I had also thought the 18-135 plus one or two primes for better quality, but having a 'backup' lens is an obvious thought that hadn't occurred to me!

Thanks for all the helpful comments and advice.

I agree about the 'samey' pictures, and the fact that you could buy a professional print somewhere, but it's obviously more about capturing your own unique time/views/memories while you are there rather than anything else.

I think your suggestion, John, about the WG-3 while you are up there with a K-5 for lower down seems perfectly sensible. Knowing that power is likely to be available for charging batteries is good as well.

Do you have any thoughts about lens(es) for a trip like this? I imagine they will not want to go loaded down with too much surplus gear. (Also, keep in mind that at present he is a complete camera novice).

Scary, and crazy! link

I was out at a local club this evening, and was asked for some advice about which camera somebody should buy.

The person in question is a novice, and has never used anything other than a point and shoot.

Early next year he is planning a trip to Everest - obviously a once in a lifetime experience - and he wants a decent camera to be able to take some decent quality pictures - not just for the Everest trip but a camera that can be used when he is out walking generally.

My first thought was a K-30 combined with an 18-135 WR lens. But then I started thinking about it a bit more, and am undecided. Obviously a rugged camera with weather protection - they will be in extreme and cold conditions, so there are many things to consider, such as image quality, camera size and weight, cold (and the effect of that on battery life), probably not a good environment to swap lenses - well, I'm sure you can imagine all the potential problems.

What would you advise. Maybe 2 cameras - a small, light waterproof 'compact' camera for the Everest trip (where you wouldn't lose too much sleep if it got damaged or lost), and then a K-30 or K-5 for general outdoor use.

But whatever I may suggest to him, I'll be telling him to get advise for as many experienced photographers as possible.

I'd be grateful for your thoughts.

Thank you all for some constructive advice and comments.
Out of the 3 I was considering, I was already favouring the two Pentax lenses, with a slight bias towards the 60-250. Opinion seems to be mainly in favour of the zoom, so I think that's the one I'll be aiming to get, unless a real bargain presents itself for a 200.

Mike-P - I think what you say about these lenses seems to pretty well confirm what I have been able to read up about these lenses. Although the Sigma seems to have good AF, the quality on the two Pentax lenses seems to be better. I know I would probably regret not going for the sharper lens,
so I suspect I'll end up choosing between the 200 & 60-250.

For out and out quality, you say the 200 is best. Just how close would you reckon the 60-250 is to it?

Unfortunately I have missed that part of the range on a few occasions (eg motorsport and falconry displays), and it's not always possible to move backwards/forwards.

The 60-250 is certainly my preferred option in terms of the range on offer, provided the AF speed is good enough.

I did try a 60-250 on the day I bought my 300, and was disappointed with the image quality. But it was a hire lens, which seemed in need of some adjustment, and there wasn't another one in stock for comparison, so I think I was unlucky with that particular lens. The 300, on the other hand, just blew me away with it's sharpness after comparing it to the 60-250 and a Sigma 150-500.

Yes, I did think that if I went for the 60-250 there's a good chance the 50-135 will have to go - partly because of the overlap and partly to help fund it!
The autofocus on the 50-135 is fine for everyday use, but is slower than the 300. It's certainly quite usable for motor sport, but the 300 is definitely better. This is why I was wondering about the AF speed of the 60-250 & 70-200.

I'm thinking about getting a lens in the 200mm range, to slot between the DA* 50-135 & 300 lenses I've got.

My thoughts at the moment are:
1) Pentax DA* 200 F2.8
2) Pentax DA* 60-250 F4
3) Sigma 70-200 F2.8

I want something with reasonably fast autofocus (suitable for motor sport, for example) and nice, sharp image quality.

The zooms have the obvious advantage of convenience, but having recently acquired the DA* 300 I'm impressed with the results from it, so quite tempted by another prime lens.

What do you guys think about these choices as far as fulfilling those requirements is concerned?

I have a Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.0 as well, and find it just fine.
I went out to buy the Pentax 17-70, and when I compared the image quality the Sigma was the equal of the Pentax, with the bonus of being cheaper and faster.
The trouble is that I don't use it very much nowadays - tending to favour the more pocketable limited lenses. I must use it more often!