[AlwaysAl]

I would suggest the D FA 28-105 as a potential option. Over the years, had a good number of lenses, many on budget pricing or used. The learning take away was you generally get what you pay for. More recently, bought the D FA 28-105 and was apprehensive as what to expect given it was reasonably priced compared to some of the other options. In practice, it is difficult to remove this lens from the camera as it truly is a performer far exceeding what I expected.

[que es tu]

What is the advantage of the DA 16-85 that overcomes the extra reach of the DA 18-135? Sharpness? Build quality? It’s only a tiny bit wider but a fair but less zoom. Thanks

---------- Post added 12-11-20 at 12:58 PM ----------



Yes, I said GAS but was thinking LBA but forgot the acronym

The 16-85 is a bit sharper and has a little better build quality. I owned a used 16-85 but it self destructed and I recently got an 18-135, which is pretty nice too, but the 16-85 is somewhat better. I think the 18-135 is more versatile, having more reach. It also has a good MFD so can be useful for close-ups.

[Des]

What is the advantage of the DA 16-85 that overcomes the extra reach of the DA 18-135? Sharpness? Build quality? It’s only a tiny bit wider but a fair but less zoom.

As @Sidney Porter; said, 2mm makes a big difference at the wide end. 16mm would open up shots you could not get with 18mm.

Here's an example with the 18-135 at 18mm:


16mm would have got the whole staircase in and it would have been a much better shot.

If you get the 16-85 you won't feel so compelled to get an ultrawide lens, or to carry it with you so often. And if you also have the 55-300, you would have 85-135mm very well covered.

The flip side is that if you are going to get an ultrawide lens anyway and use it often (e.g the very pocketable DA 15 Limited), you might find the extra reach of the 18-135 more handy than the extra width of the 16-85. It is useful having 135mm without having to change to the 55-300.

Here's an example. Up close, 31mm (so I didn't have the 55-300 on).


Moving away, 135mm, when swapping lenses would have meant missing the moment.


The point is that lens changes are often more inconvenient when you are shooting telephoto than wide, because it is more likely to be something moving!

As for sharpness, the 16-85 seems to be better in the edges and corners, although the 18-135 is more than OK stopped down to f8 or f11. Examples:
18mm f8


18mm f10


The strength here is in the colours and overall vitality of the images. I suspect this would be similar between the two lenses. The 18-135 can produce a little 3D quality at times.

Other pros for the 18-135:
- The wider range is great for when you want a one-lens solution - to travel light, or for situations where changing lenses is impractical. Examples are a boat trip or flight, when walking with kids or impatient companions, or in wet, dusty or sandy conditions.
- Lighter (405g v 488g)
- More compact (73 x 76mm v 78 x 94mm)
- Cheaper
- 62mm filters v 72mm (Filters are cheaper and with 62mm filters you can easily share with the 55-300, which takes 58mm filters, using a step-up ring)

Maybe the build quality of the 16-85 is better (I don't know, I haven't used the 16-85), but the 18-135 is quite good. No zoom creep or wobble on mine after 5 years of use.

From the images I have seen and from user reports, the bokeh seems to be better on the 16-85, because of its rounded aperture blades. (Same on the 55-300 PLM.) And from having other lenses with HD coatings, I would say that those coatings are a big plus too.

There is a case for either lens and no wrong decision. It's a matter of working out your own priorities.

[MrB1]

Two lenses for a good start in Pentax APS-C:

Standard prime lens: DA 35 Limited - with bonus of close focus + highest quality.
Standard zoom lens: DA 18-135 - with bonus of extra focal length & WR.

Next purchase: DA 55-300 PLM


Philip

---

Last edited by MrB1; 12-11-2020 at 05:18 PM.

[Lhorn]

Thanks for all the thoughts. Lots of options to consider but is it safe to say 18-300 type lenses compromise image quality or speed too much to be recommended?

[ramseybuckeye]

Thanks for all the thoughts. Lots of options to consider but is it safe to say 18-300 type lenses compromise image quality or speed too much to be recommended?

I have only had a couple second hand examples of the lenses in that class and I found them to be not very good. Personally I would steer clear of them.

[BigMackCam]

Thanks for all the thoughts. Lots of options to consider but is it safe to say 18-300 type lenses compromise image quality or speed too much to be recommended?

Any "superzoom" lens is full of compromises. That said, like any other lens, it has its place.

I used to own the Pentax DA18-270 and now have the Sigma 18-300. The latter is a better lens optically, and really quite good - for what it is. There are occasions (not many, but a few) where it's preferable because I don't need to swap lenses whilst out and about, and on those occasions the convenience is what matters most to me. It's a great travel lens if you're going to be shooting in strong light, and centre resolution at most focal lengths is actually pretty decent. That said, when optical quality is more important than outright convenience, a good two zoom kit is usually much better... the compromise then being that you might need to swap lenses every now and then. A handful of good primes would be better still - but the compromise is that you're swapping out lenses even more often, and having to move around a lot more when framing.

Every lens (or lens combination) is a compromise in one or more ways. The trick is identifying what matters to you most with the fewest or most acceptable compromises for what you intend to shoot. Generally speaking, a good quality two zoom combo can be decent enough optically for most use cases, whilst not compromising much on convenience...

---

Last edited by BigMackCam; 12-12-2020 at 04:25 AM.

[ramseybuckeye]

if some one wants a " Mutt and Jeff " combo

[ Mutt and jeff | Definition of Mutt and jeff at Dictionary.com ]



the DA 40XS

plus

the D FA 150-450mm

I love the Mutt and Jeff analogy, I'm old enough to remember the comic strip.

[UncleVanya]

Thanks for all the thoughts. Lots of options to consider but is it safe to say 18-300 type lenses compromise image quality or speed too much to be recommended?

