[teetoeb]

I know the answer. I NEED! but which one(s). Yes! its one of those threads again, sorry.

Fact:
- I'm going to Europe in June - 3 weeks
- k20 - 20 3.5, 43, 77 on hand

I love my primes but sometimes a pair of zooms are convenient and more considerate to your significant other on a trip.

I'm looking for a two zoom option. The contenders, Sigma 10-20, Sigma 8-16 for the wide and Tamron 17-50, Tamron 28-75, or DA 18-135 for the normal/mid-tele.

I know I'm getting either 10-20 or 8-16, the former being the cheaper option. The 8-16 was a recent consideration due to the fl.

What I couple the wide zoom with is where my brain spins and I think, I over analyze things just a little.

10-20 + 17-50 - cheap, nice overlap, fast 2.8 for low light, no weather seal
10-20 + 28-75 - cheap, 28 too long for indoor low light, no weather seal
8-16/10-20 + 18-135 - is the DA fast enough for low light - museums/churches

8-16 + 17-50 - i have the 77 for reach if needed, no weather seal
8-16 + 28-75 - i have the 20 3.5, might be too many lens switching, no weather seal

I've always wanted a weather sealed lens with my k20. The 18-135 is perfect just not for this trip. After all that I've come to realize that I can always get the 18-55WR for cheap.

your opinions and thoughts are appreciated...

[sewebster]

I don't think you really need an overlap. You can often either move a bit, or crop a bit. I don't understand why 28 is too long for indoor low light... well, I guess you mean for taking pictures of insides of buildings when you want something wide. Tripod? You could buy a new camera and bump the iso up to a million as an alternative.

[aurele]

If you want a zoom, try a WR, ou have a body made for it

For the rest, i don't think you really need more lenses. i would just say a 28mm f2.8 wich is my normal prime, with the DA 35mm f2.4. But i rather like 28mm.
For indoor, 28mm is the best choice, as far as i'm concerned. it's very close to what you see, in terme of width.

[bymy141]

Hi Teetoeb,

I live in Europe and do (have done) a lot of travel in Europe, including city trips.
Most trips I take:
- 10-17mm (will be replaced by a rectaliear lens soon [10-20mm?])
- 16-50mm
- 55-300mm

I have many more lenses but leave them home because of size & weight in a shoulder bag.

- The 16-50mm is on the camera 90% of the time, the 10-17mm around 7% and the 55-300mm around 3%.
- Landscape & indoors (buildings / churches) need wide angle.
- The 55-300mm is "good enough" considering the number of times I need long glass.
- I leave the flash at home.

I did take a FA 50mm f1.4 in the past, however with a K20D / K-5 you don't need that speed often and when you need it 50mm is often too long.

Hope this helps you decide,

- Bert

[Jasvox]

I travel all over Europe and in most case take my 17-50 with me as my "go to" lens. I find that in 99% of the times, the 17mm is plenty wide enough. If I had to buy a new lens and WR was a desire, I would buy the new Pentax 18-135. You get a fairly wide end as well as a fairly long reach. As far as primes go, I would leave them and go for a zoom or two...recommending 1 lens unless you like carry around heavy, expensive gear all over the continent.

Jason

[Ash]

The question is what do you *need* WR for. If you intend to take your gear out purposefully into more austere conditions then WR would be a must rather than a want. In that case, the 18-135 would fit the bill nicely and offer you a lightweight one lens solution, which of course compromises somewhat on speed. The other option is 18-55 WR (less favourable) or 16-50 (much better). Other non-WR options are very good, so no need to go further with advice.

[SpecialK]

As I think I've recommended in every other travel/lens thread, the 12-24 is very handy.

I would normally also say the Tamron 28-75 would be a great complement for it, but as you have the 43 and 77 already, those 3 would do about all of it.

---

Last edited by SpecialK; 02-11-2011 at 06:16 PM.

[hoanpham]

I use 17-70 most while travel in cities, then 50-200 (beach, portraits), then 12-24 . I'll also bring the new sigma 8-16 next time. no primes, but flash and flash gel.
No need to enlarge more than double page 12 inches photo book anyway.
Except for beaches, you won't need WR in europe. 18-135 seems like a good choice. combi with 8-16, your 20 and a tripod for museum. Flash is not allowed, but 1 sec/longer exp is as good, may be better.
Hope this helps.

Edit: As a second though, I may pick 10-20 for filter use and cheaper, that if you have to get an WA, and only one. I have 12-24 and can use the 8-16 without a filter. It's my compromise in 12mm. 20mm is not as same.

[Jasvox]

I
Except for beaches, you won't need WR in europe. 18-135 seems like a good choice. combi with 8-16, your 20 and a tripod for museum.

Depends on where you are in Europe during June. The weather can change from sunny to rainy pretty much like any place else, especially the north and north central Europe in June. Tripods in museums are rarely allowed and I wouldn't count on being allowed with one inside.

