[Jay-K]

Hi there,

I'd really appreciate some advice. After much deliberation I'll be upgrading my k-30 to a k-70 in the next few months. This is principally for a trip to Borneo next year and consequently I'm also looking for a lens with more reach. Currently all I have to my name:

K-30
18-135 WR
Pentax-M 50mm F1.7
HD Pentax-DA 35mm F2.8 Limited Macro

That being said my wife will be bringing along her Canon 7D (I'm afraid she was lost to the darkside long before I met her!) with a Sigma 150-500. So we will have long zoom capability but in my limited use of the lens:
a)It may be my relative unfamiliarity with Canon, difference in the bodies, or simple bias but it doesn't produce images nearly as nice as the 18-135.
b)The 7D's relatively ancient poor high ISO capability
c)I'm a wuss when it comes to heavy kit - I don't want to be carrying it around with me everywhere so, chivalrous as I am, if the wife isn't carrying at least some of the time, it may be left back at camp some days
d)no WR

There seems to be widely varying opinion on the 55-300 perhaps partly due to the reported variance in quality of individual models? I know what I'm like though and despite being willing to deliberate for hours over a purchase, once I've made my choice I'd find it difficult to be bothered with the hassle of rigorous testing and returning of a poor lens version.

Finally I love my primes and would always shoot in them if it was in any way practical.

What I'd really appreciate some advice on is:

1. How does the 55-300 compare to the 18-135? (PLM or older as by all accounts the IQ is largely the same)
2. For anyone with experience of rainforests is 500mm or even 300mm actually necessary?
3. Would a teleconverter on the 18-135 be better?
4. Given my love of primes and the broader versatility of the the 18-135 already owned would I get much use from the 55-300 or would it be more sensible to rent? My concern about renting a prime telephoto however is the expected very limited range of movement in the jungle (or a boat!)

My budget is realistically limited to £400 (after the K-70 purchase) and finally depending on the answers to the questions above should I think about convincing the wife to carry my old K-30? (would love to make us a Pentax family )

Any thoughts and advice greatly appreciated,

Thanks

[Conqueror]

Pentax 55-300mm would be a good choice. It would go well with what you have already. The PLM version has slightly better optical quality, though it is slower in aperture. PLM is a very good travel lens.

You will find a use for 300mm in a rianforest or national park for sure. You will see some wildlife and you might miss it if you dont have >200mm.

With your kit I'd take the 18-135 and add the 55-300 and if space permits take the 35mm macro along too.

[marcm]

Which focal length you employ most is entirely a personal choice. Here is my take. Your lens collection seems more deficit in the wide angle end of the spectrum than the telephoto end. Small creatures will keep their distance from you and you will keep your distance from large animals so a telephoto would serve you great for wildlife (200+mm would be great for orangutans) . However, for landscapes, something like the Pentax 15mm would be best. I guess it depends on whether you aspire to capture Borneo wildlife or Borneo landscapes. Also wide angles are much smaller in weight and size than telephotos which is very good for wimpy husbands like us.

[Kevin B123]

I believe the PLM version of the 55-300mm is a KAF4 mount, and there is no firmware upgrade for the K-30 so that rules it out to use on that body. The none PLM WR version is still a nice lens and optically better than the 18-135 I think. In the sales, I bought mine for £199 and at that price you can forgive it's foibles.
It is not IF and has a long throw, so if I missing focus I take my finger off the AF button and use the forefinger of the other hand on the quick shift to bring it back to infinity and start over. In that respect the new lens has it well beaten. It is fairly light and the barrel has no wobble and will not zoom creep at all, the seals make it nice an stiff. As time is on your side, canvass the best advice and sit tight for the sales!.
If I were buying now, I think I would take the PLM version. my 2 cents.

