Originally posted by Vmax911 Good point. Looks like the 16-85 is even bigger than the 55-300 PLM, but bet they would make an awesome pair!
Yes, the front of the 16-85mm is BIG - filter size is 72mm, compared to 58mm for the 55-300mm. I did not realise this when I finally bought my first kit of brand new digital camera and lens.
BUT -
I had done a fair bit of reading, and came to the conclusion that for both sharpness, and to cover a decent and overlapping focal range, I wanted the 55-300mm PLM, and the 16-85mm. And the 100mm 2.8 Macro for - well, obviously, close-ups and macros.
They - and my nice new KP - fit into my LowePro backpack. I am 75 yrs old, and have wandered around with this kit for up to 3-5 hrs at a stretch, and I am no incredible hulk - quite the opposite. I consider myself a "delicate little runt".
If I had been forced to choose only two lenses, even now, in hindsight and with experience of them all, I would keep the 55-300mm, and the 16-85mm, which are both capable of decent close-ups, macros.
I recently took a few shots of my son and daughter-in-law's new Merc with the 16-85mm, with and without them in the shot. They, and I, were very pleased with the results. Also pleased with some landscapes shots taken with the 16-85mm. It's focal range gives a good range of framing choices in landscape photography.
The second shot is no landscape photography competition winner, but shows the 16-85mm at 16mm. The car shot was taken at 35mm