[Marc Sabatella]

My point is that, if anyone else is like me, there isn't travel and travel. My kit fits in one portable bag, provides range and speed, and is designed to come with me whenever and wherever. I take it down the street, or backpacking in other countries.

FWIW, I'm more or less like you. I've got way more lenses than I use, but most just sit on a sit a shelf. The small set lenses I take with me traveling across country is the same small set of lenses I take to the local jazz club or use in my living room. I am pretty quick about changing lenses, and I just don't do it all that often - I tend to pick a prime that will work for a while and stick with it.

[GeneV]

FWIW, I'm more or less like you. I've got way more lenses than I use, but most just sit on a sit a shelf. The small set lenses I take with me traveling across country is the same small set of lenses I take to the local jazz club or use in my living room. I am pretty quick about changing lenses, and I just don't do it all that often - I tend to pick a prime that will work for a while and stick with it.

Now I'm not really getting the difference between what you guys do and what I do. I took four primes and two kit zooms on the last trip, and mostly used the primes. How different is that? I'm the one with lenses sitting on the shelf.

[CWyatt]

You don't list your equipment, so I can't tell what your "kit" would be. If I decided to take all my stuff, I'd be schlepping 9 bodies and more than 20 lenses. That isn't happening on a trip of any distance.

To be honest I don't understand the listing of gear, so I don't do it. My last trip backpacking overseas I had two lenses: Images of Asia.

Now I have four lenses which is the most I've had at once - three zooms (wide, standard, tele) and one fast prime. One body. Fits in one backpack with spare batteries, chargers, filters etc. I like it that way.

I'd have a different set up if I had the money, but I wouldn't necessarily have many more lenses.

If I had special requirements (macro etc) I might need more gear, or a spare body with no lens on it in the bottom of my backpack.

I just don't get the 'travelling with only a superzoom' set up, whether you're there 'to photograph' or not.

[Marc Sabatella]

Now I'm not really getting the difference between what you guys do and what I do. I took four primes and two kit zooms on the last trip, and mostly used the primes. How different is that? I'm the one with lenses sitting on the shelf.

I was responding mostly to the bit about "there's traveling and then there's traveling", as if one might have two different kits depending on what kind of traveling we're talking about. My kit is my kit, and while I do make slight adjustments occasionally for specific purposes, I don't have a traveling kit and then some different kit for when I'm not traveling, but traveling :-).

Looking back, I also see your comment "Also, travel is a different animal from other uses for a camera. For travel (other than travel expressly for photography) I want it small and light as well as compentent. I also don't necessarily want it to cost an arm and leg and be an attractive target for theft." My response would be, none of that describes how travel is any different from any other use of a camera to me. I *always* want my kit to be small and light and competent, to not cost and arm and leg, and to not be an attractive target for theft. Your comment implies you have one kit for when not traveling but a different kit for when you are traveling. That's what's different.

---

Last edited by Marc Sabatella; 08-22-2010 at 11:26 AM.

[GeneV]

I was responding mostly to the bit about "there's traveling and then there's traveling", as if one might have two different kits depending on what kind of traveling we're talking about. My kit is my kit, and while I do make slight adjustments occasionally for specific purposes, I don't have a traveling kit and then some different kit for when I'm not traveling, but traveling :-).

Looking back, I also see your comment "Also, travel is a different animal from other uses for a camera. For travel (other than travel expressly for photography) I want it small and light as well as compentent. I also don't necessarily want it to cost an arm and leg and be an attractive target for theft." My response would be, none of that describes how travel is any different from any other use of a camera to me. I *always* want my kit to be small and light and competent, to not cost and arm and leg, and to bot be an attractive target for theft. Your comment implies you have one kit for when not traveling but a different kit for when you are traveling. That's what's different.

The first paragraph I didn't write, so I'll leave it to Rico.

As to the second part, yes, if you come to my house, and I take a portrait, there will be different equipment around. The same goes for an event such as a dance camp where I set up a half dozen flashes and use several bodies. I guess we do differ in that I think there are uses for more and bulky equipment. However, there is not much difference between my kit for coming over to a friend's house for a visit, going to a music recital and traveling to Spain. I might add or subtract a lens or a flash, but it's going to be pretty much the same unless I'm traveling because I am supposed to take photos.

[GeneV]

To be honest I don't understand the listing of gear, so I don't do it. My last trip backpacking overseas I had two lenses: Images of Asia.

Now I have four lenses which is the most I've had at once - three zooms (wide, standard, tele) and one fast prime. One body. Fits in one backpack with spare batteries, chargers, filters etc. I like it that way.

I'd have a different set up if I had the money, but I wouldn't necessarily have many more lenses.

If I had special requirements (macro etc) I might need more gear, or a spare body with no lens on it in the bottom of my backpack.

I just don't get the 'travelling with only a superzoom' set up, whether you're there 'to photograph' or not.

With the clarification of the equipment involved, I wouldn't really argue with that for the majority of situations. I do have uses for more equipment, but beyond a basic kit, almost all of the equipment that anyone purchases is for special requirements or because we purchase something and it is superseded by another purchase. I also agree about the superzoom. That is partly because I don't think the current ones accomplish all that much for travel, other than avoiding lens changes. The total kit with a superzoom will be heavier and larger than my set of DALtd primes or smaller zoom plus a prime.

One big difference in my longer distance travel kit is omitting the external flash. The K-x allowed that.