[Nick Siebers]

Which focal length you employ most is entirely a personal choice. Here is my take. Your lens collection seems more deficit in the wide angle end of the spectrum than the telephoto end. Small creatures will keep their distance from you and you will keep your distance from large animals so a telephoto would serve you great for wildlife (200+mm would be great for orangutans) . However, for landscapes, something like the Pentax 15mm would be best. I guess it depends on whether you aspire to capture Borneo wildlife or Borneo landscapes. Also wide angles are much smaller in weight and size than telephotos which is very good for wimpy husbands like us.

I would disagree on the 15 for this trip, it's a good lens but the 18-135 is pretty darn good at the wide end. Mine has always been much weaker on the long end, and I would hate to be relying upon it for distance pictures of wildlife. The 55-300 is much stronger, at least the HD version I have. 18-135 with a teleconverter would not give great pictures at the long end, I don't think.

Like the OP I prefer primes. But for ranges I don't use much it is nice to have a zoom to cover occasional specific use - like the OP's trip. Zooms are great for travel, and the WR version would be nice in a rain forest. The older versions would serve, too, I've had nice animal shots even from the old Fa-J 75-300. There's not a huge investment to bring one of these zooms along.

So my advice would be take the 18-135, get a wr version of the 55-300, and take the 35 macro too. That's s lit of photographic possibilities in a light compact package.

[Jay-K]

Which focal length you employ most is entirely a personal choice. Here is my take. Your lens collection seems more deficit in the wide angle end of the spectrum than the telephoto end. Small creatures will keep their distance from you and you will keep your distance from large animals so a telephoto would serve you great for wildlife (200+mm would be great for orangutans) . However, for landscapes, something like the Pentax 15mm would be best. I guess it depends on whether you aspire to capture Borneo wildlife or Borneo landscapes. Also wide angles are much smaller in weight and size than telephotos which is very good for wimpy husbands like us.

Haha wimpy husbands indeed. As much as I'd love to have a wider prime in my lineup I don't anticipate much use for it on this trip. Pretty much from day one we'll be in dense rainforest with no open clearings or elevations to speak of, so its very much going to be about the wildlife and the 18-135m should suffice for anything else.

Thanks everyone for their advice, it's convinced me enough that I'd get long term use out of a longer zoom. Now I need just keep an eye out for the sales, and hope I get a good copy of the 55-300!

[VoiceOfReason]

I'd say 55-300 HD WR and think about adding the DA 1.4 tc since you don't want a heavy kit. That will work for what you need, and get you to 420mm on the long end.

If you were fine with a heavy kit and no wr keep an eye out for the Sigma 150-500 or 50-500 here in the marketplace. Of course the best in WR and reach is the DFA 150-450, and it will work with the 1.4 TC giving 630mm at f/8 on the long end, but that's a lot of money.

[Adam]

Pentax 55-300mm would be a good choice. It would go well with what you have already. The PLM version has slightly better optical quality, though it is slower in aperture. PLM is a very good travel lens.

The PLM lens won't work with the K-30, but it's hands-down better than the old lens, so I'd recommend potentially upgrading the body just for the sake of using that lens.

A K-S2 or K-3 would be a fine choice.

[audiobomber]

The DA 18-135mm and DA 55-300mm are more alike in IQ than different. Browser no longer supported

In case you can't see them, try this: https://get.google.com/albumarchive/100586096103361553535/album/AF1QipPO05Ve...CO7y5LGM3-rKEA

Neither is worth mounting a TC on, IME, you'll get better IQ by cropping. You need the expensive Pentax HD 1.4X RC to auto-focus a DC lens like the 18-135mm. The converters with PZ contacts will autofocus, but very slowly with highly unreliable accuracy.

The 55-300mm is an ideal lens for long range and relatively compact size. I suggest the WR version for the seals, but also better construction. The original lens was a bit of a rattlebox, not solid like the 18-135 and 55-300 WR.

My ideal rain forest companion for the 18-135 is the DA*300mm f4.

[Davidparis]

With the K30 l'd have a backup camera just in case...Secondly, l would leave the slow focussing jack-hammer 55-300 at home and take the 18-135. The 55-300 can be sharp and is a nice lens for some applications, but not this one...Example, the 18-135 gave stellar performance in Costarican rain forest where the 55-300 jack-hammer would have been ridiculous...neither needed nor useful. YMMV.

