Originally posted by Lhorn 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.