[Spodeworld]

Well, summer vacation is coming up and I'm thinking of picking up the 16-85 as my travel lens. Has anyone else here used it as your main travel lens? And, what has your experience been? Strengths? Weaknesses?

Thanks

[pathdoc]

Questions: where are you going and what sort of photos do you expect to be taking? Context is everything here.

That being said, I went abroad recently with a 40mm prime and an 18-55 kit as my travel lens(es), and if that can do it, the 16-85 should cope marvellously.

[Sandy Hancock]

Great choice, but I would consider a fast compact normal prime for the clinches.

DA35/2.4 if you're on a budget. FA31/1.8 if you aren't.

[Kozlok]

I use a Sigma 30/1.4 as my zoom's companion. Sharp, fast, renders nicely. Not sort compact, but not enormous either. An in between option between money's no object and money's the only object. A great indoor FL too.

[Spodeworld]

We're going to Italy for a bit. So, beautiful scenery and architecture. Hopefully some people too.

I have the 35mm f2.4, and, yes, was thinking of bringing that too to compliment a zoom.

[bdery]

It makes a lot of sense as a travel lens. Range, wide angle, WR, IQ, silent AF. It replaced my Sigma 17-70 and Pentax 18-55 WR for travel. However, I still never leave without my primes, because the 16-85's aperture might be the limiting factor at times.

[Spodeworld]

Sounds like good advice. Still expensive even with the discount, but I'm verging on pulling the trigger.

It makes a lot of sense as a travel lens. Range, wide angle, WR, IQ, silent AF. It replaced my Sigma 17-70 and Pentax 18-55 WR for travel. However, I still never leave without my primes, because the 16-85's aperture might be the limiting factor at times.

[pathdoc]

Have you been there before? There will be scenery you just want to drink in with your lens and buildings where a broad perspective is vital. My photo album has numerous sets of shots that were taken as composites (there's one of the Florence skyline that was taken as FIVE separate 35mm frames). You can't go wrong with the wide end, and the tight end should be more than enough. From memory, I almost never found myself wanting more zoom than I had (about 70mm full frame).

Also yes, keep that f/2.4 handy for inside the cathedrals; flash is often forbidden there. That being said, when I was last in Italy it was still the film era and so I was very, very ISO-limited compared to what my K-5 can do. Despite this, I pulled off some very good shots with a Minolta Dynax (i.e. Maxxum) 3xi and a kit lens that was at least as slow as a 16-85 and certainly no faster, so the 16-85 should be OK esp. if your camera body can handle high ISO well. I can pull the negatives if you like and find out exactly what I was using, but I doubt it was higher than 1000 and probably no more than 400. Most modern DSLRs should handle that (and more) with contemptuous ease.

[Marktax]

I find travel photography to be highly situational, especially somewhere I have not been before. Anything can turn up around the next corner, in the next shop window, or across the street. A good zoom with a good range is the indispensible item for me. IQ and range are the trade-off, and I returned the 18-135 in favor of the 17-70 because of the better IQ in spite of shorter range. The 16-85, which I don't have yet, is probably the most versatile summer vacation lens possible. IQ is good, you're in daylight for long summer daylight hours so speed isn't much of an issue, and the range is very serviceable on a vacation, when usually I prefer not to change lenses a lot. For speed at dusk or indoors I now have a very precious FA* 24mm, and an FA 135mm for greater range, with the 1.4 converter. If I really stripped down to minimum carry, those three lenses might be it, and the 16-85 would take probably 75% of the shots.

[reeftool]

I think it would be a fine choice. My walk around is a Sigma 17-70C as the 16-85 wasn't available when I purchased the Sigma. The reviews are great and it has more reach on both ends although the Sigma is faster. That wouldn't make a big difference for me but maybe others would want that extra stop. If I was shopping today, I would probably get the 16-85 even though I like my 17-70 and have no intention of replacing it.

[GaryH]

I am headed to Italy on the 23rd of June and have decided on taking my 16-85, 43 ltd, and 10-17 fisheye. I will also carry a Sony Rx100III. I think that should cover everything I might need. BTW, the pics I have taken so far with the 16-85 are very nice and sharp. I am very pleased with it.

[hcc]

I find travel photography to be highly situational, especially somewhere I have not been before.

+1. When I travel to a new place, I want to ready for anything. My default (ie basic) travel lens is the DA18-250mm with a fast prime (eg 50 mm f1.4) in my jacket pocket for low-light sceneries. It is now more than 8 years that I travel overseas a couple of times per year, and the DA18-250mm (+ my VL58mm f1.4) is my basic travel kit.

When I know already the destination (eg I have been there before), I am more 'choosy' and tend to use primes.

The DA16-85mm definitely ticks a lot of boxes, incl. its wide focal length range. Cons are low light, a lack of reach (above 85 mm) and the lens size IMHO.

Hope that the comment may help.

[leopold]

Hi,
i own the 16-85mm and i think it will be a good choice. 2 years ago we went to vacation with our 2 girls for a 12 day road trip and at that time i was shooting with a Canon 15-85mm on a T3i and it was my main lens for all the trip. With young kids you don't have much time changing lenses and a 15-85mm or the HD 16-85mm will be perfect. I'm bringing it in August for our yearly vacation, this time we will go camping !

[normhead]

I've gone lots of places with nothing but the 18-135 on the camera. Better IQ than the 18-250, more range than the 16-135. But between the two 17-70s, the 18-135 and the 16-85, really all you're picking is focal length. No reason the 16-85 can't be it, other than that.

If it were me, I'd want my Sigma 70-300 , DA 55-300 in my bag as well, but not everyone likes telephoto.

[aleonx3]

I have recently came back from a trip to Asia. I had pretty much covered everything I wanted with both the 18-135 and the 20-40 lenses. Although I had my 16-50, topcon 58/1.4 and 35/2.8 with me in the suitcase - those seldom get used. I also had the 360FGZII flash when I need it for indoor shots.

I would think that the 16-85 would be a good substitute for the 18-135. I never felt that a need for anything longer than 135 for my shooting style (street photography) and subject.

---------- Post added 06-12-2015 at 01:01 PM ----------

Hi,
i own the 16-85mm and i think it will be a good choice. 2 years ago we went to vacation with our 2 girls for a 12 day road trip and at that time i was shooting with a Canon 15-85mm on a T3i and it was my main lens for all the trip. With young kids you don't have much time changing lenses and a 15-85mm or the HD 16-85mm will be perfect. I'm bringing it in August for our yearly vacation, this time we will go camping !

How do you compare the two lenses (Pentax 16-85 vs Canon 15-85)?