| Author: | | New Member Registered: December, 2013 Posts: 7
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: June 8, 2019 | Recommended | Price: $400.00
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | Sharp, convenient, good AF, WR | | Cons: | Quite big with hood attached, distortion | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 6
Autofocus: 9
Handling: 9
Value: 7
New or Used: New
Camera Used: k70
| |
The focal range is just fantastically convenient. If I need to go away with just one lens, I know it will work in most situations. I was using an 18-135mm, but I tended to not use it much past 100mm anyway, as the sharpness would drop off a bit. I also find the extra 2mm at the wide end useful.
It's a workhorse lens.
The sharpness is very reliable. I have sharper primes, but they are primes. The AF is not blindingly fast, but there is no hunting, it's accurate, and it's quiet. There is a fair bit of wonky distortion at the wide end, but that mostly disappears by 20mm or so.
If I have a criticism, it's that it can lack a tiny little bit of....err....something. Don't get me wrong I have taken some lovely shots with it. It can give fantastic detailed landscapes with really convincing greens. The 18-135 is definitely softer, and you have to shoot over f8 between 25mm-100mm to get anything like the image quality. But I felt my 18-135 was sometimes a bit punchier, and my 20-40mm definitely has more prime-like 3D depth. If my composition and lighting are right, the images are great, but I feel like the magic comes from the vision rather than the lens. Maybe that's what you get with a well corrected, consistent, modern style zoom, and maybe it's a good thing...?
Update;
Having looked back through some shots, there is definitely a drab 2D look which is very obvious, and tends to happen at the wide end in flat light. I might experiment with using generally a slightly wider aperture at the wide end and see if this helps. Certainly mid to long focal lengths seem to have much more pop, and scenes with more beautiful light will work well throughout the range.
Update 2;
I have found that I can get a bit more of a sense of 3D by shooting at around 5.6 rather than 8-9, which still gives reasonable depth of field at the wide end. However, to be honest I'm struggling to love this lens. I do feel that many people prize sharpness above all else, but for me a classy lens controls highlights and shadows more subtly than this one does. It's a sharp lens but without good rendering it can give an ugly confusing mess, with overcooked contrast in bright fine details, or a flat 2D look in low contrast scenes. My old SMC A35-105mm is so much better at rendering subtle tone gradations, giving beautiful believable colours, reach into the picture 3D depth, and it's ridiculously sharp to boot (although to be honest I think my copy is a freak because it is as sharp as my FA limiteds!). Unfortunately, it's manual focus, weighs a ton, isn't weather sealed, and doesn't have the wide end! Such a shame that despite ticking so many boxes as a do it all solution, the 16-85 just doesn't cut the mustard.
| | | | | | | Site Supporter Registered: December, 2015 Location: California Posts: 35
2 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: January 5, 2019 | Recommended | Price: $447.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | Sharp, beautiful color | | Cons: | Heavy | | Sharpness: 10
Aberrations: 10
Autofocus: 10
Handling: 8
Value: 10
New or Used: New
Camera Used: K-50
| |
I bought this as a travel lens, though it is heavier than I would prefer. The picture quality is amazing. It is as good or better than my 21mm prime and much better than my 35mm 2.4 prime. The focal range is a lot more versatile. I still use my 21mm when I want to carry something lighter. But for the weight, I would sell the 21mm and just use the 16-85.To show the color and clarity, I'm attaching a JPEGs that is straight out-of camera, at 16mm, with no processing.
As for the lens being "slow", I am attaching a second, straight-out-of camera unprocessed JPEG taken inside a relatively dark museum (Ufizzi) with no flash, at ISO 1600 on a K-50.  | | | | | New Member Registered: February, 2018 Posts: 12
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: September 28, 2018 | Recommended | Price: $400.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | Vallue For Money | | Cons: | Very few | | Sharpness: 10
Aberrations: 10
Bokeh: 7
Autofocus: 10
Handling: 10
Value: 10
New or Used: Used
Camera Used: K3ii
| |
Excellent lens for the money. Really sharp, the go-to walk around lens in so many circumstances. If you wanted to take all my lenses away apart from one, this would probably be the one I'd choose, as it's so versatile. Really light for the range and quality and handles really well. The AF is swift and silent. Difficult to find a negative, especially at the price!
 | | | | | Forum Member Registered: June, 2016 Location: Gislev Posts: 87
2 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: August 22, 2018 | Recommended
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | IQ, Ergonomics | | Cons: | Big, Double Cam Construction | |
An underrated Pentax Gem.
