[LensBeginner]

Restricted what? I don't spend my day take shoot of black cats inside tunnel on a night without moon...

*snip*

I had never problems with my DA15 or my DA21 also. I also did enjoy taking some night shoot with tripod with a few different lenses and got fantastic results. I don't get the reason to complain? If you want nice good shoot handled, the actual gear already does a good job. Want perfect shoot? That anyway require tripod or flashes or light. f/1.4 + FF will not replace good light. It will look a little less crap, no more.

So what? For me, you complain on the theory... Yeah this lense is slow, is severely restrict the possibilities blablabla.... Yeah in practice I get good images most in iso 100-400 range without any difficulty for most of my use case, I can also get good handled shoots at high isos too and if I want I can do long exposure with a tripod for very interresting result.

This is not a portrait lens where one could want to shoot at f/2 anyway. On the opposite, this baby, this DA15 is able to get blue skies when other just get burned highlight. It is able to keep high contrast and fantastic color in difficult conditions. A good photographer doesn't spend his time saying the gear is of bad quality... He use his gear to its strengh to get fantastics results.

Want to all your time complaining about how it is theorically bad to not take 15mm shoot at f/1.4 at isos 12800 in dark night for a close-up. That your problem. Me I don't do this kind of shoot anyway.

Pictures are stunning... I'd say the disadvantage of being "slow" is mitigated by the focal length... at 15mm you can shoot handheld a lot more than at 100mm...
Regarding the 16-85, I don't think that one could miss the reach if IQ is superior than 18-135...
For those of us who think in terms of film focal lengths, 85 is about 127mm...

[Nicolas06]

Pictures are stunning... I'd say the disadvantage of being "slow" is mitigated by the focal length... at 15mm you can shoot handheld a lot more than at 100mm...
Regarding the 16-85, I don't think that one could miss the reach if IQ is superior than 18-135...
For those of us who think in terms of film focal lengths, 85 is about 127mm...

That's really true; There much more interrest to be fast at 50 or 70mm than there to be at 15 or 24mm. Risk to blur the image is increased with the focal lens and also it is much more likely one want some subject isolation at 70mm than 15mm...

I have checked the sample picture on pentax website and they really look great honestly. I would say still this lens is for taking picture of lanscape outside. This a good travel lens ! The good focal range, the very wide short end really play that. It is a little like the 18-135 for me. Apparently we could expect a little more quality than 18-135 and there more an emphasis on wide end than long end. So when you are after a zoom like that, you have more choice. That's fine !

As far I'am concerned I don't see the problem to take this kind of lens for a trip and maybe add a small prime or two for low light performance like DA35 and for somebody that do lot of portraits a DA70 or FA77. I have found the plastic wonder to be very capable wide open and to allow for nice interior shoots in dim light or some night city landscape outside. All handled. I now brought FA77 and I am continously amazed by the result it manage to produce. A very fine lens. No wonder it won the best pentax lens of all time price on this forum !

There no possibility to have a lens that does everything at the same time. Want f/2.8 zoom? Then no 5X range, sorry ! And no small price neither.

Here we have a large range, affordable lens. Not an expensive prime.

[LensBeginner]

*snip*

Here we have a large range, affordable lens. Not an expensive prime.

True, many said it's gonna be kitted because of this very reason.

I've said quite a couple of times recently that I'm beginning to find the need for "monstre reach" zooms overestimated...
I've shot with a 40mm lens for ten days straight (was abroad and had bought the camera+lens there) and never, ever felt I needded something more.
I could crop in post (and I did) to up to about 80mm equivalent and still retained more than the 6MP I had with my older camera.
Picture quality remains very good, provided that you know what you're doing...

[y0chang]

Ive shot at night under streetlights with my 12-24 f4 hand held. With ISO 3200, IBIS, 12mm, and sharpness at f4, it worked out quite well. I think there is some bias perpetuated by Canikon, people think that if a zoom isnt f2.8 or a prime isnt f1.4, then the lens isnt suitable for night photography. Pentax does not believe in that philosophy. This was shot at f6.3, 1/13th, ISO 3200.

[Nicolas06]

Ive shot at night under streetlights with my 12-24 f4 hand held. With ISO 3200, IBIS, 12mm, and sharpness at f4, it worked out quite well. I think there is some bias perpetuated by Canikon, people think that if a zoom isnt f2.8 or a prime isnt f1.4, then the lens isnt suitable for night photography. Pentax does not believe in that philosophy. This was shot at f6.3, 1/13th, ISO 3200.

