Which would you take?

I am off on a city break tomorrow afternoon and I still cannot decide which general zoom to take.

Now, I have already reserved the following in my slingbag:-

Sigma 10-20mm (my superwide and great for cityscapes around the river and the Aviation museum too)
My Pentax 35mm F2.4
My Pentax 50mm F1.4 - both for small light fast stuff.
My Pentax 55-300mm - I considered my mighty 50-135, but I guess I would rue not having anything more than 135mm....

But the walkabout lens. Now I am anticipating changable weather, so WR could be a factor.

So, options:-

Pentax 18-55mm WR - Small light "kit" lens that is actually quite good. It also has WR too so could be an advantage

Pentax 16-45mm - constant F4 but if I am shooting at F8-F11 does it give me any more than the WR?

Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 - The Big fast lens that is excellent, but it is BIG.

I am leaning towards the Kit lens, if only for the WR and size, and let the 35mm and nifty take over the fast shallow DOF work.

What do you think?

I'd go with the 16-45 - the quality is better wide open than the kit lens and that extra 2mm makes such a difference in a city.

Enjoy your break

Cheers

I find my K35mm f3.5 the perfect walkabout city lens. Since you have pretty much every focal length covered I would go without hesitation for the WR.

If it's going to be extremely rainy, the 18-55mm... otherwise plump for the 16-45mm... wide enough to let you leave the 10-20mm back at the hotel unless you specifically need 10-15mm. You could make do with just the 16-45mm for general cityscape shooting.

I'd take the Siggy 24-70 and use the 10-20 ( which you're already taking for wider stuff.

It's a bit bigger? So what!

+1

John

Thanks guys.

Still undecided, so will leave it until the last minute....

Personally I wouldnt take anymore than your original choice - I went to China with the DA12-24, DA40mm and DA 55-300mm & never missed my DA17-70 which I left at home

Simon

Wide is good for cities. I would take the Sigma 10-20mm and 50/1.4. When I travel I take the D12-24, FA43 and FA77 and never want anything longer.

Oh wait, you are already out shooting. Oh well, show us how it went!

If you're taking the 10-20 _and_ a standard zoom, the 16-45 doesn't really offer much over the kit lens for f8 shooting. Of those I would take the 18-55 WR, primarily for the extra reach on the long end: since the Sigma isn't WR you need to take some sort of waterproofing mechanism anyway (ie a freezer bag with the bottom cut off), so the WR isn't actually that much of an advantage.

Just curious.
You have the Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 & Pentax 35mm F2.4, they seem very close qua specs so how is the image quality and handling. If you need a flexiable option the 24-70 should be able to replace the 35 right?

Am I the only one who is just jealous of the choice?

Well I have got back and it was an excellent trip. In fact I will go back due to far to much to photograph and it being a Lads weekend too.

As for the lenses I took, they were the following

Sigma 10-20
Pentax 18-55 WR
Pentax 35mm
Pentax nifty
Pentax 55-300

Usage? Well The 10-20 came out a few times with the cathedral and the Aviation museum. The 18-55 was on the body most of the times, and was pleased in a could of instances that it had WR. The 35mm - surprisingly was not used a lot, but did get used. I took it for its tiny size and to be a little inconspicous, but the sheer number of people with cameras, it did'nt matter what size of lens you had.
The fifty got a few outings, mainly for shallow DOF shots I came across. It is still very useful to have and would not leave home without it.
As for the 55-300, I am glad I had it. With so many trams around it became perfect for long range street work, and I used it a lot for that.

In the end, I think it was a good choice (the mighty 24-70 was just too big to fit in my Slingbag with other lenses), and all did come out of the bag for use. There were times when I wanted longer than 55mm at the long end without changing lenses, and If I had the 24-70 there would have been lots of times where 24 was too long without changing lenses.

Ultimately, if the 18-135 was a lot better than reports say, then as a city lens it would be perfect.
But, if I have the money for the next trip for new lenses, then the Pentax 17-70 will be perfect. It has the wide of the 16-45 and 18-55, yet the range of the 24-70, and it has some WR on it too, great for showers. But thats for next year and Tallinn......

Was I happy with the 18-55? Yes, it could be a tad sharper, but overall it was perfect for the trip.

I will put some shots on here once I have gone through them, but I have already put some on my Flickr site.