DAL 16-85 WR

This lens is priced at £499.00 but is bundled with the K3-II at £999.00, i.e. £250.00 plus body which sounds a real bargain. This compared to the 18-135 WR priced £379.00 but bundled with the K3-II for £1049.00. The latter is a smaller more versatile every-day lens but does anyone have any experience to compare?

reading around the 16-85mm wins apart from size and doesn't reach as far (to 135)

photozone liked it

http://www.photozone.de/pentax/903-pentax_1685_3556?start=2

there are some comparisons here (if you scroll down to Heie's review)

http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/hd-pentax-da-16-85mm-f35-56-ed-dc-wr.htm...

The £999 k-3ii + 16-85 does seem a good deal, given that the k-3ii body has never been below 700 yet and might never go beneath 500 new from a shop

Have you got the designation right in the title here? DAL implies the budget series with plastic mount .... But the 16-85 is a high quality new lens with HD coatings, I thought .... Is it not the DA HD 16-85 you mean? .... Apologies if there are two versions I'm not aware of.

The pricing seems crazy but, given that is the way they are, the K-3II + 16-85 looks like a great bargain.

Cheers.
Philip

It is a great price for the 16-85 bundled with the K3II. The lens on its own seems very expensive..should imagine it'll be heavily discounted come Christmas. Best price I can find online is £389 including free next day delivery from Microglobe.

I bought the bundle you're referring to, and the 16-85 is an astonishing lens. I'm a prime person (wanted to have at least one WR lens for storms) and it has thoroughly won me over IQ-wise.

sorry, you are right. it is 16-85mm f3.5-5.6 HD ED DC WR DA.

Since I got it, I find the DA 16-85 is mounted on the camera a lot. The range is very useful and the quality is very good. It is bigger and heavier than the 18-135. On the whole I find the extra 2mm at the wide end to be useful and the lack of reach less of a problem than I thought I would on the 16-85. The image quality on the 16-85 is definitely better than the 18-135.

I also have the 18-135 which is smaller, lighter and has a bit more on the long end. Where the 18-135 scores is when I will be carrying the camera all day in the mountains. It offers a compact lens with greater reach and still works well when there is plenty of light. Whilst test charts show it is not the best lens, it does have qualities that produce really good landscape pictures. The sharpest lens will not always produce the best pictures after all!

So you pays your money and you takes you choice. I'm just glad I have both!

How do you feel it compares with the DA*16-50? Seems to be very good but is there enough difference to justify the relative costs?

i would imagine the extra cost of 16-50 is down to the constant f2.8 available as much as anything

being a DA* the 16-50 should also have superior weather sealing to the DA lenses

I'm also very tempted by this lens, but used 16-50's can be had for less. Have any got any experience of using both?

Regards
Adrian

I have both lenses. They both offer good IQ and are of broadly similar size and weight. It is really a question of which is more important to you - constant f2.8 or greater range. The other issue is reliability. My 16-85 has not let me down yet but the 16-50 has spent more time in repair than on the camera. Even the supposedly new upgraded SDM motor failed in days (I appreciate that I may have been particularly unlucky). So I would advise that if you really want the 16-50 buy new so that you have the guarantee. Personally I am more pleased with the 16-85.

Am very very tempted by this lens, but I have to say there aren't that many reviews around. I'm surprised there isn't more talk on the forum about it, looks like a really great quality lens. Perhaps too expensive?!?