[chrism_scotland]

I've been thinking along similar lines myself since I purchased the DA 40mm Ltd for my K20D, I'm seeking to keep my kit fairly lightweight or else I end up leaving it at home.
Probably looking to pickup the DA21mm in the next week or so and then add a wider lens later, although I could skip it and just pickup the 15mm first.

[Chex]

Another way to go about it is to go out and figure out what bag/backpack/slingpack you want, then see how much space you have to fit gear and build accordingly. You can fit probably fit the 21/43/70 in place of one longer range zoom or flash. That would leave a lot of room for others like the DFA 100 WR Macro.

[MSD]

Another way to go about it is to go out and figure out what bag/backpack/slingpack you want, then see how much space you have to fit gear and build accordingly. You can fit probably fit the 21/43/70 in place of one longer range zoom or flash. That would leave a lot of room for others like the DFA 100 WR Macro.

That's an interesting way to think about it. I haven't really decided on how to package my kit, but I see this is important.

[RonHendriks1966]

Well if you want to do macro, a macrolens is the best way to go. You can also use extensiontubes with contacts with a lens that doesn't have an aperturering.

For wildlife you will need in the longrun at least a 300mm lens.

For my collection I have 14mm (would like to have 15, but this was a trade), 21mm, 40mm, 55mm and FA*85mm. Also a zoom, 50-135mm, but using it not very often since I have the FA*.

My plans are FA 31mm Ltd and a Sigma 120-300mm/f2.8 to cover my range.

For small travel for me I think after arriving the 31mm will be favorite.

[MSD]

For wildlife you will need in the longrun at least a 300mm lens.

Then do people just avoid wildlife photography when travelling (or, at least, telephoto wildlife photography)? Or is a TC the way to go? This seems a hassle, though.

That's a nice kit you're developing.

[sterretje]

I always made the best from what I had available. There are several ways to achieve what you want.

Just hide near a water place and the game will come eventually; can be a few days though
Or have a different approach to / view on the subject; no close ups but animals in their environment.
Or travel by car; plenty of animals are so used to cars that they don't see them as a thread; try to approach the same animal by foot and it will either run away or attack (depending on its nature)

Shot plenty of wildlife with 70-210/4 on film with the above approaches. At occasion I used a TC.

[Spotmatic]

My basic kit is 15, 40, & 70 Limiteds, plus one longer telephoto that varies according to situation, but is currently most often M120/2.8. I'm not that into macro, but a Raynxo 150 adds virtually no size or weight to my kit and is much easier to deal with than your reversing setup. Combined with the DA70 it yields 1:2; combined with a 135 it yields 1:1. I use it with a stepping ring rather than provided clip on adapter because that makes it even smaller and easier to deal with for me.

All lenses in my kit have the same 49mm filter size, which really simplifies a prime kit more than one might think. The longest lens you can get in that filter size is probably the DA50-200WR, and it's worth considering as smallest/lightest telephoto you can get, but if you're so concerned about IQ that you're iffy about the 55-300, you'll probably be reluctant to consider the 50-200. You'll just have to consider how much you'll be using that focal length range and whether the difference in IQ in those situations justifies the difference in size/weight/cost required to step up in quality. I find the DA50-200 surprisingly good, personally, and may someday get the WR version - as much for its 49mm filter size as its WR, petty as that sounds.

Not petty at all, just good common sense, especially if telephoto shooting is something you do infrequently.

[Marc Sabatella]

Then do people just avoid wildlife photography when travelling (or, at least, telephoto wildlife photography)? Or is a TC the way to go?

TC's are almost never an improvement over simply cropping. Cropping might have been difficult enough with film to make the awkwardness of using a TC worthwhile, but with digital, cropping is both easier *and* more effective except with certain combinations of expensive lenses with expensive TC's.

As for not shooting wildlife when traveling, that depends on the purpose of the trip and where it is. I mean, if I'm just visiting another town, the squirrels and pigeons and - if I'm lucky - deer look pretty much the same as they do at home. They aren't what I came to see, so indeed, I don't tend to waste my time shooting yet more pictures of animals (and worry about taking up space in my travel bag for a lens for that purpose). On the other hand, if I were to go on an African safari, then wildlife would presumably be the focus, and of course I'd want some long lenses and expect to spend time using them.

