16-45 mm or 50-135mm

I know it's a bit strange to compare these two lenses. But I'm going to Greenland i two weeks, and would like som nice sharp glass to bring along.

I can only afford one of them, so the problem is which one.

I'm a bit baffled because we're going whale watching and stuff, but I don't know how close we'll get to the whales.
The lenses I have, is.

Pentax 18-55mm (kit)
Tamron 28-70mm f.2.8
Pentax da* 300mm f.4

So should i buy the 16-50 to get more "sharp" photos in the close range (and better landscape with the 16mm), or should I buy the 50-135 to get a wider mm range ?

You should be getting sharp pictures now. What you seem to be missing is a longer telephoto zoom - jumping from 70mm to 300mm with nothing in between may be a bit difficult and restrictive.

My choice would be to leave the 300mm at home and buy the Pentax 55-300mm.

Travel light and take lots of pictures whilst still being able to enjoy the trip!

hmm, didn't see that one coming

but I was thinkig that the 50-135mm would do the job "in between" the 70 and 300 ?

Don't mind the traveling heavy part of the journey

I have learned the hard way not to take too much gear on holiday.

I don't know what sort of boat you will be in, but unless it is huge, I suspect you will risk severe camera shake with any lens longer than about 100mm. The SR won't help.

And I don't know how close to the whales you hope to be, but I can't imagine you will need a 300mm lens.

I'd buy the 50-135, and also take the 18-55 for when the whales attack the boat.

Being a pessimist I'd take the 300 just in case, but hope I wouldn't need it. The Tamron would stay at home.

G

I've been whale and dolphin watching a few times. It seems to go one of two ways, either 300 isn't long enough (and as George noted camera shake is a big issue at the long end) or 18 is berely wide enough.

I have always tried to limit lens changes on the boat because of salt spray.

hehe, so you would recommend ?

the 16-50, or maybe sigma 10-20 ?

or the 50-135 ? hehe

I'm even more confused now

What about the pentax 18-250?

Well, if you buy the 16-50, you will be largely overlapping the 18-55, and still have a huge gap between 70 and 300.

Buying the 50-135 will make the Tamron largely superfluous, whilst filling an important part of the gap.

Although the 55-300 would totally fill the gap, it's not weather-sealed. Nor would it compare with the DA* at 300mm. So if you did need to go to 300mm, the DA* would be a better bet.

G

Slow, expensive, lower quality, not SDM or weather-sealed. Wide-range zooms are only to be advised where you REALLY don't want to change lenses.

Since shooting with a DSLR is all about taking better pics, it makes sense to use the best glass you can afford, even if you have to buy several different lenses.

G

how good is the quality on the 55-300mm ?

From the opinions I have read, it's pretty good.

G

Just picked one up for $350. About the same cost as my Tamron 28-300 six years or more ago. Initial subjective tests indicate the quality is far superior. I'll have to do some more qualitative tests later.
It is obviously soft at the far end, of course I'm not sure that is anything but expected for the rage and price of this lens.

Did you get it from B&H : Thats a good price

I think you've just invented "Lens Rage" - we can add it to "Road Rage" and maybe even "Forum Rage"....

Ugh! Wasn't another thread just talking about using the spell checker? Too bad Firefox doesn't just know want I want to say an correct it.

Lens Rage: what occurs if you're not allowed to satisfy your LBA!

Anyway, I bought the lens at a local shop here. (The only one in fifty miles). They really know their stuff and have great prices.