Travel light, you'll not regret it!

Jason

[Lowell Goudge]

I know the answer. I NEED! but which one(s). Yes! its one of those threads again, sorry.

Fact:
- I'm going to Europe in June - 3 weeks
- k20 - 20 3.5, 43, 77 on hand

I love my primes but sometimes a pair of zooms are convenient and more considerate to your significant other on a trip.

I'm looking for a two zoom option. The contenders, Sigma 10-20, Sigma 8-16 for the wide and Tamron 17-50, Tamron 28-75, or DA 18-135 for the normal/mid-tele.

I know I'm getting either 10-20 or 8-16, the former being the cheaper option. The 8-16 was a recent consideration due to the fl.

What I couple the wide zoom with is where my brain spins and I think, I over analyze things just a little.

10-20 + 17-50 - cheap, nice overlap, fast 2.8 for low light, no weather seal
10-20 + 28-75 - cheap, 28 too long for indoor low light, no weather seal
8-16/10-20 + 18-135 - is the DA fast enough for low light - museums/churches

8-16 + 17-50 - i have the 77 for reach if needed, no weather seal
8-16 + 28-75 - i have the 20 3.5, might be too many lens switching, no weather seal

I've always wanted a weather sealed lens with my k20. The 18-135 is perfect just not for this trip. After all that I've come to realize that I can always get the 18-55WR for cheap.

your opinions and thoughts are appreciated...

My minimum kit that I have posted many many times is 4 zooms

Sigma 10-20, pentax FA-J 18-35, tamron 28-75 F2.8 and sigma 70-200F2.8

When I do cities only, the 70-200 drops out really quick, and if I go light I take the 10-20 and 28-75, along with my 8mm fisheye.

The gap does not really bother me.

[hoanpham]

While this going on, just strikes in my mind that I may need some advice as well:
What should I bring to Niagara fall ? (from Canada side)
I have 8-16, 12-24, many in range 16-70, several in range 50-400
Never been there, but in few months.
Thanks.

[clockwork247]

you can get the 10-24 and 28-70... that won't get any over lap... you'll be missing 25-27 though lol not sure if that's a bad thing.

Probably the 4 most important lens.
10-24
28-70
70-200
50 or 35 f1.4

This would cover 90% of the situation and should all fit into a small bag. In fact if you're not doing landscape or tele, the 28-70 would actually work (some people even use a 50 indoor so 28 is wide enough). and pack a 50 in your pocket just to have it when you need super low light lens.

[snofox]

While this going on, just strikes in my mind that I may need some advice as well:
What should I bring to Niagara fall ? (from Canada side)
I have 8-16, 12-24, many in range 16-70, several in range 50-400
Never been there, but in few months.
Thanks.

I lived in Niagara Falls Canada from birth to 30 years, and know the area well. No doubt you will want to take shots of the Falls themselves. You will have the opportunity to get in close, or take the shots from the top of the Gorge. You will need one WR lens, because you likely will be drenched in the mist from the Falls themselves.

The closer you get to the Falls, the wetter you will get. I recommend for this the 18-135 WR, or the DA*16-50 (assuming you have a WR camera body), or (last) a DA 18-55 WR. They would be excellent one-lens solutions for the Falls and the surrounding Parks, and also the entire beautiful Niagara River scenic area from Fort Erie (opposite Buffalo New York) down to Niagara-on-the-Lake (DO NOT MISS IT!). Frankly, I don't think that you need anything else, except maybe a DA 21 Limited or DA 15 Limited to cover the weaker wide ends of these WR lenses.

If you don't have WR lenses and don't want to buy them, then buy plastic rainsleeves (from OpTech) to protect your camera and lenses. You WILL need protection from the mist. Have fun, and enjoy. The Niagara Parks Commission keeps the parklands from Fort Erie to Niagara on the Lake, Ontario, in beautiful condition. It is a photographer's heaven, what with the flower beds and the cultivated landscapes up and down the Niagara River Gorge.

This is not a paid commercial post, just an opinion from a Niagara Falls native ex-pat.

[hoanpham]

Thank you snofox,
I intent to travel light. Rain-sleeves is good to have.
I appreciate a lot.

Is there a route that is safe for younger children (from 5 and up)?

[Michaelina2]

- I'm going to Europe in June - 3 weeks
- k20 - 20 3.5, 43, 77 on hand

I love my primes but sometimes a pair of zooms are convenient and more considerate to your significant other on a trip....

After 3 weeks with family, last year, I recommend...

Camera Vest/Jacket in black: Essential Travel Jacket from SCOTTEVEST/

DA 16-45/4: on your camera
FA 43: in your left pocket
FA 77: in your right pocket

Small 'Netbook' style laptop: (Leave at your hotel during the day) Review your days shoot, utilize hotel wireless access to internet and email, store/upload images, make restaurant reservations, keep schedule/notes, maps, etc.

My 2 cents.... M