Originally posted by northcoastgreg I had the opportunity to introduce this lens to the southern Cascades in Oregon:
Hi Greg
Are you planning a review of the DA 16-85? I hope so because your lens reviews on your website are very useful and interesting.
I visited the Pacific NW, the Bay Area, Arizona and Utah last year armed with a Sony RX100ii, my K-5II, DA 18-135, DA 15, FA 43 and 77 in one smallish sling bag. Sea, snow, trees, canyons, lakes and people - wonderful subject material.
I found the 18-135 was a perfect travel lens, especially in inclement weather -- and good enough for the kind of landscapes I shoot. But I've been toying with the idea that the 16-85 might be even better. You know how these things go...
At the risk of hijacking the thread, here are a couple of typical touristy, unposed 18-135 shots (18 mm & 60 mm both handheld at f/8.0, RAW, LR processed). I usually only use the 18-135 in the 100-135 mm range for people shots, not for landscapes. So perhaps the DA 16-85 might be redundant for me. I don't think you own the 18-135, but I'd be very interested in your thoughts on the 16-85 all the same.
Thanks
Gray
Sorry to hijack the thread but please note these images were taken using the DA 18-135, not the DA 16-85 -- see text above