[The Squirrel Mafia]

- DA 10-17 + DA 16-85 + DA 50-135
+ Much more range and flexibility. Less lenses change. The 16-85 is one of the sharpest lens I own.
- I'm not sure I can manage the fisheye very well, very limited experience with this new lens, and more importantly, while being very sharp, I always feel the images from the 20-40 have more subtle quality to it, very hard to explain, but I slightly prefer the 20-40 IQ in their common range.

This.

[y0chang]

When I traveled to the Washington State National Parks, the DA 16-85mm stayed on my camera for almost the entire trip. It was just the perfect range for landscapes. Just wide enough for wide angle landscapes, and just long enough for telephoto landscapes. I have tried to find an equivalent in full frame and I have yet to find it.

[Pentax Syntax]

For me the 16-85 is the ticket. Usually travel with it, the 55-300 PLM and either the 14, 12-24, or 15.

[Thagomizer]

The 16-85 was my (almost*) one lens solution for my KP on a trip to Yellowknife, Northwest Territories back in March. It worked very well.

*I'd originally planned on one camera, one lens as Yellowknife is usually very cold, so I was taking my KP+grip and not my K-S2 (which doesn't have a grip for extending battery life in cold conditions). The forecast we saw just before we left indicated that it was going to be warmer in YK than it was in my hometown of London, in southwestern Ontario! So, I also took my K-S2 and Sigma 10-20 as well, but I didn't use it nearly as much as the KP/16-85 combo.

---------- Post added 11-22-19 at 04:09 PM ----------

The 16-85 was my (almost*) one lens solution for my KP on a trip to Yellowknife, Northwest Territories back in March. It worked very well.

*I'd originally planned on one camera, one lens as Yellowknife is usually very cold, so I was taking my KP+grip and not my K-S2 (which doesn't have a grip for extending battery life in cold conditions). The forecast we saw just before we left indicated that it was going to be warmer in YK than it was in my hometown of London, in southwestern Ontario! So, I also took my K-S2 and Sigma 10-20 as well, but I didn't use it nearly as much as the KP/16-85 combo.

[DeadJohn]

I would bring the 16-85 rather than the 20-40. 16-85 is versatile enough to handle most scenes and greatly reduce lens changes.

I would probably leave the 50-135 home to save space. Use 85mm and crop if needed. Maybe you plan to do a lot of low light, though, and want a fast lens with you.

[BigMackCam]

I'm late to the thread, but I'll chip in... though with much the same feedback as others.

I don't own the DA16-85, but I do have both the DA20-40 and a Sigma 17-50 f/2.8. Whilst the 20-40 is a nice walk-around lens, the Sigma offers a far more versatile focal length range. I'd want one or two extra lenses with me to complement the 20-40, whereas I'd happily spend an entire day shooting just the 17-50. I'd feel even more comfortable with the 16-85 or 18-135.

With travel, unless photography is the sole or main purpose of the trip, I'd say versatility and practicality rank as the highest priorities...

[mikesbike]

The practicality of circumstances should decide the issue. If traveling with a group, where the time availability and lack of setup space and opportunity to change lenses are compromised, the DA 16-85mm is a no-brainer. If you can fit in the DA* 50-135mm, it is not a huge lens, and there may be a time and opportunity for lens-changing, where it could be of use for its reach, and where its f/2.8 aperture might be needed. It does not seem a tour in Austria (vs. Australia) will entail telephoto shots of wildlife as much as it will landscapes and city scenes.

For me, having a DA 18-135mm, of which I am very fond, I often travel about on foot or bicycle with my KP, being independent of others in a group and their time table, so I will by choice, in dealing with scenic surroundings, prefer toting my 20-40mm LTD along with my HD 15mm LTD and DA 70mm- or FA 77mm ltd if going into low-light hours. This is to keep bulk and weight to a minimum with very high quality and capability, even in low light. Nonetheless, I do often have my DA 18-135mm along on my backup camera body in my car or room, in case I will need more zoom range.

However, if my situation were touring with a group, I would probably just go with my DA 18-135mm lens to avoid the necessity of lens-changing, maybe along with the DA 15mm LTD just in case.

---

Last edited by mikesbike; 11-23-2019 at 12:58 AM.

[STARHUNTER94]

16-85. There are too many times that you need to isolate a subject not to have that I find.

[Sandy Hancock]

The DA10-17 is really useful and great fun. I rarely travel without it.

