[Photos-by-Chas]

DFA28-105 on the (crop) KP. I reckon it's OK

I'd say those look a few steps up from okay. Nice photos.

[mikesbike]

You can check out the capabilities of the very versatile DA 18-135mm on this thread in the SLR lens section- "DA 18-135mm WR, Show us what it can do". I advise starting with the highest, most recent page number and go backwards. AF with this lens is very reliably fast, silent, and accurate.

When browsing through these many examples, you might notice that with good shots via more recent, higher-resolution camera models, this lens reveals the improved resolution. So the most impressive results for better detail and sharpness with well-presented good subject matter will be from camera models of 16mp or more, namely the K-5 IIs, K-S2, K-3, K-70, K-3 II, and KP. All of these models avoid employing an AA filter in order to achieve better fine detail. This proves the merit of this lens, that its capabilities are not outmatched by the latest camera technology!

[Photos-by-Chas]

You can check out the capabilities of the very versatile DA 18-135mm on this thread in the SLR lens section- "DA 18-135mm WR, Show us what it can do". I advise starting with the highest, most recent page number and go backwards. AF with this lens is very reliably fast, silent, and accurate.

Agreed. That is the lens that came with my K70 and I have found it very efficient and versatile. A very nice lens.

[Sandy Hancock]

For what it's worth, I'll be pairing my "Single In Challenge" lens - the full frame DFA24-70 - with my brand spanking new K-3 Mark III for the rest of the month,

I hope the results will confirm that full frame lenses go just fine with crop cameras

[mikesbike]

For what it's worth, I'll be pairing my "Single In Challenge" lens - the full frame DFA24-70 - with my brand spanking new K-3 Mark III for the rest of the month,

I hope the results will confirm that full frame lenses go just fine with crop cameras

Should be fine. And I like the short end being 24mm instead of 28mm, as this will still provide some meaningful wide angle on APS-C. I've used 24mm on APS-C many times, and find it to be a very useful FL. As a FF reference, a 35-105mm f/2.8 would not be a bad setup!

[Sandy Hancock]

As a FF reference, a 35-105mm f/2.8 would not be a bad setup!

I am well aware of the 35-105's "stack of primes" reputation

[Lowell Goudge]

Should be fine. And I like the short end being 24mm instead of 28mm, as this will still provide some meaningful wide angle on APS-C. I've used 24mm on APS-C many times, and find it to be a very useful FL. As a FF reference, a 35-105mm f/2.8 would not be a bad setup!

If someone is looking for wide angle on APSC I think 24 mm is not really “meaningful”. It is equivalent to 35 mm on full frame.

When i shot film, (same FOV as full frame) for many years the bottom end was 24 mm and I found that was never wide enough. When I moved to digital my *istD came with an FA-J18-35. My use of that lens was to put it on my PZ1 and shoot film for wide angle, and use my FA28-105 on the digital body. I shot a mix of film and digital until I got the Sigma 10-20.

[Sandy Hancock]

If someone is looking for wide angle on APSC I think 24 mm is not really “meaningful”. It is equivalent to 35 mm on full frame.

Since when is 35mm full frame equivalent NOT a wide angle? Have the rules changed?

When I was a lad, 40-60 was considered normal. Anything wider than that was wide (duh!). Anything wider than 24 was *ultra* wide....

And, by the way, the OP said 28mm wasn't wide enough. 24 is quite a bit wider....

[Bertrand3000]

28mm to 30mm is considered as a "normal lens" on APS-C. So anything below 28mm is wide angle.

[Photos-by-Chas]

If someone is looking for wide angle on APSC I think 24 mm is not really “meaningful”. It is equivalent to 35 mm on full frame.

When i shot film, (same FOV as full frame) for many years the bottom end was 24 mm and I found that was never wide enough. When I moved to digital my *istD came with an FA-J18-35. My use of that lens was to put it on my PZ1 and shoot film for wide angle, and use my FA28-105 on the digital body. I shot a mix of film and digital until I got the Sigma 10-20.

When I began taking photos with a SLR my camera came with a 55mm 1.8 lens as the "normal" lens. A year or so later I bought a 35mm 2.8 which was considered a wide angle. Now very few DSLRs are sold with a prime lens of any length and the kit lens has, until recently, has been a 18-55 for APS-C which is considered to be a wide to normal lens.

[UncleVanya]

Hi Jim

The 16 - 85 seems to be the ' better ' option
Choices abound depending on what range and how many lenses you are happy to carry to get it.
Next week who knows what Pentax will bring to the table.


Dave

The way to select between them is summarized this way in my opinion:

1) need wider than 18 on your walk about lens? Choose 16-85.

2) need greater than 85mm for mostly central subjects (portraits and such for example)? Choose 18-135.

3) is weight a big issue? Size? Choose 18-135.

4) need 16-18mm infrequently but more than 86-135? Choose 16-85.

5) cash strapped? Choose 18-135.

On item 2 you can crop the 16-85 but this is generally less pleasing than using the 18-135 natively at 86-135.

You can’t really go wrong unless you’re looking for 95-135 with wide open edge to edge sharpness. Neither of these will give that.

[Bertrand3000]

The way to select between them is summarized this way in my opinion:

Those are excellent points. I should add some more points :

1) Do you already have the 55-300 PLM or another high quality telephoto (like the 50-135 or 60-250)? Choose 16-85.

2) Do you have the 11-18 or another high quality wide angle (Sigma 8-16, Sigma 10-20, Pentax 12-24), but no excellent telephoto? Choose 18-135.

3) Do you have 62mm filters, or do you need high quality filters without spending too much? Choose 18-135.

4) Do you need the best sharpness, especially off-center? Choose 16-85.

5) Do you dislike changing lens unless absolutely necessary, and like to zoom in? Choose 18-135. Even if I love my 16-85, and use both 16mm (and more often) and 85mm, I feel the latter a bit too restricted.

Another possibility to consider is the Sigma 17-70. It is not as wide as the 16-85, nor telephoto enough as both Pentax lenses, nor WR, but its distinctive feature is to be faster F2.8 at 17, and F4 or F4.5 at 70, depending on version.

[Paul the Sunman]

For what it's worth, I'll be pairing my "Single In Challenge" lens - the full frame DFA24-70 - with my brand spanking new K-3 Mark III for the rest of the month,

I hope the results will confirm that full frame lenses go just fine with crop cameras

But not necessarily vice versa.

[photogem]

Again, don't forget the old DA16-45 ED (if in good condition).

I have very few zooms, but the 16-45 is one of them.
The other DA20-40ltd (great lens), a Sigma 10-20/3,5 and the great DA55-300PLM
But aside of the DA55-300PLM I use mainly primes.

[Sandy Hancock]

But not necessarily vice versa.

Indeed. But that's not the subject of this thread