Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!

**crewl1** · 12-19-2013, 08:28 AM

Recommend 18-135, ND filters and a travel tripod for the waterfall shots.
For inside the ship a fast wide prime.

formercanuck · 12-19-2013, 08:46 AM

Thanks - it'll probably be the 18-135WR - its fast enough for the outdoor stuff.
A short/fast prime may be good addition. I do already have a great tripod which I'll be bringing along. I'll probably keep the 18-200mm and red 18-55mm for my kids to use on my old red K-x (screen is dead, stuck on 'action' but still works fine other than that).

Kozlok · 12-19-2013, 01:35 PM

In my experience, the 18-135 paired with a Sigma 30/1.4 is a nearly perfect walk around combo. Inside, outside, tele, big aperture, it has it all. I add in my fisheye if I want super wide. I usually don't take my limited primes out and about with the family.

formercanuck · 12-19-2013, 08:11 PM

I think I might get myself a cheap/used Tokina 28mm f/2.8 to cover the prime side.

6BQ5 · 12-20-2013, 02:39 PM

I've had pretty good luck with the FA 28-200mm. You can probably get it for less than $80 if you hunt around and are patient. It's not perfect but nothing like that will ever be. Remember the moment - not the lens.

Colbyt · 12-20-2013, 02:43 PM

We all seem to use vacation to buy the toys we want.

Allow me to play spouse on this one. What do you want to do that you can't with what you already have?

**crewl1** · 12-20-2013, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by Colbyt

We all seem to use vacation to buy the toys we want.

Allow me to play spouse on this one. What do you want to do that you can't with what you already have?

Boooooooo!

Colbyt · 12-20-2013, 05:18 PM

Originally posted by crewl1

Boooooooo!

I plead guilty.

formercanuck · 12-20-2013, 10:29 PM

In the end - I may end up selling off the 18-200 Sigma if I get the 18-135WR. Its not a 'bad' lens, just looking for something in general that may be a little better for when I'm out and about and don't have to 'worry' about the weather as much. I did fog up the 18-200mm pretty bad in the rain in Alaska up in Tracy Arm.

I can always stay on the easy side, and just get an Otterbox for my Galaxy SIII, not worry about WR and get the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4. In general, I wouldn't mind a 'faster' lens regardless (maybe Tamron 17-50)

Giklab · 12-21-2013, 01:28 AM

+1 on the 18-135. If you sell your Sigma you'll probably be able to buy the 35/2.4 as well.

Gray · 12-21-2013, 08:15 AM

Originally posted by formercanuck

...I'm probably down to 18-135WR (for the WR capability) and Sigma 17-70 for image quality...

I have both the DA 18-135 WR and Sigma 17-70 "C". The Sigma is very nice but get the DA. The DA's image quality is on par with the Sigma and actually better at some focal lengths. The DA is WR, has more reach and doesn't suffer from zoom creep like the Sigma. You won't be sorry.

formercanuck · 12-21-2013, 09:44 AM

Thanks for the advice. I had been wondering if WR + extra reach was worth the faster and perceived sharpness of the Sigma 17-70 C

rodin5 · 12-21-2013, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by crewl1

Recommend 18-135, ND filters and a travel tripod for the waterfall shots.
For inside the ship a fast wide prime.

This is an image from the 18-135 on a very dark day at Multnomah falls in the cColumbia Gorge. It was a rainy day and quite dismal. I think this lens will do you good.

formercanuck · 12-21-2013, 04:29 PM

Thanks - I was there last summer with my old K-x + 18-200mm Sigma. In general - outdoors (daylight) should be fine. I should probably get a different lens for indoor/portrait in the long term where I do need the light.
I'll try out the Tokina 28mm f/2.8 when I'm in Maui.

nanhi · 12-22-2013, 09:39 AM

I would sell the K-30 but retain the Sigma 18-200 if the copy is sharp.
I would then buy a K-5 / II / IIs + the Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 EX DC or the f3.5 version.
With these two lenses covering all the useful focal length range the exciting world of cruise / holiday photograhy would be all mine.
Regards.

12-21-2013, 01:14 PM	#28
rodin5 Inactive Account Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Seattle, WA Photos: Albums Posts: 206	DA 18-135mm Originally posted by crewl1 Recommend 18-135, ND filters and a travel tripod for the waterfall shots. For inside the ship a fast wide prime. This is an image from the 18-135 on a very dark day at Multnomah falls in the cColumbia Gorge. It was a rainy day and quite dismal. I think this lens will do you good.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Not sure which camera/lens to get??	ausmoose	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	20	11-16-2013 11:06 AM
Wondering about which lens to get for the K30	Towelie	Pentax K-30 & K-50	3	03-11-2013 10:27 AM
Which lens to get?	couliseaux	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	5	06-26-2011 05:05 PM
which lens to get next. (beginner)	k1000	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	11	12-14-2010 06:32 PM
Which lens to get zoom 50-300	bobmaxja	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	10	04-16-2010 09:18 AM

12-19-2013, 08:28 AM	#16
crewl1 Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Los Angeles, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,807	Recommend 18-135, ND filters and a travel tripod for the waterfall shots. For inside the ship a fast wide prime.