Quite nice shoot... To be honest many amateurs with their FF would fail to achieve the shoot as good as you did. And obviously this is not gear releated.

[RGlasel]

I don't think that one could miss the reach

Obviously, everyone has different usage patterns, but since I purchased the 18-135 in September 2013, I've taken 1750 images with it. The five most frequently used focal lengths are: 390 at 135mm, 244 at 18mm, 181 at 36mm, 100 at 68mm and 98 at 48mm. Above 85mm: 568 or one-third. I also took 387 pictures with my A 70-210 after I acquired the 18-135, only for the extra reach. Before I got the 18-135, I took 873 shots with the DA L 18-55, 346 at 55mm, 105 at 18mm (12% or virtually the same proportion as I take with the 18-135). I almost never set aside time for photography, so my usage is nearly 100% snapshots, and most of those snapshots are landscapes, not event pictures. Even so, I maxed out on the long end three times as often as on the short end. I've only taken 86 pictures with my two prime lenses below 85mm, although to be fair, the DA 35 is only two months old. I've taken 270 pictures with my Tamron 90mm since I purchased it in April 2014, mostly for macro shots, but I've also used it for telephoto shots when I needed a faster aperture.

I have to agree with normhead, this new lens is designed to be a Canikon equivalent, not to compete with existing K-mount lenses. Whether that is a good thing or not, probably depends on whether the buyer is new to Pentax or not. HD coatings are the new default for Ricoh-Pentax, even the new DA 55-300 has it; there is no reason to expect the 16-85 to be noticeably different from the 18-135 optically. The only other reason for existing Pentax users to upgrade to the 16-85 is if they are moving up from the DA 18-55, and 16-17mm is worth $250 more to them than 86-135mm, but not enough to justify getting a separate UWA lens. How small of a piece of the current Pentax user pie does Ricoh want to develop new lenses for? Like the K-S1, this lens isn't targeted at PF members.

[Aristophanes]

f5.6 at 85mm.. ugh..
But HD, DC and WR are nice. Will this lens replace the DA 17-70mm or the DA 18-135mm?

The 17-70 is already gone.

This lens is an alternative to the 18-135 perhaps offering either a tele or a WA mid-range kit option.

---------- Post added 11-01-14 at 04:37 PM ----------

. 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.

Ridiculous statement. It's not any slower than any f/4 zoom.

[RuiC]

The 16-85 is more suitable than 17-70, indeed, and I'd rather have 16-85 than the 18-135. I like the wider view.

[Nicolas06]

Obviously, everyone has different usage patterns, but since I purchased the 18-135 in September 2013, I've taken 1750 images with it. The five most frequently used focal lengths are: 390 at 135mm, 244 at 18mm, 181 at 36mm, 100 at 68mm and 98 at 48mm. Above 85mm: 568 or one-third. I also took 387 pictures with my A 70-210 after I acquired the 18-135, only for the extra reach. Before I got the 18-135, I took 873 shots with the DA L 18-55, 346 at 55mm, 105 at 18mm (12% or virtually the same proportion as I take with the 18-135). I almost never set aside time for photography, so my usage is nearly 100% snapshots, and most of those snapshots are landscapes, not event pictures. Even so, I maxed out on the long end three times as often as on the short end. I've only taken 86 pictures with my two prime lenses below 85mm, although to be fair, the DA 35 is only two months old. I've taken 270 pictures with my Tamron 90mm since I purchased it in April 2014, mostly for macro shots, but I've also used it for telephoto shots when I needed a faster aperture.

I have to agree with normhead, this new lens is designed to be a Canikon equivalent, not to compete with existing K-mount lenses. Whether that is a good thing or not, probably depends on whether the buyer is new to Pentax or not. HD coatings are the new default for Ricoh-Pentax, even the new DA 55-300 has it; there is no reason to expect the 16-85 to be noticeably different from the 18-135 optically. The only other reason for existing Pentax users to upgrade to the 16-85 is if they are moving up from the DA 18-55, and 16-17mm is worth $250 more to them than 86-135mm, but not enough to justify getting a separate UWA lens. How small of a piece of the current Pentax user pie does Ricoh want to develop new lenses for? Like the K-S1, this lens isn't targeted at PF members.