These days a superzoom compact is probably a better use of money. They do however have a use if you are happy with your controls and workflow and prefer using the DSLR and have reasonable expectations - go for it. Just don't expect the same optical quality of smaller range zooms.

[Des]

The intended use is a little bit of everything, family portraits, landscape, vacation photos, wildlife, etc.

Once you have settled on the wide-normal lens, wth wildlife in the equation the other lens has to be the 55-300PLM.

It's great as a lightweight, compact, affordable entry into wildlife photography.








It turns out to be very good for landscapes and a lot of other things as well.






It's a simple choice IMO.

After the first two, my next wants would be a wider lens and maybe a 1.4x converter to do some mild wildlife, bird photography etc.

Hold off on the teleconverter idea. The DA 1.4x TC is quite expensive. TCs are made to be paired with wider-aperture lenses than the 55-300 - a 1.4x TC costs one stop of light, so your f6.3 at 300mm becomes effectively 420mm f9. I know people here have got good results with that combination but you would need really good light. At that point you are better off looking at a DA*300 f4, which can be paired with the TC for 420mm f5.6, which is a much better option.

Save this for another thread when the time comes, but for the money you might get more bang for buck with a second hand lens in Nikon F-mount mounted on the D3100 than any of the AF 400mm+ options in K-mount.

[DWS1]

The DA16-85 plus DA55-300 PLM would make an excellent combo in terms of uninterrupted focal length range, image quality across that range, quiet AF and weather resistance.

My choice as well.

[pres589]

I'd grab a DA 50 f1.8 per the OP's mention of portraits. It's also the kind of lens that will be capable of things that cell phones really can't do very well even today; shallow DoF and nicely rendered background as well as grabbing more available light. The little DA 50's light weight and low cost are great benefits as well.

I'd add the Pentax 18-135 as well. There's a number of other alternatives that are all great. I like the 18-135's general rendering quality which in most conditions acts exactly as I'd like. Sometimes backgrounds can be busy, and it goes soft at longer focal lengths, but it's such a great all-arounder that I can't see going with something else. And it covers such a wide zoom range that it should help a new shooter figure out what focal length to target with another lens down the road.

[someasiancameraguy]

On second thought another good combo would be:

Sigma 18-35 1.8 - Pentax* 50-135 2.8

27-200 equivalent, fast aperture at all lengths, relatively modern lenses with great optics and motors

[ehrwien]

If you were just starting out with Pentax auto focus lens and wanted good IQ, reasonable price and jack of all trades ability from 2 lenses, what would they be? From reviews I’m getting the impression DA 18-135 and DA 55-300 PLM would be a popular choice. Any others? Doesn’t have to be Pentax branded lenses. Doesn’t have to be weather sealed but all things otherwise being equal, WR would be a bonus.

Some combinations that are worth thinking about, imho:

1) Sigma (Tamron) 17-50/2.8 + DA 55-300 PLM
The 18-135 seems like the obvious choice for a one lens kit. But for a two lens kit with the other lens being the 55-300 PLM, I think the overlap would be too much. The 16-85 is quite a bit more expensive, so I don't think it'd match your "reasonable price" requirement. I'd recommend pairing the PLM with a Sigma 17-50. You lose WR, but you gain some sharpness and, most of all, the constant 2.8 aperture. 50/2.8 is already quite a good tool to separate your subject from the background. I personally got the Sigma and I think it's considered to be the best of the bunch, but the Tamron is said not to be a slouch either and I think it's a bit cheaper than the Sigma.

2) DA 18-135 + DA 50/1.8 (F / FA 50/1.4)
18-135 as the most versatile zoom lens covering a good focal length range, combined with the "nifty fifty" for bokeh, low light, portraits. It's a bit less flexible being a 50mm lens on APS-C, but offers the most potential for subject separation. It's plastic-y, but even new very cheap. If you're not opposed to buying used (with all the pros and cons connected to that), I suggest not only looking for the 18-135 used, they can often be had for bargain prices; I'd also keep my eyes open for an F 50/1.4 or FA 50/1.4. If you're lucky, you can find them (the FA mostly) for the same price used as you'd pay for the DA 50/1.8 new (I was lucky enough). They offer even more potential for creamy bokeh.

...

x) DA 18-135 (once again) + DA 15
You can find the 15 used for what I would consider great prices, but it's mostly the "red ring" HD version. You gain a little flare resistance, but lose out on the starbust potential of the older "green ring" SMC version. It would round out your 18-135 on the wide end of things, is pretty compact and pocketable and if you go out with the 18-135 on the camera, you can always take the 15 with you "just in case". BUT I think it's mostly an f/8 lens, with not being known for sharpness, or rather "edge-to-edge" sharpness. I've considered getting one a few times, but I'm rather preoccupied with the concept of sharpness and not much of a landscape guy. I'm slowly just starting to value other lens properties besides sharpness more and more, perhaps someday I'll be ready for a 15, but perhaps that day is so far in the future that we've already gotten the DFA 21 WR for full frame. I doubt I'd still get the 15 for crop if that lens turns out to be what we hope for.

[Lhorn]

Thanks for all the recommendations. A lot of compelling arguments. I think the 55-300 PLM will definitely be the choice longer zoom and prob my second lens.
For the first lens I really like what I’ve seen and has been said about the 16-85 but unless I run across a great deal it appears it’ll cost a fair bit more than the 18-135. Current eBay prices have the 16-85 costing about 2.5-3x more than the 18-135.

Getting ahead of myself and starting to think about primes, the DA 50 seems hard to pass up for the crazy low price. I really like my Nikon 50/1.8 and expect that I’ll like the Pentax version too
Thanks