Up front: If you are looking for a lens this type for your Pentax Camera, GET IT! It will not let you down!
Pro: These days I don't bother hauling my Nikon D810 and its 24mm F1.4 around for anything at all. Why? Because this zoom on the K-3 II delivers photos on par with the pro Nikon full frame.
So I do recommend this lens highly!
To quote a review:
"It is an impressive lens which is easily as good if not better than similar offerings from Canon or Nikon. It is capable of producing surprisingly crisp and sharp images especially at medium aperture settings and the fairly low CAs contribute to the high quality perception.
...
The build quality is also on a high level with tight tolerances - that's despite the duo cam design (two inner lens tubes). Thanks to high quality plastics and nicely rubberized and smooth control rings, it's a joy to handle the lens out there. Some users may complain about the comparatively long size of the lens. While true you should keep in mind that there's surely a correlation to the high image quality here - big is simply often beautiful really. ..."
Weather and Dust-protection is a great thing to have, too. The autofocus is good and silent - but not blazingly fast.
I miss a focus scale, though.
It's a type of lens, I probably wouldn't buy, if it hadn't been part of the K-3 II-kit: I'm a prime lens-photographer.
And although the duo cam design works perfectly and with absolutely no wobble, it does make me uncomfortable ...
But then, there's the quality of the lens: Every time I look at the photos I make with it, i'm astonished at just how good and wonderful, they are - they are damned good. And I have to tell myself that I'm fortunate to have this lens and be a Pentax-user.
| | | | | | | Pentaxian Registered: May, 2016 Posts: 3,723
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: July 4, 2018 | Recommended | Price: $500.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | range, sharpness, close focus | | Cons: | large hood, front element wider than body | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 7
Autofocus: 10
Handling: 10
Value: 9
New or Used: New
Camera Used: k-3ii
| |
I got this lens as an alternative to primes, it's more convenient when traveling. It fits that purpose well, the focal range is very handy. Paired with another lens, it allows for a flexible two lens kit:
- with a prime depending on the situation (normal, portrait or macro)
- with the 55-300 to cover a wide range
- with the da 15 if I need even wider angle and less flare
Across the range it's sharp. At 85mm it's better to stop down to f8. At 16mm it has some chromatic aberration and distortion is visible, but darktable comes with effective lens correction presets.. Flare control is good, especially considering the number of elements. Compared to the da limiteds, it's probably as sharp, but the rendering and color are not as special.
Bokeh is rather busy in close-up photos if branches or grass are in the background, otherwise bokeh is smoother (but not exceptional). I'm not rating how blurry the background can get but how I perceive its quality, it's not a large aperture lens.
| | | | | Forum Member Registered: March, 2014 Posts: 53 | | Review Date: May 29, 2018 | Recommended
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Weight, wr, image quality, versatile, allroundlens | | Cons: | Build quality | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 6
Autofocus: 8
Handling: 9
Value: 8
New or Used: New
Camera Used: Pentax k3 and Pentax KP
| |
This is a very nice allround lens. If I only bring one lens, this is almost always my first choice. It has a versatile zoom range, wr, light weight and produces excellent pictures. I would preferred a konstant aperture at 1:4 in the whole zoom range.
For landscapes and cityscapes this is a very nice lens, and the low weight makes it easy to bring along when Iīm hiking in the mountains.
My biggest down with this lens is the build quality. I have used mine for little more than a year, and mine has begun to losen between the focus ring og the zoom ring, opposite the zoom scale. It is now a smal gap, and the sealing is visible.
I have treated this lens with great care, and it has not droppet to the ground or slammed into walls.
Itīs going inn for guarantee repairs.
I like the lens a lot, but the build quality could be a little better.
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: January, 2015 Location: Maryland Posts: 1,677
2 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: February 27, 2018 | Recommended | Price: $400.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | WR, Focal Range, Silent AF, HD coating | | Cons: | Awful lens hood... Pricey for what it is... Variable Aperature... | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 7
Autofocus: 9
Handling: 8
Value: 6
New or Used: Used
Camera Used: K-3ii
| |
I was looking for a walk around lens for an upcoming trip to Europe.
I'll update this review with photos once I get a chance to upload something worthy of showing the Pentax Community...
So far through initial testing and trials; here are my impressions:
I own the DA 15, HD-DA 35, HD-DA 70, DFA 100 WR, 1.4xTC, DA* 300
The DA 16-85 obviously doesn't compare to the limited primes, the DFA 100 WR or the DA* 300, but it's a beast in it's own way...
