[Mistral75]

why 16-85 bigger ?

Because it's wider.

[cfraz]

LOL

I meant in terms of size, not IQ

Wim

Ah, I get it now. That's a good question.

[Venom3300]

I will be it is better optically than the 18-135.

Canon has a 15-85 3.5-5.6 lens that is one of the best they offer, and is better than their 18-135.... it is also bigger

[calsan]

Looks like it's really just the hood that makes up most of the size difference, so I don't expect the weight to be much over the 18-135's.
Perhaps it even shares the 18-135's filter size.

16mm is a good focal length for architecture, plus you can pick out details with the rest of the range. To make sense IMHO, it would have to be optimised for 16mm, as that's the real selling point of this lens.

---

Last edited by calsan; 09-16-2014 at 08:00 PM.

[Alizarine]

hoping Pentax releases prototypes for testing soon. And hoping the intro price wouldn't kill interest lol

[beachgardener]

They said in the interview that this lens address the dislike for the kit lenses, so, hopefully it is a good lens, I'm sure it is

[filoxophy]

I will be it is better optically than the 18-135.

Canon has a 15-85 3.5-5.6 lens that is one of the best they offer, and is better than their 18-135.... it is also bigger

That Canon is well-liked...but it is also $800. I wouldn't be surprised if this lens comes in at a similar price. Look at where the 18-270mm landed. Time will tell...

[pjalves]

why 16-85 bigger ?

Like someone else said, maybe because it's wider. Or... maybe because they have been lazy in their lens designs...

I'll re-post this comment I've written on another news article:

«If the name is still tentative, please re-engineer it to a f/2.8-4, or f/3.5 constant, please.
We don't need another "under-engineered" standard zoom at f/3.5-5.6 or an "over-engineered"(read over-priced and SDM) f/2.8.

After that, IMHO, Ricoh should discontinue all the 18-55 variations and also the 17-70 and 18-135.
Fuji has a more compact and "faster" "kit" zoom at f/2.8-4. Come on, Pentax/Ricoh, you look lazy by comparision.

And please give us a fast WR prime to fill the gap between 21 and 35 on the line-up!
Arigato »

[filoxophy]

I know all pronouncements are premature about this lens, but I'm starting to wonder why they didn't just update the DA17-70/4 with WR and DC motor. That lens is fine optically, right? And to me, as a constant f/4 zoom, it fills a nice niche below the DA*16-50/2.8. And the DA18-135/3.5-5.6 stays as a fairly compact WR variable aperture 7.5x zoom. But what do I know.

I hope this lens is an optical gem, but I just don't see it finding its way into my bag. We shall see.

[Biro]

I'll be pretty happy with the 16-85 if it's optically excellent and stays at f/3.5 for a good part of it's focal range. It would be nice if it hits f/5.6 at something like 80mm. You never know, it's possible.

[Kire1984]

What will it cost? Any news on that? If I search the NIkkor 16-85, it costs € 560,-. A bit too much for me. I hope it is gonna cost around 400.

[Mistral75]

What will it cost? Any news on that? If I search the NIkkor 16-85, it costs € 560,-. A bit too much for me. I hope it is gonna cost around 400.

I would be surprised if it cost less than the 18-135mm at launch (€699).

[Alizarine]

I'm excited to see a comparison between this and the Sigma 17-70 f2.8-f4 Contemporary (of course, also on price!)

[wed7]

All your excitement will fade away when you see the intro price.

Remeber Ricoh is after Profit not Revenue.

[robjmitchell]

It should get a discount when part of a kit though!