Alaska



Paris





Venice



Rome



London



Salisbury Plain



De-fished at 17mm its field of view is almost identical to the DA15 Limited, so I reckon the DA20-40 and DA*50-135 would make a brilliant three lens kit.

[StiffLegged]

Great images, Sandy, really like those!

I’d pack light and say the 16-85. I get complaints when lugging more with the family.

[clickclick]

Just thinking of moving about, speed, traveling with others who might be tired of waiting on the photographer, the 16-85 sounds to fit. That said, I don't think you can go too far wrong with any of your scenarios.

[wstruth]

Yes, another "20-40 vs 16-85" kind of topic, I know, and I've read quite a few topics of this, still being unable to decide. For the context, I'm bringing my family to Austria for Christmas time, there will be lots of driving, snow, and hopefully great landscape. On equipment side I used to travel with my KP and the limited trio of DA15, DA 20-40 and DA 70, and depend on each trip, another fun lens e.g. Sigma 30.

This year, my DA 15 was broken, I could not afford a direct replacement by the time, so purchase a DA 14 instead due to very good price. The 14 is very fine, but much bigger than DA 15. Also I now have the 50-135, I like it so much now it replaces the DA 70, even if it feels 10 times bigger and heavier. The problem now is the 14 + 20-40 + 50-135 is too big, barely fit into my small bag, so I'm thinking about taking my also recently acquired 16-85 instead, it can replace both the 14 and 20-40, not much lighter but it fits into one compartment in the bag, make way for an extra lens, e.g. the DA 10-17 for super wide need.

In conclusion:

- DA 14 + DA 2040 + DA 50-135:
+ Very nice image quality, I do really like the rendering of the 20-40. My habit of traveling
- Quite big, it's very hard to take the 14 in of out of the bag each time for example, also frequent lenses change, maybe not ideal under Christmas snow?

- DA 10-17 + DA 16-85 + DA 50-135
+ Much more range and flexibility. Less lenses change. The 16-85 is one of the sharpest lens I own.
- I'm not sure I can manage the fisheye very well, very limited experience with this new lens, and more importantly, while being very sharp, I always feel the images from the 20-40 have more subtle quality to it, very hard to explain, but I slightly prefer the 20-40 IQ in their common range.

Finally after a long post, it comes back to the question of 20-40 and 16-85, which is better for traveling?

P/S: the 16-85 so far has not been collecting dust at all, I use it a lot while hiking with my little girl, where its range is very appreciated, and no lens change is preferred.

Thanks for your idea.

Sounds like a great trio with the 14, the 20-40 and 50-135. I did something similar with my vacation this year with 12-24, 20-40 and 50-135 I was out in Arizona and Denver It was mostly a big outdoor vacation that included the Grand Canyon and Rocky Mountain National Park. The 12-24 was my most used lens followed by the 20-40. The 50-135 with a teleconverter was mostly used for wildlife. The 20-40 is such a nice lens and light weight too. It's perfect for travel and general usage. and with your description of your trip it sounds like you'll be out in the countryside so it will be a nice setup.

[MaineNative]

I am glad other people like the 10-17 too! My travel set is the 10-17, 16-85 and 55-300, but I rarely use the 55-300. The 18-135 is less bulky, but I like the extra FOV on the short end and the 16-85 is a little sharper. (I have never shot the 20-40, however.)

[TedH42]

I'd take my 18-135, but if I had the 16-85 I'd take that. But I'd also be taking my DA-55-300 PLM.

When travelling, zoom range, and the pseudo macro of the 16-85 make it versatile and largely eliminates lens changes. If you want low light performance get the DA 50 1.8 or the DA 35 2.4. 2.8 isn't worth messing with. The 20-40 is a lens change waiting to happen. Travelling with other people, I just don't have time for that.

Norm has it: the 16-85 is the key, and paired with the 55-300 PLM and my KP is my travel kit. 95% of my recent images in Iceland were with the 16-85. 5% just needed a bit more magnification. Reducing lens changes makes life so much easier when traveling with others who are not on a photographic mission.

[fsge]

I would skip 10-17 which is a very specific lens. 16-85 at 16mm is already good for landscape pics. You can always take 2 or 3 pics and attach them... If you really need more length then 50-135 is a perfect companion.
I faced same questions for long trips when weight matters or even room for photo gear was pretty limited. That forced me to have my portfolio evolving in a way.
I ended up with a combination of 8-16 + 18-135 + 55-300. Sigma UWA being rather heavy, it is the one staying at home if I need to carry 2 lenses only. Also if it matters to you, not all lenses are WR