The test shots I took were impressive, and even at 16mm wide open it competed in sharpness to the DA15mm cropped to a similar field of view.
The variable aperture drops off quickly from F3.5 and makes me feel a bit cheated.
I would have loved to see an F4 constant for the price range this lens is sitting...
If you've shot the HD-DA 55-300, this lens feels very similar in build quality.
Those two lenses together would built a nice kit.
The lens hood is just awful in my opinion... It's bulky when reversed, which is fine, but it feels like it's going to break every time I put the hood on...
Maybe I'm just spoiled by the limited lenses retractable hoods, the DFA metal hood and the plastic but sturdy hood on the DA* 300...
All in all I'm happy enough with the lens to leave my DA35 and DA70 at home for the trip.
It will be nice to have a WR lens covering that 16-85mm focal range.
For what it's worth - I used to own the 18-135mm and I really did not like that lens.
I returned it and the second copy didn't do it for me either - soft in corners, IQ fell off drastically over 70mm on both copies.
The 16-85mm is much much better than the 18-135, in my opinion.
There are members here that would argue the cost difference doesn't make it worth the 'upgrade' and I may or may not agree depending on how much you pay for either one.
The 18-135 I got for $300 and the 16-85 for $400.
To me, the extra $100 is well worth it.
Would I pay retail for the 16-85 new?
Definitely not.
Would I buy it again for $400 used?
Probably, yes.
It's essentially a kit lens on steroids.
If they made it constant F4 with a more substantial lens hood and a sold it with a case (why would they leave this out?), they could have brought in a few more Pentaxians on this one in my honest opinion...
I'm still excited to have this for the trip.
I might just keep it around for the convenience of 16mm wide and WR with a focal range through normal and short telephoto.
I've just found over the years I prefer to shoot with primes when I have the luxury of keeping the "lab" (this is what my wife calls my collection of photography gear) in the car.
There is definitely something to be said for the versatility of this lens.
I'll give it an 8/10 overall
| | | | | New Member Registered: December, 2014 Posts: 16 | | Review Date: November 5, 2017 | Recommended | Price: $530.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Sharp even wide open through all ranges, excellent performance, solid, silent AF | | Cons: | rather expensive, plasticky, odd looking front element, smooth zoom ring might move during handling | | Sharpness: 10
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 7
Autofocus: 9
Handling: 9
Value: 10
New or Used: New
Camera Used: K-30
| |
I needed a new jack of all trades for a trip to Asia, since my kit 18-55 got a little messed up and wasn't weather resistant. I missed the wider end and telefoto during my last trips, where I had the Sigma 30mm f1.4 Art with me.
The ruggedness of the 16-85 paid off during the first Taifun with on/off showers, storm and whatnot. One less concern! K-30 and this lens make a good combo.
The AF and wide end made some snapshots possible from the hip, with only rough aiming. Since the K-30 is rather loud and clunky, this was the least obvious way, to take sneaky pictures.
Overall I am impressed by the optical performance. The Sigma is up to now the king of sharpness in my kit, but the 16-85 comes right after. With an AF, which actually hits! Throughout the whole range I am satisfied with contrast, sharpness and the hitrate of the AF. Weight is OK, balancing fair enough with the K-30.
During some situations I zoomed in or out unintended while handling the camera. The zoom ring is rather smooth, but could be a bit harder in my opinion. But thats a minor point.
I would recommend this lens to everyone, who needs a rather compact kit for rough weather and travelling. The bokeh is unforunately not the most flattering for portraits and the end of the telefoto range is limiting its versitility to some degree. But like buster2015 said: Just add a 135 prime (or 85 for all I care) and you good to go for shooting portraits!
| | | | | Site Supporter Registered: December, 2014 Location: Colorado Posts: 497
2 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: September 3, 2017 | Recommended | Price: $460.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | A do-everything-well lens | | Cons: | A bit slow | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 10
Bokeh: 8
Autofocus: 10
Handling: 9
Value: 8
New or Used: Used
Camera Used: K-5iis
| |
I used this lens on K-5iis for a short while before I purchased K-1. The most impressive aspect of this lens is that sharpness levels are high, uniform from center to corner, and the high performance persists for the entire range of zoom. Very low chromatic aberration. The range of this zoom (24-130 ish in 35mm sense) met 90% of my shooting needs. Unless you need ultra-wide or ultra-telephoto, add a 135 prime and you are set! WR and DC are just icings on this already very fine cake.
