[normhead]

ok, so now my thoughts are:

Bring:
DA15
16-85
DA*300
1.4xTC

Leave at home:
DA35macro
DA70
DFA100



That would give me wide angle, telephoto, and normal zoom range.

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.

---

Last edited by normhead; 02-15-2018 at 12:27 PM.

[UserAccessDenied]

I can see two approaches here.

First one - travel light with only the 16-85. Perhaps the tele-converter can go along as well, if it works well with the 16-85.

Second one - lose the zoom, go for broke and pack primes only. Take the 15, 35, 100 and 300. Leave the 300 if the bag is too heavy.

If it was me, I would take the primes.

Yeah there is some testing that needs to be done for sure...

The TC with the 16-85
The DA15 vs the 16-85 at 16mm
The 16-85 compared to the DA35 and DA70.


I just bought the 16-85 used from B&H and have a few more weeks until the return period passes.


If I decide it's a good replacement I'll likely just travel with it and the DA*300


If it doesn't perform as I wish, I might just return it and go with my primes.

[bm75]

So far my bag will have:
DA15
16-85
DFA 100mm macro
1.4xTC
K-3ii
misc (batteries, rocket blower, lens cloths, batteries, chargers, mini tripod, etc, etc...)

Your set is very competent. The 16-85 is really an all-round lens, the 15 will be very useful . For sure you'll find the 100 macro useful for beautiful cityscapes of Roma and Firenze from the many bridges beyond Tevere and Arno rivers. I would keep in my bag also the DA300 to isolate some distant subjects (I.e: from Bernina express train or some of the beautiful locations in Switzerland).

[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.

[UserAccessDenied]

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 gaps 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.

I had an 18-135 and it had de-centering issues.
I got another one and I just wasn't thrilled with it.

Maybe it was 2 duds in a row?

But I moved to primes from that point on, I just picked up the 16-85 last week and it's alright, still need to play around with it a bit.


The more I think about it, the more I'm leaning towards just the 16-85 and that's it, or bringing the entire kit with me...


The thought of having an opportunity arise and not being able to shoot because I left a particular lens at home just irritates me lol

[normhead]

Maybe it was 2 duds in a row?

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 like 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.)

[UserAccessDenied]

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 ----------

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 ----------

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.

[normhead]

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 ----------



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.

If I had every lens I might use, I'd have way too many lenses. If there's no APS-c upgrade, 10 FPS, 50shot buffer, minimum, (150 preferable), KP high ISO performance and incrementally improved AF , as in actually noticeably improved AF, not that one Pentax announced that no one could detect, I may further duplicate my most used focal lengths with a 150-450 at tax return time. But it would be crazy. At some point another lens just means more lenses sitting at home when you go out.

If you had the $1000 would it be better spend on lens, or on an excursion on the trip? At some point, you have enough lenses, you need to start investing in going places where you can take good pictures.

[UserAccessDenied]

If I had every lens I might use, I'd have way too many lenses. If there's no APS-c upgrade, 10 FPS, 50shot buffer, minimum, (150 preferable), KP high ISO performance and incrementally improved AF , as in actually noticeably improved AF, not that one Pentax announced that no one could detect, I may further duplicate my most used focal lengths with a 150-450 at tax return time. But it would be crazy. At some point another lens just means more lenses sitting at home when you go out.

If you had the $1000 would it be better spend on lens, or on an excursion on the trip? At some point, you have enough lenses, you need to start investing in going places where you can take good pictures.

Same exact thoughts on that 150-450...

If there is no replacement for the K-3ii this year that TRULY warrants switching bodies (I'm very happy with my K-3ii), than the 150-450 was on the top of my list.


Trips like the one we're taking this summer force me to think outside my typical shooting environment.
I've usually pushing my FL as far as I can for wildlife photography.


I agree on the money spent elsewhere than photography equipment though.
There will be plenty of expenses on this trip, even if that just means going out to grab a coffee and a pastry every morning with my wife - it all adds up!

[Jome]

I agree on the money spent elsewhere than photography equipment though.
There will be plenty of expenses on this trip, even if that just means going out to grab a coffee and a pastry every morning with my wife - it all adds up!

I second that as life is VERY expensive in Switzerland (the price for a coffee is around 4 dollars in average)

[chochichaeschtli]

Hi!

I live in switzerland and i often travel abroad without check in luggage, so i think i know the constraints. When i'm on dedicated photography trips in switzerland i often take my 60-250 with me, because hills and mountains can give an interesting "layered" look (example Layers | Swiss Alps seen from Mt. Kronberg, Canton of Appenz? | Flickr). But that thing is too big and heavy for most trips or hikes, so often i only rely on a range up to 100-135mm (100macro or 50-135), quite often only taking a 35mm and a 100mm with me (on full frame). I tend to travel with 17mm, 35mm, 50-135mm abroad with cabin baggage. Cropping and stiching is commonly underrated in my opinion - if this one shot requires it.

If you are not hunting for animals i don't think you will use 300mm on crop. But of course there could always be that one shot, thats why we can discuss this on and on and on

Regards

[normhead]

i often take my 60-250

I can't believe how people constantly underrate this lens as a landscape lens. It may not be the best wildlife lens, but it's the best top quality landscape lens that can also be used for wildlife.

From this...


To this...


To this (with the 1.4)


To this


To this on the K-1


Very multipurpose/

[UserAccessDenied]

Hi!

I live in switzerland and i often travel abroad without check in luggage, so i think i know the constraints. When i'm on dedicated photography trips in switzerland i often take my 60-250 with me, because hills and mountains can give an interesting "layered" look (example Layers | Swiss Alps seen from Mt. Kronberg, Canton of Appenz? | Flickr). But that thing is too big and heavy for most trips or hikes, so often i only rely on a range up to 100-135mm (100macro or 50-135), quite often only taking a 35mm and a 100mm with me (on full frame). I tend to travel with 17mm, 35mm, 50-135mm abroad with cabin baggage. Cropping and stiching is commonly underrated in my opinion - if this one shot requires it.

If you are not hunting for animals i don't think you will use 300mm on crop. But of course there could always be that one shot, thats why we can discuss this on and on and on

Regards

Great shots!!

I appreciate your input.
I agree I will not be hunting wildlife with my telephoto so that’s why I questioned the 300.
When I was in the Tetons I pulled off one shot like that layered mountains and loved it. Think that’s possible with the da100macro and 1.4xTC?
If so, that’s all I would need and the 300 could stay...

[normhead]

Great shots!!

I appreciate your input.
I agree I will not be hunting wildlife with my telephoto so that’s why I questioned the 300.
When I was in the Tetons I pulled off one shot like that layered mountains and loved it. Think that’s possible with the da100macro and 1.4xTC?
If so, that’s all I would need and the 300 could stay...

I actually love that 100 and 1.4 combo. In the long end it everything the DA 18-135 should have been if it wasn't a super-zoom. Solid edge to edge, and ƒ4. I've used that combo as a walk around lens many times.

[KiloHotelphoto]

I’m just trying to figure out how you can go to Europe for two weeks with just a carry on bag. I hope you’re not going to be that guy with the bag that’s clearly to big for carry on just to save $25.