[Internetpilot]

I won't exactly call the 55-300 a kitlens. honestly, it is better than the 18-55 (whatever version). I would think you will still be able to use the 55-300 when the condition calls for it, like shooting at longer telephotos. I had used mine practically more during the winter olympics here as it suits the events and scenarios, while my wide lenses were kept out of sight or were used only a few times.

That's what I was saying as well -- I love the 55-300mm, and whether we choose to call it one or not, it is a kit lens since I'm pretty sure that you cannot buy the 55-300mm DA-L outside of a kit (unless second-hand, gray market, etc.).

For my twins' high school graduation, I used the 55-300mm the entire time, from seats fairly far from the stage, without a flash, etc. The combination of the 55-300mm, plus the KX's low light abilities (not that the light was extremely low there, but it was an indoor arena) was a wonderful first-time experience for me. Previous cameras/lenses would've made those shots a lot more difficult.

Unfortunately, for my later close-up "happy snaps" I was using the 18-55mm DA-L, and to this day when I look at those photos, I'm wishing that I had the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 back then. The full-zoom "portraits" taken at a distance (like 300mm) of the 55-300mm DA-L turned out better than most, if not all, of the closer portraits taken with the 18-55mm DA-L. I tried a a variety of techniques (external flash, no flash, wide open, stopped down, even the scene modes) to no avail. But again, I just think I have a poor copy of the 18-55mm DA-L, because I've seen shots than what I could get with this same model of lens. It's not that it's beyond my skill -- I'm getting great shots with the 55-300mm DA-L, Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8, and even getting quite a few nice ones with the cheapish Sigma 28-105mm, but I can't pull much, if anything, close to the other lenses out of my 18-55mm DA-L.

Just a quick comment on travel gear -- I'm far from being the photographer that most of you are, but I learned with my first DSLR (Olympus E-500) that if you're a photography hobbyist going on vacation, you really don't want to leave anything important behind. I brought most of my gear with me on a tour of Italy, France, and Spain, but to lighten the load I would frequently leave some of my gear back at the hotel or cruise ship. ALWAYS regretted it -- every single time. Didn't bring my flash because everyone was saying, "No flash photography is allowed." Well, there were several instances where flash photography was allowed, so I wished I'd had it. I would frequently just go with an Olympus 18-180mm thinking it would be a great travel lens. I found myself frequently wishing I had brought the kit lens, which was slightly wider. So now I've purposely limited the gear I own down to a typically required minimum, and bring all of it in the same backpack, whether going on a local day trip or going on vacation. Now I never have those, "I wish I would've brought...." moments.

[UnknownVT]

Both the 18-55 (Mk.1 and II) and the 55-300 are good lenses -
there are always sample variations and with so many 18-55 kit zooms out there - there are bound to be a few that do not perform as the majority -

Here are the SQF charts from Popular Photography for the excellent 55-300 and 18-55 Mk II -

[Marc Sabatella]

As to the second part, yes, if you come to my house, and I take a portrait, there will be different equipment around. The same goes for an event such as a dance camp where I set up a half dozen flashes and use several bodies. I guess we do differ in that I think there are uses for more and bulky equipment.

Hmm, don't get me wrong - I didn't say more/bulkier equipment doesn't have its place. Just that it doesn't have its place in *my* kit for *my* purposes, whether traveling or not. I'm not trying to criticize anyone for making use of such equipment just because I don't - I'm just pointing out that it is a difference.

However, there is not much difference between my kit for coming over to a friend's house for a visit, going to a music recital and traveling to Spain. I might add or subtract a lens or a flash, but it's going to be pretty much the same

And this is the part where we're not different. It's just that for you, these things don't represent all of what you do with your camera - there are other things for which you do use significantly more equipment. Whereas I don't really do any other type of photography that comes with different requirements for equipment.

[RioRico]

Re: There is travel, and there is travel. We travel for different reasons, and we have different styles, so we are going to carry different kits. My original dSLR setup (K20D, fisheye zoom, superzoom, Fast Fifty, flash) on a long slow drive across Mexico convinced me that I needed more glass, much more -- the never-ending quest for pixie dust, eh?

Such a load would be insane to fly or backpack with, but trivial to throw in the car. I like slow travel. Drive someplace new; obtain room or campsite; wander around slowly with various lenses, each day (or hour) a different lens, a different experience. Hey, take the bellows and a bunch of little enlarger and MF/LF lenses! Hey, what are the best conditions for the various long lenses? Which glass sings?

Maybe I schlep around all that glass because I DON'T live in a photogenic city where I can just stroll to lens-sucking wonders. ANY photographic experience requires travel. And a small kit just doesn't satisfy.

[m42man]

Here's an interesting comparison of the 14-45 and the two (optical) versions of 18-55:

To Kit or not to Kit – Three Pentax Kit Lenses ERPhotoReview

Unfortunately, sadly we also have to be aware of sample variations as being a major factor when making a purchase. Nowadays I always hold my breath and shut my eyes when buying a cheap(ish) zoom...

[CWyatt]

Although i don't use of these lenses, that will be a helpful review (although I didn't check their testing method, just conclusions). Interesting the version II kit is better at the wide end. I had the original kit lens and the wide end was pretty ugly.

the 16-45mm f/4 is the upgrade lens, although it has more recently been replaced by the 17-70 f/4 SDM which I don’t have to compare.

I don't get this?