| | | | | Loyal Site Supporter Registered: July, 2016 Location: Roskilde, Denmark Posts: 2,624 | | Review Date: July 8, 2017 | Recommended | Price: $611.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | Sharp, fast, silent | | Cons: | weight | | Sharpness: 10
Aberrations: 10
Bokeh: 10
Autofocus: 10
Handling: 10
Value: 10
New or Used: New
Camera Used: K-S2
| |
This has become my new everyday lens. Of course the weight is a con when walking around, but I like the zoom-facility. This lens replaced my 18-50 DA-L lens, which came with my camera, - and what a jump in quality :-)
| | | | | New Member Registered: January, 2012 Location: Budapest Posts: 13 | | Review Date: July 4, 2017 | Recommended
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | super sharp everywhere | | Cons: | red ring; not parfocal, no distance scale | | Sharpness: 10
Aberrations: 10
Bokeh: 9
Autofocus: 10
Handling: 9
Value: 10
New or Used: New
Camera Used: K-5
| |
Why not green? 
 | | | | | Loyal Site Supporter Registered: December, 2016 Location: Silverstone Posts: 331
2 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: January 8, 2017 | Recommended | Price: $550.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Colour rendition, sharpness | | Cons: | Weight, slow speed | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 6
Autofocus: 9
Handling: 9
Value: 8
New or Used: New
Camera Used: K-S2
| |
I bought this lens as a direct upgrade of my 18-55 II kit lens. There have been some very good deals lately, especially here in the UK, and I managed to find an "open box" copy.
I was looking for weather resistance, silent focusing, better IQ and a wider range. The 16-85 delivered all of those.
My copy is not as sharp at 16mm as it is by 21mm, then it is really sharp through to 70mm or so, before losing a bit of IQ. The long end has better contrast than the short end. The colour rendition is particularly good.
I was not looking for a substantial increase in overall weight. Compared to the 18-55 II, the 16-85 is quite a chunk.
 | | | | | Forum Member Registered: February, 2014 Posts: 87
4 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: May 15, 2016 | Recommended | Price: $680.00
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | Very useful focal range; good sharpness, fast, silent and reliable focusing, great contrast and colours, weather-proofing | | Cons: | slow aperture, too expensive (in Europe), hood too big, quality issue with my copy | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 7
Bokeh: 4
Autofocus: 9
Handling: 5
Value: 3
New or Used: New
Camera Used: Pentax K-5 IIs
| |
I bought this lens for the purpose of my Iceland trip. I have an allround zoom - Sigma 17-70mm/2,8-4, but knowing the wet conditions I intended to shoot in in Iceland I wanted a weather-proof zoom. So I gave this Pentax a try. First it started with a dissapointment straight by unpacking: the rubber seal on the inside barrel which extends during zooming didnīt hold in itīs place, so the weather-sealing was questionable. However I had no time to return the lens and wait for new one so I took it with me. I shot more than 1000 photos on my trip and my impressions are much better than I expected. Since I shot solely outside (landscapes), the slow lens speed was no issue. What was important, the lens survived some serious showers as well as waterfall mist without problems (I am sure this would have ruined my Sigma). The focal range is very universal, 16mm being great for wide landscapes and 85mm fairly usefull for distant objects or animals.
What is most important is optical quality and here the lens surprised the most. The lens is really sharp, I couldnīt see a difference in sharpness between it and the HD DA 15mm Limited. What is more the lens is sharp throughout the focal range, compared to my Sigma 17-70 much sharper at both ends. The contrast is great, the colours are vivid. The HD coating efectively fights with flare. Of course there is some visible barrel distortion especially at wide end, but no big deal. Focusing is fast, silent and reliable, I encountered absolutely no focus hunting. Quick-shift focus is also nice to have (something I miss on my Sigma).
I still have to process RAWs and pixel-peep the pictures, the fist look at the pics on 17,6" screen of my new laptop is very promising though. I will be posting some pics here in PF gallery.
Generally the lens surprised me. I didnīt expect much, but the outcome is great, especially landscape pictures. Of course given the slow speed this lens is not suitable for low-light shooting nor for portraits and blurred background. But for what it is aimed at - outdoor shooting where universal allround lens is required - it is close to perfect.
As far as downsides are concerned: the lens is quite expensive (in Europe), I paid 631 EUR for it which is pretty much for a slow variable aperture zoom. The luminosity itself is not great, especially compared to the new Nikon counterpart (which is able to offer f2,8-4). The issue with the seal indicates the quality control is still not pefect. The lens hood is pretty big and inpractical when reverted, making the lens big for storage.
