[TedH42]

My thought is another - this photos say almost nothing about DA16-85.

Agree. Looking for those lab tests, and how it stacks up against the DA18-135 and my FA24-90.

These nice images do show that it is capable of excellent, small results.

Yeah, I know it's a bit slow, but I shoot at f8 a lot anyway.

Thank you again for your positive inception ogl.
This was just to show that this lens indeed takes images, which by your standard position re. Pentax gear, could be encouraging
You can probaly expect something more interesting from lab tests, but many users don't rely only on these tests.

You betcha.

Lab tests, with their 100% crops in center and corner, show the sharpness/resolution and other capabilities in the lab test setup. This gives us an idea of what compromises a lens presents to us. Then we decide yea or nay with some amount of confidence that a lens will or will not enable the quality of images that we desire. Then we forget the lab tests and go out and shoot pictures, only pixel peeping to adjust sharpening and noise reduction. Yep, that's the way we all do it, eh?

[Rondec]

to say honest all this photos could be made by any lens

I think you need to be honest about what this lens is. It is a 5x zoom with a pretty slow aperture. It will serve a lot of the average photographers needs as a walk around lens, when the light isn't too low. It is weather sealed and has pretty decent auto focus, from all accounts. If the price drops into the 350 to 400 dollar range, I think it will be a good deal.

This lens will not serve for those who expect prime sharpness wide open, need apertures of f2.8. If you want the FA limiteds, you get the FA limiteds, but sometimes you want to go on a trip and just take one lens and this may be the lens that works for that purpose.

I won't buy one, but that doesn't mean it isn't a decent lens.

[Nicolas06]

I think you need to be honest about what this lens is. It is a 5x zoom with a pretty slow aperture. It will serve a lot of the average photographers needs as a walk around lens, when the light isn't too low. It is weather sealed and has pretty decent auto focus, from all accounts. If the price drops into the 350 to 400 dollar range, I think it will be a good deal.

This lens will not serve for those who expect prime sharpness wide open, need apertures of f2.8. If you want the FA limiteds, you get the FA limiteds, but sometimes you want to go on a trip and just take one lens and this may be the lens that works for that purpose.

I won't buy one, but that doesn't mean it isn't a decent lens.

Agree !

[IchabodCrane]

I think you need to be honest about what this lens is. It is a 5x zoom with a pretty slow aperture. It will serve a lot of the average photographers needs as a walk around lens, when the light isn't too low. It is weather sealed and has pretty decent auto focus, from all accounts. If the price drops into the 350 to 400 dollar range, I think it will be a good deal.

This lens will not serve for those who expect prime sharpness wide open, need apertures of f2.8. If you want the FA limiteds, you get the FA limiteds, but sometimes you want to go on a trip and just take one lens and this may be the lens that works for that purpose.

I won't buy one, but that doesn't mean it isn't a decent lens.

My uneducated hunch is it will be a very long time, if ever, before we see a price of $350 - $400 for the DA 16-85.

[TedH42]

My uneducated hunch is it will be a very long time, if ever, before we see a price of $350 - $400 for the DA 16-85.

Maybe about . . . Oh . . . near the end of November 2015. Black something or other.

[MadMathMind]

to say honest all this photos could be made by any lens

I don't think anyone claimed that this lens offers anything terribly unique ("pixie dust"-like features). It's about being a solid performer and all-in-one package.

[frogfoot]

I don't think anyone claimed that this lens offers anything terribly unique ("pixie dust"-like features). It's about being a solid performer and all-in-one package.

As well as 18-135. So one wants to know what's the point in this lens. Unfortunately those pictures doesn't resolve this mystery. That's what ogl wanted to say, I reckon.

[FantasticMrFox]

As I've said before, the focal range, weather sealing, HD coating, DC focussing etc. makes it a very suitable choice for those who spend a lot of time outdoors in worse than perfect conditions.

I don't think anyone expected pixie dust, superior sharpness or whatever - the realistic expectation (and what would make the lens a success) is probably optical qualities superior to the 18-135, that's it.

