If I only knew...

[k_kakkinen]

<p>....that Pentax won't release my dream lens of 16-85 f2,8-4 WR in the near future then I would aim for the new 18-135 til' that day...</p>

<p>But, still I'm not sure about how good that lens really is....I mean... I haven't found that much tests or pictures on the net....yet.</p>

<p>Anyone here got it ? Then I really would like to have some feedback from you....please.</p>

<p>My main lens at this time is the 16-45 f4 and I like it a lot but sometimes during my photgraphy I would have wanted a bit more zoom...<br>

Awhile ago I was aiming for the 17-70 but changed my mind since it's not a WR lens...I mean...why have a WR camera but not WR lenses.</p>

[LenMarriott]

<p>Kari, While you are trying to decide which lens is the best for you I offer some words of wisdom from a professional photographer, Michael Reichmann. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/sharp.shtml His observation that "Most Lenses are Better than Most Photographers" is worth pondering, though predictably not universally embraced. Best, LM.</p>

[lee_w2]

<p>FWIW, I have compared test shots with my da16-45, da18-135, da55-300 and da18-55 WR. As expected the 18-55 was the lowest rating in my outdoor shots. The da16-45, which I continue to rave about, and the da18-135 appeared about the same which is saying a lot for the da18-135. Above 100mm however the da18-135 is out of its sweet spot as the da55-300 is sharper althought the color appears similar. I did not test for PF/CA.<br>

So for a WR walkaround, the da18-135 will satisfy, particularly at the wide end. If the day is going to be mostly at the long end, save money and just use the da55-300. That said, I shot a college basketball game with the da18-135 just because i could with the K-5. Not a fast lens but maybe my most versitile. If it was $399 MSRP it would be a total no brainer buy. If you don't need WR, the 16-45 and 55-300 combo will provide slightly better IQ. IMHO of course.</p>

[r.t. dowling]

<p>http://forum.photozone.de/index.php?/topic/711-pentax-18-135mm/</p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>Have patience. The Pentax 18-135mm WR is too new to know the whole story, without test reports and more user feedback. A bit pricy too, for an average-speed superzoom with less range than others of 18-200mm with similar speed. A 16-85mm f/2.8-4 would have to be a good deal larger than your lens or the 17-70mm f/4, and no doubt more expensive.</p>

<p>Although it does have substantially more tele than your 16-45mm, it does not have as much wide angle. I see the new lens as being an extended version of the 18-55mm WR kit lens with a new AF motor, and possibly a little better optics, especially between 18-100mm. Its maximum aperture may remain pretty good up to around 70mm or so. It is quite compact for having such a range, and would go nicely on a smaller camera body. If you are looking for maximum compactness, with extra reach in an all around zoom with WR, that is the appeal of the new lens. Which camera are you now using?</p>

<p>The excellent DA* 50-135mm f/2.8 is an alternative WR consideration that would make a great match with your present lens, which is also optically of very high quality. It is a larger lens, but compact for what it is. I take this lens, used together with my Sigma 24-60mm f/2.8 EX DG (which is not WR), when I want maximum quality and speed. But a good, versatile kit lens is great for times when lightest possible packing is important, and/or when you'll need zoom range and opportunity for changing lenses will be a problem.</p>

[k_kakkinen]

<p>Thanks Len!...<br>

This was good.... <em><strong>"Buy the lens that fits within your budget and that meets the needs of the type of shooting that you do. Most of all, stop worrying and just enjoy doing your photography"</strong></em><br>

<em><strong><br /></strong></em><br>

Lee...<br>

Your comparing sounds good...and to be honest, I don't think that in my "kind of" photgraphy I necessarily need those last 35mm of the18-135 lens BUT since it's there I of course want to use it too .... Thanks!<em><strong> </strong></em><br>

<em><strong><br /></strong></em><br>

At DPReview's Pentax forum there is one photographer that took a lot of pictures with his 18-135 when he visited New Orleans and those pictures looked good but what I really wanted was to see them in "full size" on my 24" computer screen to be able to evaluate the quality of the lens....<em><strong><br /></strong></em></p>

[k_kakkinen]

<p><strong>R.T.</strong> ....<br>

Have read that.... which makes me a bit disappointed.... I will wait and see what Klaus writes about the 18-135 lens when he gets it fixed....</p>

<p><strong>Michael</strong>.....<br>

Yes, I will have patience.....that is what I have been feeling for awhile now.... I know that my "dream lens" would be expensive....but I have saved up "a lot" of money to be able to buy that expensive kind of lens.....</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>I think it's a fairly safe bet that you won't see that dream 16-85/2.8-4 from Pentax in the near future (if ever). Even if another standard zoom choice pops up (And Pentax keeps making more!) chances are that one will have something imperfect about it too. There's lots of shooting to do with whatever you can scrounge up today.</p>

<p>Since I have both the 16-45/4 and 17-70/4, my $0.02...the 17-70 feels significantly better-built (and includes o-ring for sealing the lens mount) and is comparable in the overlapping range, possibly a bit better in terms of CA...maybe slightly worse in terms of distortion but considering that it's a 4.1x zoom, not bad at all. Some will prefer the 7-rounded-blade aperture on the 17-70, though I sort of like the 16-45's 8-pointed highlights/sunstars myself. The SDM focusing is pretty nice when it's working--I haven't had any faults but do sometimes find it tricky to lock focus at the longer end, sometimes it helps to add a just little friction to the ring with your finger to help prevent hunting/failure to lock...I think you'll find by reading others' comments on this lens that I'm not alone. The 16-45 is better in this regard and is more manual-focus friendly with longer focus path. I consider the more typical extend-for-longer-focal-length design a little preferable, though I'm not sure why it should matter--perhaps just that the 16-45's design strikes me as a little odd. Either one of these lenses are solutions to the weak wide angle (vignetting, etc.) on the kit lens. The 17-70/4 price has come down quite a bit; the 18-135 probably will as well but it'll probably take a year at least for this to happen.</p>

<p> </p>

[k_kakkinen]

<p>Andrew....</p>

<p>I like what you wrote.....and hope that you're wrong when you say <em><strong>(if ever)</strong></em>...</p>

<p>Wonder what had happend if Pentax and Samsung had continued their cooperation since Samsung is about to release a NX 16-80 3,5-4,5 OIS lens...I would have accepted that 16-80 as well but with "better" apeture and of course WR....</p>

<p>I didn't know that there was an o-ring on the 17-70....What does it mean in "real life" ?...since it isn't WR....can it "endure" more rain drops than for instace the 16-45 ?</p>

<p>....anyway Thanks!</p>

[r.t. dowling]

<p>In real life, I'm not sure if rain drops would actually get inside your camera even if the lens <em>didn't</em> have an o-ring. Most rain drops are too large to be able to fit between the camera mount and the lens mount. However, what the o-ring might do is help keep dust from getting in your camera (and on the sensor). So that's a definite plus.</p>

[thebs]

<p>My new DA 18-135 WR is giving me as good of shots as my DA 16-45. The only thing that bests it is my former DA* 16-50 f/2.8 (which was damaged last year).</p>

[lauren_macintosh]

<p>Try this thread http://www.photo.net/pentax-camera-forum/00Y5dp for a lot of good answers for the 18-135mm WR lens</p>