[normhead]

Clearly the range of the 16-85 is more versatile but honestly good bokeh and rendering and that unquantifiable artistic flare is more important to me.

As a boat person, WR is essential for peace of mind. Therefore the 20-40 is out of the question.
The 16-85 is your best bet. Add the DA*55-1.4 for the artsy shots and you're laughing.

Although I'd seriously discourage lens changes on a moving small boat.

[TedH42]

My only zoom is the 10-17 fisheye. I have an upcoming trip on a small-ish fishing boat, taking photos for a friend to help his guide service, and I would like a WR lens that will be useful at the close ranges on a boat, or even from a paddle board along side the boat. Camera is a K-3. Clearly the range of the 16-85 is more versatile but honestly good bokeh and rendering and that unquantifiable artistic flare is more important to me. My primes include a 15 HD, 35 2.4, various manual 50s and the fantastic plastic 50, 55 1.8 K, 77, 100 WR macro, and then a jump to the 300*.

You WANT the Limited. They build them that way.

But the 16-85 is by far the better the choice for your stated purpose. My 16-85 lives on my K-3II and it has been a solid, consistent performer since day one. Is it as COOL as the 20-40? No. Is it an object you would put on display to admire the craftsmanship? No. Is it going to produce images that have artistic flare and timeless style and rendering (whatever that is)? No. Will it take solid, excellent images over a wide focal range, be WR and never let you down? Yes.

I have both of these lenses. You're doing a job here for your friend. Jatrax has the right answer here. The 16-85 is what you need. You'll need more zoom range than the 20-40 on the boat and alongside the boat. The 16 end of the 16-85 will probably get a lot of use, as boats severely limit the "zoom with your feet" possibilities. It will take the images that your friend needs in promoting his guide service, including wide shots from on the boat, and wide shots of the boat in the context of the beautiful surroundings (how far do you to take the paddle board away from the boat with your camera dangling over the water?).

Think of the excellent content of the shots required to show off your friend's guide service rather than their amazing artistic quality.

My 2 cents.

[Bunch]

As a boat person, WR is essential for peace of mind. Therefore the 20-40 is out of the question.
The 16-85 is your best bet. Add the DA*55-1.4 for the artsy shots and you're laughing.

Although I'd seriously discourage lens changes on a moving small boat.

The 20-40 is WR

---------- Post added 04-12-19 at 12:29 PM ----------

(how far do you to take the paddle board away from the boat with your camera dangling over the water?).

I'd definitely be sitting on the board, straddling it, and it would be dependent on chop size. 3 ft chop, not happening.

[normhead]

The 20-40 is WR

And here I thought I was smart. Oh well the average genius does 7 really dumb things every day. I deserve at least 20.

[wstruth]

I have the 20-40 and love it and highly recommend it. BUT for the scenario you describe I think the 16-85 is a better choice for the in boat shots, because the extra field of view the 16mm provides will handle the constraints better for being in a small boat.

[pres589]

Honestly, you could probably get a DA-L 18-55 WR and shoot the whole thing at f8 and be fine.

[hoffm141]

I took the 16-85WR, 55-300PLM and my k3ii to the Galapagos last year and found both lenses provided quality photos and easy shooting experience from sometimes bouncy zodiac boats and hikes. I would use one for the first half of a hike and switch on the way back. The 16-85 does nicely to provide the flexibility of modest telephoto isolation and context without having to back way off your subject (and having to paddle back, in your case). With the WR and sealed camera, I was never worried about spray from the Zodiac boats. Sitting on a wide skateboard is a good equivalent for practicing lens and battery swaps.


Another thought- I was not (and still am not) well practiced in shooting from a moving boat. I found that even with a little bit of wave movement, at 200+ it gets hard to keep on target for autofocusing and artistic framing. Things easily turns into a drive mode spam-fest (plug for a fast SD card). The wider lens may be more PP-crop forgiving if there's any roll to the water or challenging light.


Taking pictures across the whole zoom range will also provide some different photographic looks for the portfolio in comparison to just going with a WR prime.
Sounds like a fun adventure.

[rogerstg]

BUT for the scenario you describe I think the 16-85 is a better choice for the in boat shots, because the extra field of view the 16mm provides will handle the constraints better for being in a small boat.

Totally agree. Most on board shots I take are at ~16mm. In my film days, I found that my widest lens at 28mm was not wide enough. That equates to ~18mm crop focal length.

[Paul the Sunman]

The DA 16-85 is a cut above the (nevertheless good) DA 18-135. The wide end will also be very useful on a boat.

[mikesbike]

Although I do have the very fine DA 20-40mm LTD, in this case its main practical advantage would be the f/2.8 at the 20mm end, but other than that the DA 16-85mm would be best-suited for the needs as stated.

[monochrome]

If money wasn’t an object I would say get a new 16-50 (it isn’t as bad at the wide end as its detractors claim) and 50-135. The SDM motors have been silently upgraded and they’re still great lenses. You would be shooting the 16-50 on water stopped down anyway, so the soft corners and barrel distortion at 16mm wide open wouldn’t be an issue. If you shoot RAW any CA can be corrected easily in post.

Since money is an issue you could get used copies of these here around $350 now and use them converted to screwdrive - something to consider - but you will do well with the 16-85, better than with the 18-135 IMO. Be sure to have the correct UV and CPL filters for use on the water.

I love my * and Limited lenses but sometimes a regular lens is the better choice . . . .

[Sandy Hancock]

Clearly the range of the 16-85 is more versatile

[/end thread]

honestly good bokeh and rendering and that unquantifiable artistic flare is more important to me

From everything I've read, there's nothing wrong with the 16-85's bokeh and rendering. Artistic flair (I presume you didn't really mean "flare") is up to the photographer.

My primes include a 15 HD, 35 2.4, various manual 50s and the fantastic plastic 50, 55 1.8 K, 77, 100 WR macro, and then a jump to the 300*.

For this particular trip, I'd leave them all behind and buy, borrow or steal a 55-300PLM.

[Gary H Perth]

[/end thread]

From everything I've read, there's nothing wrong with the 16-85's bokeh and rendering. Artistic flair (I presume you didn't really mean "flare") is up to the photographer.

For this particular trip, I'd leave them all behind and buy, borrow or steal a 55-300PLM.

I totally agree with Sandy. With these two WR lenses you have a light-weight combination that covers every length from 16mm to 300mm. Both have very fast and very accurate auto-focus, HD coatings and easily added/removed hoods. This is a once-off opportunity, you don't want to miss shots while changing lenses or figuring out which focal length to use. I have lots of lenses and I mostly use them when I want to play around with artistic options or enjoy differing rendering, but when I need to be totally confident that I have the best chance to get great shots with least amount of time/effort, I use the WR zooms at a reasonable ISO setting.

Definitely the compromise with a zoom-only kit comes when you need the polarizer but you also need good shutter speed to counter movement. So maybe take a small light "sacrificial" lens (i.e. not WR) in case you need a fast shutter, I have a 35 f2.4 DA that would do the job, and OP has one I see.

[bdery]

Having frequently gone on fishing trips with my photo gear, my advice is to get the 16-85.

The 20-40 appears to be a superb lens, versatile and compact. The 16-85, however, is dependable, offers a wider focal length which you'll really enjoy on such an outing, lets you zoom closer if needed, in other words it will simply let you do more. You won't be ni a situation where you can change lenses often, if your trip is anything like mine, so a one-lens-does-it-all is preferable. 16mm is the biggest deciding element here, I think.

[timb64]

All this love for the 16-85, how about sharing some of your pics here?

DA 16-85 WR,show us what it can do. - Page 62 - PentaxForums.com