Last minute lens decisions: What to take for a 2 month trip?

Hi all,

I am in the fortunate position to be taking 2 months to travel through Russia, Mongolia and China (by train). I recently purchased a 50-135 (and love it), but am wondering if it will be too big and heavy.

For a walk-around lens I am looking at the Sigma 17-70.

For other trips I have taken a 50-200 with me, and I have to say on many occasions it leaves a lot to be desired.

What else do I have? Kit lens, A50 1.7, 40 Pancake, M135.

I do have a proper photo rucksack but I doubt I will use it on day trips as I like to travel light with a sling, and then plan ahead on what lens to take to in addition to the one on the camera... that goes in the girlfriends hand bag! - hence she likes the 40 pancake

Anyone been away for this long and have some advice.

Thanks.

If I want to travel light but still have some range the I carry my "Happy Snapper" Pentax 18-250 and my Sigma 10-20 I have the Sigma 17-70 and among others the Sigma 50-500 But when traveling light the above combo. suits me fine.
CHEERS Vic.

Sounds a great trip - lucky you!

I haven't been away for 2 months at a time, but have done a few 5 week trips to the US. Last trip I took my Pentax 17-70, my Bigma, and Samyang 14mm (for my attempts at stars). I also took the 18-135 with me, which turned out to be just as well since the 17-70, my favourite lens, let me down badly.
We of course flew to the US, and the had a car. It was all packed in a photo rucksack, as hand luggage, but for days out I bunged the spare lens (usually the Bigma) in my capacious travelling handbag. I never normally have a handbag, only when we travel, so I made sure to get one big enough to hold the Bigma. A couple of times it even went in a bumbag when it was easier to use that on long walks.
I didn't actually use the Bigma once last trip. So I lugged it for nothing.

I would take the 17-70 and the 50-135. It gives you a good range without too much weight. There seems little point in duplicating focal lengths with the primes if you want to keep the weight down, whereas the 50-135 adds range. It may be a bit heavy but I don't really think you (or your GF) will notice that weight much.

I went to New Zealand for 6 weeks a couple of years ago, and bought a bridge camera specially for the trip as I too faced the problem you've set out.

Other than the fact that it wasn't a Pentax, I had no regrets. Light weight, small, ran (runs) on AA batteries, good IQ, great zoom range.

I travel quite a lot and for a couple of years now have settled on just the 50-135 and the 20-40 Ltd, both excellent lenses and both weather/dust resistant - I'm not sure that the 17-70 is. To travel really light it is hard to beat the Pentax 18-135 as a do-most-things lens. I have no experience of the 18-250 so can't comment on that.

Best of luck with trains in China

Have a great time!

Jim

PS: I was recently travelling with a pal who had a bridge camera and, although the smaller sensor compromises IQ to some extent, I was certainly impressed by what it could do and it had the other qualities that JohnX extols.

I'm by no means an expert, but if you have the WR version of the kit, I'd take that. I find it's an awesome lens, way to often disregarded because it's 'kit'. Plus, it's WR. From your selection, I'd grab the kit and the 40 pancake if I wanted to go super light plus the 50-135 for that extra long end at times.

Just before my holidays I purchased Peak Design's camera clip and leash strap. I can't recommend the setup enough. Stick your heaviest lens on the body, clip it to your belt; with the leash strap to act as an extra tether and you won't feel the weight at all. Had two other lighter lenses in my handbag most of the time and was happily walking with all of it for hours at a time, including a hike in the mountains (backpack instead of a handbag obviously )

I would be looking to travel light and take either the 16-85 or 18-135.

I find the 16-85 to be a bit of a sharper lens than the 18-135, and for me the extra 2mm at the wide end is quite useful.

But that said the 18-135 is still good lens and I wasn't unhappy with the output from that. The longer range of that lens may be more useful for you on this trip, and would quite likely cover most of the shots you take.

Combine one of those with one or two small and relatively fast primes and you should have enough for most situations.

The 50-135 is a great lens, but lugging it around for 2 months might get a bit tiring.

yeah the 50-135mm is very good..

I went up a mountain in May with it... not sure I'd take it up a mountain again!

Things like 55-300mm WR, 18-135mm 16-85mm 20-40mm might be better for that

TBH, my travel kit is the K-30, 18-135 & 10-20 Sigma in my Lowepro Hatchback 22 because that is the lightest combo I can find that DOES the job without me regretting the weight I'm carrying for a long period!

Weight IS an issue because it also limits what else you can carry!

OK, I'm "getting on a bit" but do you really want to carry "dead weight" for 2 months?

Someone (Gywnn, I think!) took a Sigma to the USA for a long holiday but never used it at all - and he had a car!

Re Gwyn's "Sigma", it should have read "Bigma"!