Of course it not targeted to PF member. I mean there many enthousiast here that have already some gear. The 16-85 is to step up from 18-55 or to be put in a kit, excactly how the 18-135 is used.

Don't bother on price, it is a new product, it will settle down after 1 or 2 years. But in the mean time if some are ready to pay full price for it... Why refuse their money?

As if it is better to get a 16-85 or 18-135 it will really depend if overall you prefer 16 or 135mm and also how good the lens is overall. If it manage to be sharper and get better rendering than 18-135, that might very well a better lens that one could have in combination with a 55-300 for example.

[audiobomber]

there is no reason to expect the 16-85 to be noticeably different from the 18-135 optically.

Yes, there is a reason. Ricoh said the new lens is intended for people looking to move up from the kit lens, and the 18-135 is a kit lens.

The 17-70 is already gone.

What do you mean? I haven't heard any announcement about the 17-70mm.

If it manage to be sharper and get better rendering than 18-135, that might very well a better lens that one could have in combination with a 55-300 for example.

Definitely a better focal length match with the 55-300mm. If IQ matches the 16-45mm, it will be too hard to resist trading my 16-45 and 18-135.

[aleonx3]

For the DA 18-135mm, here are the max-aperture at each range of focal length.
18-21mm (f3.5)
22-28mm (f4.0)
29-68mm (f4.5)
69-135mm (f5.6)

If the DA16-85mm is deemed to be an upgrade of the kit lens (DA18-135), I am hoping that it is sharper and brighter across the range (16-68).

[JPT]

Like the K-S1, this lens isn't targeted at PF members.

I don't agree with that. There are plenty of members who shoot mainly with primes, but might want a convenience zoom that performs well within its limits. There are a lot of normal zooms for Pentax available, but this one seems to meet my needs best. If I want to shoot in low light or get shallower depth of field, I have primes that can do that for me. I may end up getting this.

I don't understand the obsession with constant aperture zooms unless you shoot manually. For a lens of this range and size, it would be a constant 5.6, not a constant 4 like some are suggesting. The DA17-70 is a nice lens, but when you compare it to the Sigma equivalent, it could have been 2.8-4 for the same size with a variable aperture design. Now Samsung has come out with a 2-2.8 normal zoom which seems to be the same size as the constant 2.8 lenses of its competitors. It makes me think that making a constant aperture zoom is basically crippling a variable aperture zoom at the wide end.

I think a lot of the stigma against variable aperture lenses is that they have historically been designed to a tighter budget. But that doesn't mean there is anything intrinsically inferior about them. Maybe someone can explain to me why I'm wrong - I know a lot of forum members are more knowledgable about lens design than me!

[y0chang]

For a backpacking landscape shooter, a WR 24mm equivalent is on the top of the wish list. While I rather have a WR 15mm limited, this lens adds flexibility and if the MTFs are to be believed, close to prime image sharpness. I rather have a sharp lighter lens that is slightly slower on the long end.

[aleonx3]

Ive shot at night under streetlights with my 12-24 f4 hand held. With ISO 3200, IBIS, 12mm, and sharpness at f4, it worked out quite well. I think there is some bias perpetuated by Canikon, people think that if a zoom isnt f2.8 or a prime isnt f1.4, then the lens isnt suitable for night photography. Pentax does not believe in that philosophy. This was shot at f6.3, 1/13th, ISO 3200.

Nice!.. my kind of photos that I don't see too often from my Canikon friends... I do have the 12-24f4 and often shoot wide-open at night..

[IchabodCrane]

For the DA 18-135mm, here are the max-aperture at each range of focal length.
18-21mm (f3.5)
22-28mm (f4.0)
29-68mm (f4.5)
69-135mm (f5.6)

If the DA16-85mm is deemed to be an upgrade of the kit lens (DA18-135), I am hoping that it is sharper and brighter across the range (16-68).

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. Now if you look across the full spectrum of buyers (and this forum is not very representative of that), they may sell five or 10 DA 18-55 lenses as part of a kit for each DA 18-135 sold in a kit. If that is anywhere near the truth, it's reasonable to conclude Ricoh intends the DA 16-85 to be an upgrade from the DA 18-55. It still may turn out to be better than the DA 18-135 but we'll just have to wait and see.