[FantasticMrFox]

For anyone with experience of rainforests is 500mm or even 300mm actually necessary?

I've wandered rainforests in West Africa, South East Asia and Australia, and they all had one thing in common - they are dark. Both your wife's zoom and the HD DA 55-300 PLM WR are not very fast.

It's possible a lens like the DA 70 f/2.4 or D FA 100 f/2.8 are a better choice in such a dark environment. Especially as you will only spot animals relatively close to you anyway - everything beyond 10 m or so will be obscured by dense foliage.

[caliscouser]

I've wandered rainforests in West Africa, South East Asia and Australia, and they all had one thing in common - they are dark. Both your wife's zoom and the HD DA 55-300 PLM WR are not very fast.

It's possible a lens like the DA 70 f/2.4 or D FA 100 f/2.8 are a better choice in such a dark environment. Especially as you will only spot animals relatively close to you anyway - everything beyond 10 m or so will be obscured by dense foliage.

Sounds like a fantastic trip, tough to decide on what lenses to take.

Yep, If you are going to be in primary rain-forest it can be surprisingly dark under foliage, even in the middle of the day.

Lugging around pack in wet, humid, rugged muddy conditions whilst fending off bugs and looking for both wildlife and hazards get physically exhausting very quickly. Every pound of pack gets amplified tremendously.

Most of the wildlife knows your coming long before you get there, but if you do stumble on something there probably wont be time for lens changes.

There can be a lot of small stuff like insects, frogs, snakes, butterfly's, flowers that would make great photo opportunities. I like the idea of having fast macro capability.

I like the idea of the flexibility, WR and size of the 18-135, but I would be concerned it is not fast enough. I think I would go with something like the DA* 50-135 2.8 mounted on a comfortable harness/strap system, perhaps complemented with some kind of small WR compact camera for wide angle / snapshot stuff. As someone mentioned, consider renting too. The rainforest is pretty hard on equipment. So easy to trip, slip and bang into stuff.

Have fun!

[stemked]

Wow. Reading your post seemed pretty Bizarre. I battle the same thing, my wife also shoots with a Canon 7D. She started with a ZX-5n but when she went digital she felt that she "needed" a body that was of a higher status. So she got a 7D. It, and its lenses weigh a ton! And her photos are rarely sharp. Because of this 95% of her photos are taken with a iPhone. Only 5% of mine are taken with a phone.

I spend a lot of time with students in Costa Rica, and my bag generally includes the following: Pentax K3, 15mm f4 or12-24, or WR 18-55 (settled on this one for now), 55-300, 100 DAW Macro, and on the long side either a 300mm F 5.5 +1.7X auctofocusTC or 400mm f5.6 Sigma A Macro. Some of this works, some of it does not. Here are a couple of recommendations for you. The 55-300 is a nice lens, but it is f5.8, great if there's enough light. I used that as my handholdable 'long' lens. I'll post a few images for you from Costa Rica that are with the 55-300 below.





1)Absolutely get the 100mm f2.8 DAW macro lens. That with a small popup diffuser will five you stunning photos of frogs and snakes, especially if you shot at night. I have fallen in love with this combo, light and compact. IMHO you macro is too wide for most wildlife that you are likely to encounter.


2) Do not underestimate the humidity in rainforests. Those water resistant lenses are a rain forest photographer's dream. My Sigma was pretty useless much of the time. Any future trips will be with the 150-450 for my long lens requirement (yes, way out of your budget)


18-55 wr version.

3)Regarding your wife's long lens. If she is going to use it she will pretty much have to be manually focusing if she is shooting into the canape. It's a real challenge to shoot up into a complex matrix of leaves to get a good image of a bird or monkey. Exposure can be very tricky, practice a lot first!

4) I live by a tripod (except when I use the popup flash setup noted) and I travel with either a Bogan CF or Sirui CY that setup quick and allow macro.