 16 and 18mm, but in practice it makes a big difference.
I think 16mm is as wide as most people *should* go (people tend to misuse UWA lenses, resulting in cluttered "getting it all in" pictures).

[Clavius]

I would be shocked if 16-85 ends up being more pricey than 18-135!
I was expecting a DA* type of standard whereas it is a kit lens eventually...

I think it's 100% certain that it's going to be more expensive then the 18-135

[Zygonyx]

I would be shocked if 16-85 ends up being more pricey than 18-135!
I was expecting a DA* type of standard whereas it is a kit lens eventually...

For sure, it will be sold more than 18-135 when it was issued, ca USD 700.

[pghwarrior23]

Is your goal to go on all day about how you don't like this lens... we get it. Is your goal to tell us how much you don't like Pentax? Lot's of people don't like Pentax.. 95% of the camera market don't like Pentax, nothing about not liking Pentax makes you special in any way. This is a site for those who do. Try and have a bit of respect for those of us who find Pentax the best alternative for what we do. Nothing wrong with voicing your opinion...but try not to make three posts in a row saying the same thing.

My guess is that less than 5% of the members on this site are interested in acquiring professional gear. Not every lens that Canon makes is professional, not every lens that Nikon makes is professional. Pentax execs, said right up front, this is designed for people who want a little bit more than the kit lens. There is absolutely no excuse for complaining because they see that as a place in their line up where they can sell some glass. Pentax covers 16-135 in 2.8 glass and 60-300 in ƒ4 glass. As well it has A 50, a 55, a 31, and the 77 in sub ƒ2 glass. If you need glass in those Apertures, it's there.

I suspect this is a case of Canikon fanboy trying to make a case for Pentax users to switch brands... why else would you have three posts saying you don't like this lens and saying Pentax has to get better? All that says is you weren't smart enough to buy what you wanted. And now you're unhappy because Pentax releases a consumer lens when you wanted a pro lens. Really, no one wants to hear that, we felt sorry for you after your first post. You can only milk it so much. Now it's just irritating.

It would be kind of like saying Kia should stop making light weight small 4x4s and start making heavy trucks. How would that help those of us who like small Kia 4x4's ?

I am not sure why you felt the need to quote me in your post and then go on a tirade about why you disagree with my opinion. It was just my opinion afterall based on my impressions and frankly those held by a lot of others too. There is not a lot of pro level gear available by Pentax and I was hoping more would be released is all. You make it sound like I posted dozens of times on these 26 pages of posts about how stupid this release was or kept reposting the same message over and over which was not the case. Frankly I think your long post and trying to make a case of why this lens is so awesome and so needed by using Kia as an analogy is far more over the top than what sparked your post apparently.

"I suspect this is a case of Canikon fanboy trying to make a case for Pentax users to switch brands" - again...statements made that are pure speculation and assumption and based not on any facts whatsoever. I have never owned a dSLR other than a Pentax. I have had a *istDL, K10D, 2 K20Ds, 2 K-7s, K-01, 2 K-5s, an original Q, and now a K-3 Silver. I also own 3 DA* lenses and a host of Limited primes. Yep...definitely a Canikon fanboy here trying to get people to switch brands.

[normhead]

I am not sure why you felt the need to quote me in your post and then go on a tirade about why you disagree with my opinion. It was just my opinion afterall based on my impressions and frankly those held by a lot of others too. There is not a lot of pro level gear available by Pentax and I was hoping more would be released is all. You make it sound like I posted dozens of times on these 26 pages of posts about how stupid this release was or kept reposting the same message over and over which was not the case. Frankly I think your long post and trying to make a case of why this lens is so awesome and so needed by using Kia as an analogy is far more over the top than what sparked your post apparently.

"I suspect this is a case of Canikon fanboy trying to make a case for Pentax users to switch brands" - again...statements made that are pure speculation and assumption and based not on any facts whatsoever. I have never owned a dSLR other than a Pentax. I have had a *istDL, K10D, 2 K20Ds, 2 K-7s, K-01, 2 K-5s, an original Q, and now a K-3 Silver. I also own 3 DA* lenses and a host of Limited primes. Yep...definitely a Canikon fanboy here trying to get people to switch brands.

Well then, maybe you could explain, why do you think every lens announcement is an opportunity for you to go on a rant about everything that's wrong with Pentax? Some people reading this thread might actually be interested in knowing something about the lens.

You make it sound like I posted dozens of times on these 26

No, I made it sound like you'd posted 3 time on one page, which you did.

Frankly I think your long post and trying to make a case of why this lens is so awesome

Really, it's a slight improvement to a kit lens. How is that awesome?

I have had a *istDL, K10D, 2 K20Ds, 2 K-7s, K-01, 2 K-5s, an original Q, and now a K-3 Silver. I also own 3 DA* lenses and a host of Limited primes. Yep...definitely a Canikon fanboy here trying to get people to switch brands

Sorry, maybe it was just you trying to convince yourself to switch brands but "thinking out loud." People tend to think people posting in public forums are talking to other people .... my bad.

[Nicolas06]

For bodies, that is true but I don't think so for lenses. With lenses, they pretty much stay at the launch price...with a few sale prices throughout the year.

18-135 was more than 500€ at begining, now is 370€.
DA50 was 250€ at begining now can be found for 140€
DA20-40 is quite new still is was 800€ to pay when it was out, now you can find it for 700€. 800€ was very high for such a lens why at 600€ I think the price is quite acceptable. We will see if if go to it.

I like the focal length...people sometimes discount the difference between 16 and 18mm, but in practice it makes a big difference.
I think 16mm is as wide as most people *should* go (people tend to misuse UWA lenses, resulting in cluttered "getting it all in" pictures).

16vs18 is there, true, as to say it it is a big difference, I do not see it like that. I mean with a 16mm you can be only 16m away from the subject instead of 18m away with 18mm. If the subject almost fit 18mm, yeah 16mm will do it... without much margin for compositing the shoot. Otherwise, it will not be enough.

It can be nice to have it at your disposal if you do lot of wide angle shoots, but that not a revolution.