The 18-250 is a good lens which is better than it ought to be. Unless you are an avid wildlife/birdlife photographer it should be more than good enough (may be cheaper if you find a Tamron version rather than the rebadged Pentax one). I paid £199 for my Tamron, boxed, from LCE.

I would confuse things further by saying that if you like slightly wider angles, good close up ability, a faster lens, and don't expect to really need the telephoto end (how often do you really go there?), I would also look at the 17-70 options. The Sigma is very good and cost-effective.

Jon

I think people buy f1.4 and faster lenses for different purposes - often because they want to use them wide open (or close to wide open) and often because bokeh or other aspects of the image quality are more important for the intended use (portraits perhaps) than edge to edge sharpness.

If general purpose use and sharpness across the image are of paramount importance, then the f1.7 would be a better option.

Great flash bought from SRS in November 2010. Barely used and as new with box, instructions, etc. If you are looking for a decent flash this is a bargain for £110 incl UK postage.

Cheers

Jon

PS can share photos if necessary but everything (incl box) is literally as new.... So nothing to see really!

Build quality of the 1.4 is a step up from the 1.7 - the latter being prone to fragile (plastic) aperture mechanisms. The 1.4 gives speed, more control over depth of field, and lots of fun to be had with bokeh.

Also depends under what circumstances you want it to look "better".

Are we talking about 100% compulsive pixel-peeping, or are we talking about viewing images that are fit to the screen/printed off at sizes most of us can afford?

Differences (especially at lower ISOs by which I mean perhaps 800 or lower) are likely to be minimal unless images are viewed at very large sizes.

I agree - the first shot is a very nice composition, which benefits from not having any modern clutter/wires/etc too. The dappled clouds in the sky help give it a nice balance.

I remember the posts last year Chris. It might help if you can explain what led you to sell your second A700 - what didn't it do that you need from your next camera, or were the reasons nothing to do with the kit per se?

The K-7 is terrific value at its current price, but the K-5 clearly has improved high ISO performance as well as some other improvements - eg faster AF. Whether it's worth the price difference probably depends upon how important these issues are to you.

If you are a wildlife (esp moving wildlife) or low light photographer, I suspect the extra investment would be worthwhile if you have the funds. If you are a lower ISO/landscape shooter then I would be tempted to buy the K-7 and put the money towards decent lenses instead.

My experience is from Botswana. I suggest that the 12-24 is likely to be used less than you might think in the vastness of Africa, but I'd definitely take your Sigma 24-70. Apart from anything else, it's fast aperture will help at Dawn and dusk or for night safaris (where I used Voiglander Nokton f1.4 lens and got much better results than others with big White lenses..). 24-70 will cover a useful range too.

I took the 55-300 and it was good for mammals; less so for birds. Focus speed at longer lengths was problematic on occasion - it can be very slow. I would not bother pairing it with a teleconverter.

I also took a Tamron 500mm mirror lens and used it much more than I expected. Results were good enough to get into PPG. I would suggest you take the Sigma, 50-135 and supplement with another longer zoom to get you to 4-500mm. Or take your Tokina! Also a grip to double your battery life.

If you do take the mirror, consider taking a monopod too. If you use that and keep SR on, the 'keeper-rate' rises exponentially.

Enjoy the trip - we loved ours and are busy saving for a return visit in a few years.

Jon

You wouldn't want to use a big and heavy head though - the Joby one is actually quite good, and I also use that on my monopod on occasion.

Katzeye screen sold. Thanks for looking,

Jon