Originally posted by normhead No macro capability? Although I have to say, the DA 16-85 looks like it's pretty good for pseudo macro, and it's not all that often you need a true macro. Still with the 100macro, you have 100mm, or 140mm with the TC, both Focal Lengths not covered by the 16-85. That goes a long way towards filling that gap between 85 and 300. Having the 18-135 would take this whole line of thought out of the equation. Especially since you have the 15 ltd, which makes the wide end of the 16-85 un-necessary.
You've got 16mm in the 16-85, making the 15mm almost redundant. You don't have 100 or 140, and that gap from 140 to 300 is barely manageable. The 85-300 gap will almost certainly cost you shots. That's why I take my DA*60-250 in such situations.
Oh I think in an ideal world I'd be bringing a DA*16-50, DA*60-250, DA*300 and the TC.
That's a nice, full range and fully weather sealed kit from 16-420
If only I had about $1000 to get those two lenses!
---------- Post added 02-15-18 at 02:36 PM ----------
Originally posted by normhead People seem to like my 18-135 images, but my wife who is a little pickier than I am about IQ won't even put it on her camera. She'd rather take two lenses, her Tamron 17-50 and Tamron 90 macro. So the other possibility is you're more like Tess, than look me when it comes to your evaluation of photos. (The only lens of mine she really likes is my 28-105, which she is constantly taking and leaving me with no walk around lens for my K-1.)
This very well could be the case...
Either way, I've got a few trial runs to put the 16-85 through.
If it doesn't hold up to my preference I'll likely return it and just go with my primes.
---------- Post added 02-15-18 at 02:40 PM ----------
Originally posted by UncleVanya I personally do not think the 16-85 with the TC is worth the effort. Be sure to compare the results with what you can get by cropping the 16-85 images to the same detail level. My guess is that you'd be better off just cropping. With the 300 or even the DFA 100 the TC makes sense. These fixed primes have faster apertures (even the 300) than the 16-85. If you wanted something slightly longer and something a little faster I'd take that DFA 100 and TC as you suggested earlier. But I think the delta between 85mm and 140mm is small enough that cropping can take care of this easily.
True.
I need to make a list:
16-85 cropped vs 16-85 with TC (though I agree the lens isn't likely going to shine on the TC)
da15 vs 16mm on 16-85
difference in IQ between 100mm macro and 85mm cropped to similar FOV (100mm will obviously win here, but by how much?)
difference in IQ between 35mm macro vs 16-85 at 35mm (again, giving it to the prime here but by how much?)
I may find the 16-85 is a decent replacement for everything but the DA*300.
Or I may find that I just need to return it and keep what I've got and deal with the extra weight.