12-19-2013, 08:46 AM	#17
formercanuck Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: SoCal Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 518 Original Poster	Thanks - it'll probably be the 18-135WR - its fast enough for the outdoor stuff. A short/fast prime may be good addition. I do already have a great tripod which I'll be bringing along. I'll probably keep the 18-200mm and red 18-55mm for my kids to use on my old red K-x (screen is dead, stuck on 'action' but still works fine other than that).

12-19-2013, 01:35 PM	#18
Kozlok Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Albuquerque Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,148	In my experience, the 18-135 paired with a Sigma 30/1.4 is a nearly perfect walk around combo. Inside, outside, tele, big aperture, it has it all. I add in my fisheye if I want super wide. I usually don't take my limited primes out and about with the family.

12-19-2013, 08:11 PM	#19
formercanuck Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: SoCal Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 518 Original Poster	I think I might get myself a cheap/used Tokina 28mm f/2.8 to cover the prime side.

12-20-2013, 02:39 PM	#20
6BQ5 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: Nevada, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,348	I've had pretty good luck with the FA 28-200mm. You can probably get it for less than $80 if you hunt around and are patient. It's not perfect but nothing like that will ever be. Remember the moment - not the lens.

12-20-2013, 02:43 PM	#21
Colbyt Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Central Kentucky Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,418	We all seem to use vacation to buy the toys we want. Allow me to play spouse on this one. What do you want to do that you can't with what you already have?

12-20-2013, 02:48 PM	#22
crewl1 Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Los Angeles, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,807	Originally posted by Colbyt We all seem to use vacation to buy the toys we want. Allow me to play spouse on this one. What do you want to do that you can't with what you already have? Boooooooo!

12-20-2013, 05:18 PM	#23
Colbyt Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Central Kentucky Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,418	Originally posted by crewl1 Boooooooo! I plead guilty.

12-20-2013, 10:29 PM	#24
formercanuck Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: SoCal Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 518 Original Poster	In the end - I may end up selling off the 18-200 Sigma if I get the 18-135WR. Its not a 'bad' lens, just looking for something in general that may be a little better for when I'm out and about and don't have to 'worry' about the weather as much. I did fog up the 18-200mm pretty bad in the rain in Alaska up in Tracy Arm. I can always stay on the easy side, and just get an Otterbox for my Galaxy SIII, not worry about WR and get the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4. In general, I wouldn't mind a 'faster' lens regardless (maybe Tamron 17-50)

12-21-2013, 01:28 AM	#25
Giklab Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Slovenia Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,182	+1 on the 18-135. If you sell your Sigma you'll probably be able to buy the 35/2.4 as well.

12-21-2013, 08:15 AM	#26
Gray Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Cape Town Photos: Gallery Posts: 536	Originally posted by formercanuck ...I'm probably down to 18-135WR (for the WR capability) and Sigma 17-70 for image quality... I have both the DA 18-135 WR and Sigma 17-70 "C". The Sigma is very nice but get the DA. The DA's image quality is on par with the Sigma and actually better at some focal lengths. The DA is WR, has more reach and doesn't suffer from zoom creep like the Sigma. You won't be sorry.

12-21-2013, 09:44 AM	#27
formercanuck Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: SoCal Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 518 Original Poster	Thanks for the advice. I had been wondering if WR + extra reach was worth the faster and perceived sharpness of the Sigma 17-70 C

12-21-2013, 04:29 PM	#29
formercanuck Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: SoCal Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 518 Original Poster	Thanks - I was there last summer with my old K-x + 18-200mm Sigma. In general - outdoors (daylight) should be fine. I should probably get a different lens for indoor/portrait in the long term where I do need the light. I'll try out the Tokina 28mm f/2.8 when I'm in Maui.

12-22-2013, 09:39 AM	#30
nanhi Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Bangalore, India Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 469	I would sell the K-30 but retain the Sigma 18-200 if the copy is sharp. I would then buy a K-5 / II / IIs + the Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 EX DC or the f3.5 version. With these two lenses covering all the useful focal length range the exciting world of cruise / holiday photograhy would be all mine. Regards.

Vacation lens - which to get ?

Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!