[ledusin]

I do a lot of travel and mountain climbing
DA 15mm F4 lmtd (for open spaces)
SMC A 50mm 1.4 (i use this for portraits of local people, excellent IQ)
DA 70mm lmtd (there's no lightweight telephoto, but this goes 105mm on K7 so medium telephoto ok)

[tygold]

Hello,

i had to face a similar question when i moved for 14 months to Japan and wanted a light weight and small travel kit. My focus was on hiking, towns, sightseeing and so on, but not on wildlife photography (didn't want to disturb the bears ). And i am a sucker for primes

Ok, i chose the DA 15, DA 21, FA 35 and DA 70. For longer tele, i had the TC Pentax-F 1.7.
When i went hiking, i took the 15/35/70 combo and use the 15 most of the time. For towns and temples and so on, it was a tie between the 15 and 21. All in all i have to say, that i used the 70 far less than the other lenses, but i think this is mostly due to my preference.

In retrospective it was a very good choice, but i could have lived without the DA 21 The kit was light enough to be used on 10h hikes in the mountains and not being a burden. Most of the time i changed between the 15 and 35, so i put the lens i didn't want to use in my pocket - very handy I exchanged the caps of the primes with snap-on caps like the FA 35 has, especially the cap of the DA 15 is very annoying. In the case of the DA 21 and 70 it is not so important to exchange the caps, but you should do it when you share one filter for every lens. Sharing the filter is nice, but i will buy one CLP for every lens, as it is sometime a little hassle to change the filters.

So from my experience i would always recommend the 15/35/70 -combo. You can take great pictures and you will always have a smile on your face when you see a Nikon or Canon guy dragging the 2-3 kg of his precious camera and fancy 2.8-zoom dangling from his neck

Did i miss something ? In some occasions i missed a longer tele and i am seriously thinking about the 50-135/2.8 - which is not so long, but i think the longer tele are just to heavy and thus not usable for longer excursions.

I hope i could help you in your decisions.

Tobi

p.s. just a random pick of a picture by the DA15

[GeneV]

As I've posted on other similar threads, my lightweight kit is DA 15/21/40/70, with a 50-200 in reserve for outings where I know I need something longer. Most of the time, I can crop the very sharp 70 to get as tight as I need.

[mickeymon]

Probably looking to pickup the DA21mm in the next week or so and then add a wider lens later, although I could skip it and just pickup the 15mm first.

Hi there. I have the same problem, I'm looking for a compact all-round travel lens and I'm not sure whether to go for DA21 or DA15?

By travel I mean mostly cities, i.e. buildings, points of interest and people (outdoor and indoor).

I've found DA40 difficult to work with. E.g. when taking pictures of buildings I need to distance myself a lot and often unwanted objects get in the frame. When taking pics of people (indoor) I can usually fit only one or two persons.

With Tamron AF 17-50 mm F/2.8 Di I have the problem of bulkiness and, most importantly, that the built-in flash casts a shadow.

Any suggestions? Thx.

[selar]

My lightweght prime kit is going to be (waiting on DA15 arrival):

K-x
DA 15
FA 35
FA 50/1.4
DA 70
VL 180/4

I recently used the FA 35/2 exclusively in low light indoors with Kx at a birthday, and was very impressed. Didn't miss my zooms at all.

[Colbyt]

As I've posted on other similar threads, my lightweight kit is DA 15/21/40/70, with a 50-200 in reserve for outings where I know I need something longer. Most of the time, I can crop the very sharp 70 to get as tight as I need.

The 15 and the 21 seem very close together in my mind. Why do you like to have them both? I can see adding one or the other to the 40 that I bought but not both. A link is fine if you have posted this answer before.

Someone posted that the 15 was slightly harder to master than the 21. Do you agree or disagree with that statement. All the 15mm images I see posted here are fabulous but you guys would not post the flubs.

[GeneV]

The 15 and the 21 seem very close together in my mind. Why do you like to have them both? I can see adding one or the other to the 40 that I bought but not both. A link is fine if you have posted this answer before.

Someone posted that the 15 was slightly harder to master than the 21. Do you agree or disagree with that statement. All the 15mm images I see posted here are fabulous but you guys would not post the flubs.

Have you actually tried the 15 and 21? It is all a question of our own preference, but if you think they are too close, then don't buy the 21, and crop the 15. Personally, I wouldn't give the DA21 up because it does not take much room and adds a view that I use a good deal.

6mm is usually thought to be a big difference in the wide angle world. I tend to use the 15mm indoors and the 21mm outdoors, but here is one example I found of the two lenses from about the same balcony. This is a quick and dirty example of the difference in view only, without sprucing these up for the web or making comparisons of lens performance.

DA15:


DA21: