Travelling

I will be doing a fair bit of traveling next year both work and play. Looking for Suggestions for an upgrade of glass. I will probably take only a 2-3 lenses max as hiking will mean weight is a consideration. Landscapes, city scapes , poss some macro and of course the occasional family snap.

Currently have Pentax 10-17' 18-135,50mm , 100mm macro and of course the 18-55. In the kit bag.

What one upgrade would you suggest , not limiting budget at the moment?

Any suggestions welcome



Thoughts

Pete

Maybe a 1.4x Pz T/C - my Kenko version works quite well with the 18-135 when I need a bit more reach. Took those two & 10-20 Sigma last year. Maybe also a polarizer and a No 1 CU lens + filter adapters - didn't need anything else!

I have just recently come back from Hong Kong & Macau. I took a Sigma 17-50 F2.8, a DA* 50-135 and Tamron 1.4x teleconverter (as well as a large sensor compact with a fast and wide zoom lens).

Apart from the Grand Prix in Macau I used only the Sigma 17-50 and the compact (which have similar focal lengths). At times lugging around a DSLR can be a bit of a pain while you're on holiday. For general street photography the compact was nice and discreet.

If I was doing the trip again I would be very tempted to take just the 18-135 with 1.4x teleconverter - just to keep the size and weight down (as well as the compact which has a wider and faster lens). For the possible macro work a DA35 Limited - sharp, small and light.

You can take better/sharper lenses than the 18-135, but at the expense of extra weight and size. The 18-135 is a perfectly decent general purpose lens and probably ideally suited to what you describe.

I took the DA17-70 and the Bigma to California. Plus a Samyang 14mm for attempting some stars.
The 17-70 was used 99% of the time. I took it rather than the 18-135, for better IQ. I should however have taken the 18-135. It would have been a better range, and wouldn't have given me the focussing issues I had with the 17-70.
I could have taken the 60-250 instead of the Bigma, but I hoped for more wildlife than we actually saw.

In your case I'd take the 18-135 and either the 60-250 if you can afford it, both financially and weight wise, (it's on offer at SRS right now in their Black Friday offers) or the 55-300, which is lighter and cheaper. Bung in the 50mm too since they weigh nothing and take up no room .

Invest in a polariser too.

They have probably shot 'em all!

FYI, I took the K-30 with the AA adapter because it has the smallest and lightest body and a very small Canon A1400 P&S (it has a real viewfinder, of sorts!) as backup.

DON'T forget some decent rechargeable AAs (I use Eneloops, and they fit both cameras) AND the charger (get one with the small Continental 2-pin plug because you can get adapters anywhere if you need them). Unfortunately I DID forget the charger and had to rely on the Canon when the Eneloops were running low; and then I can across some 2-cell rechargers that looked half-decent - in a small riverside market in the Special Zone on the Laos side of the Mekong in the Golden Triangle (that was the place that Sue Perkins was shown visiting in last week's episode of her current travelogue)! Life saver and they did actually work quite well but I was getting "desperate" by that point!

OTOH if you take cameras with different battery requirements then you need at least 2 or 3 batteries for each of them, and two chargers to match - not a good idea for hiking / back-packing, taking into account all the other kit you will have! That's why those can use AA batteries are so useful - and you can also buy more batteries locally if you really have to.

And try getting a charger for a D-Li90 or 109 (or the Canikon/PanaSony equivalents, etc.) in the middle of nowhere!

Cheers everyone, comments are really useful, not thought about a 1.4 converter , I'll either get one or consider the 55-300 or 60-250, I'll need to check out the weight. . Probably leave the K5ii in favor of the K50 I have as second body. Yep have polarisers

Pete

Why not take the K5ii? A couple of batteries and the charger take up little space and weight. If you can run to the 60-250 the IQ is just superb.

I agree - the 60-250 is a great lens with superb image quality, undoubtedly better than the 55-300 - and a great price right now. But if you are hiking bear in mind that it is half as long again and more than twice the weight of the 55-300.

Faced with a similar situation a few years ago I bought a bridge-camera rather than take a DSLR + lenses. Agree that the IQ was slightly inferior, but had/have no regrets.

Ref Percy's comment - that's why I would take the K-50 rather than a K-5 body because it's a noticeable bit lighter (and a lot less valuable if it gets lost or nicked !).

You might consider trading-in or selling your two standard zooms, getting the HD 16-85 and HD 55-300, and just taking those. They cover a very wide range of useful focal lengths in weatherproof constructions, with a total weight and cost similar to the 60-250.

Cheers.
Philip

You will find a real NEED for a zoom wider than 16mm if you are going to towns and inside big buildings!

Thanks for the feedback, yep the reason for taking the K50 rather than the K5ii is value and it is slightly smaller/ lighter. Although I'll decide between the bodies during packing. I'll probably go and have a look at the 60/250 , it's the old weight v image quality argument particularly when the subjects are quite broad. I like the 18-135, so then poss take 10-17, 18-135 and purchase 60-250? To be honest wanted to restrict to two lenses but looks like three is more realistic. Still considering going with just a prime for landscapes, I've not looked at the 14mm prime , I'd then leave the 10-17, - anyone have any thoughts / experience of it? Some days likely to be hiking all day so will have to consider weight as a factor. Haven't had any experience of the 55-300 but obviously a lighter option.

That's a lot of good advice above, Pete. I'd just add that what you take will depend on the type of travelling: Mainly hotels and cities means less restriction on equipment than back-packing in the rough. I've done a lot of back-packing and trekking in far-flung places in all conditions and, if that is the type of travel you are planning, I'd say keep it simple.

I'd never consider anything as big and heavy as the 60-250 for trekking, excellent though it is. Although the 18-135 is not the best performer optically it is still very acceptable and covers probably 80% of the shots you are likely to take. It is also WR, which you may be glad of at times, to match the WR of your DSLR. A 1.4x converter will give more range as long as you can live with the resulting maximum aperture at the long end. I'm not sure I could.

If it was me I'd just take the 18-135 and the 100mm macro (great also for portraits with reduced DOF). You could probably also squeeze in a wider prime, as you have suggested.

A couple of other suggestions: Firstly, a Manfrotto BeFree tripod is extremely light and compact but great quality. I always take one with me. A forum member has one for sale right now. Secondly, a good WATERPROOF backpack like the Lowepro DryZone - SRS have them at a bargain price today.

That's my two-penn'th. Whatever you decide, have a great time.

Regards

Jim