Because of the seal issue I sent it back, but apart from that the lens convinced me and I plan to buy new one again (as soon as I sell my Sigma 17-70). And since I have the fast Sigma 18-35mm, I wonīt mind the slow variable aperture.
     [IMG]https://www.pentaxforums.com/gallery/images/67120/1_IMGP9628.jpg[IMG]
| | | | | Site Supporter Registered: July, 2008 Location: Baltimore, Maryland Posts: 11,590
3 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: January 14, 2016 | Recommended | Price: $540.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | Solid IQ, Easy to handle | | Cons: | Within specs, none. | |
Within specs, this is really an excellent lens, delivering superior IQ. It's not fast so it won't deliver shallow DOF shots--but you knew that right?
It was my most used lens on my recent trip to Cancun, giving way to other, specialized, lenses when I needed telephoto, fast or UWA. It's definitely going to be my main knock-about lens for the foreseeable future.
FWIW while it's hard to squeeze bokeh out of this lens given the aperture limitation but when you are able to get enough separation between the subject & background, the oof areas are quite nice--maybe not exquisitely buttery, but certainly calm.
| | | | | Pentaxian Registered: August, 2011 Location: Melbourne Posts: 4,842
8 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: January 4, 2016 | Recommended | Price: $447.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | Even sharpness, good control of aberrations | | Cons: | Wide hood | | Sharpness: 10
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 9
Autofocus: 10
Handling: 10
Value: 9
New or Used: New
Camera Used: K3
| |
I was impressed by this lens when it made its first (unexpected) appearance in late 2014, and am even more impressed now having used my own copy over the last week to photograph fireworks, flowers, people, and architecture. The sharpness approaches a very good prime, and is remarkably even across the frame.The bokeh is smooth and very attractive. Aberrations are well controlled, with only minor CA near the edges. The barrel distortion at 16mm is almost gone by 21mm, and is easily corrected. Autofocus is fast, accurate, and unobtrusive. In summary, there is nothing not to like in this lens, though of course one could always wish for more speed.
The common comparator of the DA 16-85 is the DA 18-135. They look very similar and are built to similar high standards. However, the 16-85 is clearly superior optically. The 18-135 is noticeably soft at the edges and prone to CA there; the 16-85 is pin-sharp, and CA is both less common and less pronounced. Now, I LOVE the 18-135; it's a terrific travel lens, but in most respects it is bettered by the 16-85. Perhaps the only area where the older lens wins (depending on your taste) is its more vibrant colour rendition. On a sunny blue-sky day, the 18-135 seems to have its own built-in polarizing filter; the 16-85 too, but less so. The 16-85 is slightly bigger and slightly heavier than the 18-135, but nothing too noticeable. It is not a big lens when you compare it with what you see on Canons or Nikons.
Of course, the biggest difference between the two lenses is the (defining) focal length range. Anyone looking to purchase one or other of these lenses should primarily be concerned with whether they need or prefer the extra 50mm at the long end of the 18-135, or the extra 2mm at the short end of the 16-85, and then secondarily with the optical quality. Balancing off 2mm with 50mm seems an uneven contest, but that 2mm really does translate to a substantially wider field of view. My perspective is that if I were limited to one WR zoom while travelling, I would take the 18-135. However, if I had the 55-300 or equivalent with me too, I'd take the 16-85 instead, even if I also had the DA 15 Ltd with me as well (I never go anywhere without the DA15).
Whereas my copy of the DA 18-135 is just on the verge of zoom creep, the 16-85 is by comparison very stiff. There is no danger of creep with this lens.
I also like the new-style lens cap on the DA 16-85. It's big and easy to handle. The only very minor complaint is that the hood is very wide when attached to the lens in reverse for storage in a bag, making the fit a little awkward at times.
All round, I really can't see any reason not to give this lens full marks, relative to price.
UPDATE: After a lot of shots at a sand sculpture exhibition, in brilliant sunshine, I retain my view that this lens is an excellent all-rounder. However, do not expect it to rival the DA15 at its short end. Although sharp enough at 16mm, it lacks the prime's punch there, which is not surprising for a 5.3x zoom. My limited sampling of focal lengths so far suggests the 16-85 is particularly strong from 20-60mm, but really, you have to pixel peep pretty hard to see any flaws beyond that range.
| | |
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
