the good and the bad

Ok you lovely folks out there i have a delemer
what to replace my 17/70 with as most off you have or have been useing thes lenses you would have come a cross problems and even faults to look out for in the future (oh and i will be buying new which will be music to chris's ears down at srs) might even sneak in a crafty 10/17 fisheye while herindors is not looking

to buy a 16/85 or a 18/135
so befor any of you say the good bit is that it as the word Pentax on it that dont count lol or i wouldnt be on here

I have the 18-135 and it is my standard lens now. The quality is not as good as the 17-70 but I just can't stand the focussing problems with that any more.
If I had some spare cash I'd trade in the 17-70 for the 16-85 which is a range that would suit me better, but I have no idea of the quality, so I shall read this thread with interest.

i have the sudden death sindrom of the moter so dont have much choice really

Does this mean it has to be a Pentax lens?

My SDM is still fine, but it hates focussing now in anything but really good light. It hunts continuously and drives me nuts. I use it in MF sometimes, but my eyes are not what they were. Hence the use of the 18-135, which is a good lens, don't get me wrong, but it doesn't the same feel and quality to the photos that you get from the 17-70, which, image quality speaking, is probably better than it should be for the price.

I dug out an old Sigma screw drive the other day and was astounded by it, I haven't used it for a long time. Not sure I like the noise for some situations, having got used to the silent drives, but it is now back in use.

I'm still interested to hear what folks say of the 16-85.

.

Well there is not a lot of choice in that focal length thanks to the muppet accountants in the third party range think they are taking back ganders from canon and nikon

I have both lenses in question. Both are good.
18-135 very compact and great zoom range. Produces great looking photographs but not for pixel peepers, great performance in the centre of the image with edges following on behind, some way behind. Dependant on focal length the great centre part of the image can be quite a small percentage of the total image area. I do however like it. My lens came with a body deal, thought I'd sell it on but it's so handy I've kept it.

16-85 larger, heavier, nice to have the noticeably wider angle, much better performance across the frame but mine is not sharper in the centre of the frame than the 18-135. Sometimes I get to 85mm and get frustrated with running out of zoom, a down side of having both lenses I guess. In my opinion the 16-85 is the much better optic.

16/ 85 sounds like a good lens jsut the reliabilaty thats the big question though and it gose for the same with the 18/135

I prefer the 20-40 ltd HD but it's crop only, the 18-135 is decent.
16-85mm is good and has a better portrait focal range. It's not as good in full sunlight as the 18-135 so you may need a uv filter at times particularly for even sharpness across the image.

I am hoping that sigma's new 24-70 f2.8 art will be available for Pentax.

think you stand more chance of pigs flying than that happening

When I got a K-S2, having been using the old K-x for several years, I realised that the K-S2 needed a better medium-range zoom than the DAL 18-55 'kit' lens off the K-x. I felt unable to afford a new 16-85, which I coveted, and missed a couple of good-value used ones that were on offer here (I was away for a while). The reviews of the Sigma 17-70 were not very encouraging, so I bought a new Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 because of good reviews in DXO.

I have not had it long enough to use it for much general photography, but a series of indoor tests disappointed me. It is very sharp in the centre - at 35mm setting the centre is as sharp as my 35mm DA f/2.8 Ltd. Unfortunately sharpness falls off noticeably at the edges and corners, especially at the wider-angle settings. At about 18-20 mm the Sigma is definitely worse than the (sometimes maligned) DAL 18-55! On the other hand, the Sigma 17-50 does have a constant f/2.8 aperture, which many of the rivals in the same price bracket do not.

A zoom range of 17-50 is acceptable to me, as I have the excellent DA 55-300 for distance work (bought at a very fair price some years ago from one of you!)

Martin

stu62, the 18-135 uses a different drive system to the 17-70, still silent but not SDM so that shouldn't cause problems. I have not heard of anyone suffering from a failure of the DC system. It is a good walkabout lens, just not stellar, but for the price it would be surprising if it was. It's also of course not fixed aperture like the 17-70.

just wish there was more choice in that range without having to buy manylenses

Are you looking for APS-C or FF lenses? I thought I'd read you had ordered a K-1 recently so I'm puzzled why you're considering the 16-85, 17-70 or 18-135 which are not full frame lenses.

No her indoors would hang draw and quarter me if I did that in fact she would even bring me back to life to do it again john