Tested out the 16-85 and my conclusion is that its not worth $735CDN

Id probably pay $400 tops, so this lens is about 85% overpriced. I was tempted to get this lens last week and am glad I did not. Its not worth the money and overpriced for what you get (just my opinion).

I compared it to my newly acquired 18-50 kit lens and yes the 16-85 puts out better IQ. But 3 times better justifying 3 times the cost? No.

First the extra 2mm you gain with the 16mm vs 18 on the kit lens for me is negligible. For me, I dont see any gains from it for my uses. I might have to step an extra 3cm back when taking some shots with the 18-50, big deal.

The extra 35mm range is nice but I already have a 50-200 anyways, so its not needed (at least not worth paying much more money for). I dont mind having to swap out my lenses a bit more.

The 16-85 is about 4 times the size of my 18-50kit lens. Its also much heavier. The 18-50 is a convertible lens which I love, its compact and doesnt add much more weight and bulk over the 1.8 50mm primetime.

I love big DSLR bodies but not so much into huge and heavy lenses anymore. The 16-85 is even larger than the 18-135 dispite having 50mm less range. It was just too big for me. I could live with a huge honkin lens if it justifies it (if say this was a f2.8). I still do believe that there are some honkin truck lenses that are worth the money and weight lugging around. The 16-85 is not one of them.

And heres the biggest reason. The 16-85 is only one f stop higher than my 18-50mm kit lens (3.5 vs 4). To me that is a joke. Pentax advertises this as a new 2015 model upgrade to the kit lens. It should be f2.8 and if it was, I most likely would have paid the price because I see the advantage, 2.8 vs 4 is significant, 3.5 vs 4 is not.

For a $730CDN lens the 16-85 is still a pretty slow lens.

The WR factor is out the window since both lenses are WR.