[bernhardn]

just saw it to..... i was focust on the window blinds!

[VisualDarkness]

2048 x 1362 size looks not bad...but it's too small

Well, that is enough for any kind of normal shooting this lens most likely is designed for. High end pixel peepers will go fr the Otus, not this.

[Franc]

sokken zullen wel snel droog zijn

[ogl]

Well, that is enough for any kind of normal shooting this lens most likely is designed for. High end pixel peepers will go fr the Otus, not this.

Do you think that 16-85 could cover only 3 MP resolution?
If we follow your logic even old 3 MP P&S camera is enough.
And Sony RX100 is the highest level. I don't say about smartphones...

[TedH42]

Looking for a knock down, drag out comparison between the 16-85 and the 18-135. I almost got the 18-135 as a hiking-in-the-rain lens (OK, hiking-with-the-possibility-of-rain), but just then the prospect of the 16-85 popped up, and the extra 2 mm on the short end is very attractive to me. So I'm stuck waiting for more information about these lenses. I have patience - hiking during the Colorado monsoon season is quite a ways off. But I was darn close to that 18-135.

[VisualDarkness]

Do you think that 16-85 could cover only 3 MP resolution?
If we follow your logic even old 3 MP P&S camera is enough.
And Sony RX100 is the highest level. I don't say about smartphones...

I say that expectations should be set at a reasonable level compared to what others deliver. Why would anybody expect this lens to be the first quite cheap 16-85ish zoom to deliver corner to corner sharpness from wide open like a prime?

[kh1234567890]

I say that expectations should be set at a reasonable level compared to what others deliver. Why would anybody expect this lens to be the first quite cheap 16-85ish zoom to deliver corner to corner sharpness from wide open like a prime?

The UK price seems to be around the £600 mark. That is not cheap, considering the DA* 16-50 f/2.8 is only some £60 more. For that price I would expect reasonable corner sharpness. I am completely puzzled as to what market they are aiming at.

[VisualDarkness]

The UK price seems to be around the £600 mark. That is not cheap, considering the DA* 16-50 f/2.8 is only some £60 more. For that price I would expect reasonable corner sharpness. I am completely puzzled as to what market they are aiming at.

Here in Sweden it's currently priced 7 390 SEK and the 16-50 at 8 990 SEK, that's a quite big difference. The only Pentax normal zooms that are cheaper are the 17-70 and of course the 18-55. In the US the 16-85 pricing already seems to be lowered so I expect it to be under 7000 SEK quite soon.

[JinDesu]

The UK price seems to be around the £600 mark. That is not cheap, considering the DA* 16-50 f/2.8 is only some £60 more. For that price I would expect reasonable corner sharpness. I am completely puzzled as to what market they are aiming at.

The market that buys the Canon 16-85 and the Nikon 17-85.

[thibs]

The market that buys the Canon 16-85 and the Nikon 17-85.

And knowing this is an introduction price and it will go down quite a bit. This is how Ricoh does (good or bad).

[bernhardn]

Looking for a knock down, drag out comparison between the 16-85 and the 18-135. I almost got the 18-135 as a hiking-in-the-rain lens (OK, hiking-with-the-possibility-of-rain), but just then the prospect of the 16-85 popped up, and the extra 2 mm on the short end is very attractive to me. So I'm stuck waiting for more information about these lenses. I have patience - hiking during the Colorado monsoon season is quite a ways off. But I was darn close to that 18-135.

I had the same and choose this one!

---------- Post added 12-03-14 at 11:10 AM ----------

if you live in europe i can give you (maybe, i have to try) 5% reduce! i only need a name and E-mail for it.

(I work for RICOH)

---------- Post added 12-03-14 at 11:12 AM ----------

For Holland, Belgium and France it's for sure!

[Nicolas06]

Here in Sweden it's currently priced 7 390 SEK and the 16-50 at 8 990 SEK, that's a quite big difference.

No, that really small difference. 16-50 cost is only 20% more expensive in your case and is not at all in the same league. 16-50 is constant f/2.8 opening lot of possibilities in term of creativity and low lights cases. Just try the 16-85 for a wedding and then we can rediscuss. There not even a big difference in their focal range or size/weight. With current price 16-50 is a far better offering overall...

Or then the 17-70 f/2.8-4 from sigma that is in the middle between 16-85 & 16-50 in term of possibility, near enough to 16-85 to be able to take exactly the same framing 99% of the cases and still get 1 stop faster apperture while managing to be 30% less expensive.

With 16-85 you pay for the novelty... If you think that really the lens you need, you'll get a fair price in 2 years.

[Nicolas06]

Here in Sweden it's currently priced 7 390 SEK and the 16-50 at 8 990 SEK, that's a quite big difference.

No, that really small difference. 16-50 cost is only 20% more expensive in your case and is not at all in the same league. 16-50 is constant f/2.8 opening lot of possibilities in term of creativity and low lights cases. Just try the 16-85 for a wedding and then we can rediscuss. There not even a big difference in their focal range or size/weight. With current price 16-50 is a far better offering overall...

Or then the 17-70 f/2.8-4 from sigma that is in the middle between 16-85 & 16-50 in term of possibility, near enough to 16-85 to be able to take exactly the same framing 99% of the cases and still get 1 stop faster apperture while managing to be 30% less expensive.

Most detractors to the 16-85 design don't get why this is not an f/4 constant apperture lens at least or then a small design. This one is bulky and slow. It can't pretend to high price if you want to sell it.

With 16-85 you pay for the novelty... If you think that really the lens you need, you'll get a fair price in 2 years or a deal with a camera body.

Just compare, my father got K30 + 18-135 something like 1 year ago for less than what they are asking for the 16-85 now.

[kh1234567890]

The market that buys the Canon 16-85 and the Nikon 17-85.

Sigma 17-70 ~£330
Canon 17-85 ~£350
Nikon 16-85 ~£440
Pentax 16-85 ~£600

It would have to be really good to be worth that. Judging by the example shots I've seen it is a pretty mediocre boring lens.

[JinDesu]

Sigma 17-70 ~£330
Canon 17-85 ~£350
Nikon 16-85 ~£440
Pentax 16-85 ~£600

It would have to be really good to be worth that. Judging by the example shots I've seen it is a pretty mediocre boring lens.

Canon 17-85 - Original MSRP: $860, currently $599
Nikon 16-85 - Original MSRP: $789, currently $619
Pentax 16-85 - Original MSRP: $746, typicaly Pentax discount is $150-200 (based on recent discounts on the 17-70 and the 18-270)

Also woops, the Canon 17-85 isn't the comparable lens. It's F4-5.6. The 15-85 is the comparable lens, and it is $799 new and $699 after rebate.

My my, things look more fair in comparison, doesn't it? Because when you go and compare the base list price vs the competition's discounted prices just to make a point about worth, it's a very silly statement to make.