[Gregs]

My 5 cents,
16-85 has to be better optically, quality, IQ etc. then 18-135
One disappointment for me is lack of Internal Focusing.
Just look at the size & specs. between shorter Focal Length without Internal Focusing lens!
and longer Focal Length with Internal Focusing lens!
18-135 ................................vs............16-85
62mm filter size, .................vs........... 72mm filter size
Diam x Length
73 x 76 mm..........................vs...........78 x 94 mm
Optical Construction:
13 elements, 11 groups.......vs.........16 elements, 12 groups
Weight
405 g...................................vs..........488 g
Internal Focusing
YES.............................vs..........NO
Aperture is the same in both of them as well as they both have 7 blades, (rounded)
16-85 was developed 2-3 years after 18-135 (knowledge / experience)
I know that it is just numbers on paper but somehow it just make sense to me.
After all that, I could be wrong though.
I hope I'm not, I hate being wrong

[IchabodCrane]

Maybe about . . . Oh . . . near the end of November 2015. Black something or other.

If the 2015 Black Friday price is below $400, then it would indicate Pentax/Ricoh thinks the DA 16-85 is a lower quality lens than the DA 17-70 which went on sale for $450 this Black Friday (back to $600 now). I'm guessing they don't think the 16-85 is a lower quality lens, though.

[gaddigad]

FWIW, those sample shots look really really good.

[Rondec]

My uneducated hunch is it will be a very long time, if ever, before we see a price of $350 - $400 for the DA 16-85.

Well 400 to 450 range. A lot probably depends on how many of these lenses Pentax wants to sell. I would think they would probably price it similarly to the 18-135, at least after a year to year and a half go by.

[Nicolas06]

If the 2015 Black Friday price is below $400, then it would indicate Pentax/Ricoh thinks the DA 16-85 is a lower quality lens than the DA 17-70 which went on sale for $450 this Black Friday (back to $600 now). I'm guessing they don't think the 16-85 is a lower quality lens, though.

17-70 offer almost the same range but is f/4 on a side (+++) but lower quality finish (---), has no WR (---) and is SDM (---) instead of DC. Optically, I don't know.

[harrisonww]

I feel like if pentax wants to release lenses that are expensive they have to have a pretty strong case of IQ, bokeh, or Fast aperture

... This lens is 3.5-5.6 ? Where am I going to use a 5.6 indoors? Im looking at competitors lenses..

Canon 24-70mm f2.8 USM 1999.99. (HOLY EXPENSIVE) amazing lens but alot of money.. why well its 2.8, amazing IQ and bokeh 9 BLADES!

Canon 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 299.00 (CHEAP) plastic build, variable aperture, and 6 blades (USM)....<------

Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 1900.00 (WOW expensive again) great build, 2.8 fast, 9 blades and silent motor.

Nikon 16-85mm f3.5-5.6 619.00 (I found the exact same lens as pentax...) Fast af, VR , 7 blades

So pentax lens cost 130USD more, maybe because its new.
From the images posted (some good, some okay, pushing lens not quite to its limits) it takes pretty damn sharp photos.

I would not pay 800+ dollars for this lens because i shoot alot of indoors and I like primes. Having said that I would pay over 1000 for a pentax lens that is 2.8 and solid zoom length. I could care less how heavy it is.

The pentax k3 takes some of the nicest photos I have ever seen and compared to nikon and canon the camera is worth every penny compared to their plastic machines. Having said that these lenses make a HUGE difference. I havent used my 18-55 kit lens since I bought my first 50mm prime and that was a long time ago.

I would love to own an awesome zoom for carrying around but not a 3.5-5.6 for 800 dollars. how about this lens for 350 or a similar zoom range with a 2.8 for 1000-2000. Seems a bit much but pentax is either going to be a company with high end lenses and cameras or just cameras. IMHO glass is more important than sensor.

16-50mm alot of people will comment back to this and say this is the option. SDM is a peice of junk. Im sure there are some that have working copys but just reading from b&h and adorma and hearing the guys from henrys in canada talk about failures I would never buy one!!

This lens is overpriced.

[Nicolas06]

@harrisonww

24-70 canikon lenses are not made for APSC and are very expensive. They are not really suited except if you really prefer really moderate wide angle and a bit more tele. Still the price is huge.

The sigma/tamron lenses like 17-50 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8, 28-75 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8 or even Pentax 16-50 f/2.8 and 50-135 f/2.8 are all f/2.8 and better priced. This is what I would get instead of the very expensive Canikon lenses except if I need the last possible bit of AF performance and even the latest sigma are already great performers AF wise.

For the f/4-5.6, that true that for very comparable focal range 17-70 f/2.8-4 is near and not bad price wise. It would be a better all rounder lense to me... The deciding factor would be if it is weak at 17-20mm while the 16-85 would be great.