[theWags]

Headed to Peru (Machu Picchu and other spots) next week and I'm trying to decide if it's worth the effort to drag along my Pentax 300mm lens. I generally use my 18-250 but I'm afraid I might see a critter or something interesting at a distance and might wish I had the 300. Am I fooling myself? Should I travel light and forget the 300, or play it safe and bring it along?

[SpecialK]

travel light and forget the 300

That. I would consider something wider, too. I find the 12-24 is an excellent travel lens.

[theWags]

That. I would consider something wider, too. I find the 12-24 is an excellent travel lens.

Thanks, I do have a wide angle zoom which I will probably bring. And also a 90mm macro. So the question is, do I stop at these three, or do I include the 300 as well?

[K McCall]

Headed to Peru (Machu Picchu and other spots) next week and I'm trying to decide if it's worth the effort to drag along my Pentax 300mm lens. I generally use my 18-250 but I'm afraid I might see a critter or something interesting at a distance and might wish I had the 300. Am I fooling myself? Should I travel light and forget the 300, or play it safe and bring it along?

I've been to Peru as well, and it's one of my favorite countries in the world to visit. If you can make it to Iquitos and the area around that...that's where I'd love to retire!

I personally prefer a lighter kit to carry around, so I'd skip the 300. I'd definitely go with a wide-angle lens, as even just random sides of the road are incredibly panoramic and scenic. Like SpecialK, I find the 12-24 to be one of my favorite travel lenses. The 90mm macro may come in handy, although I find that when I travel, I tend to take fewer macros and the ones I take aren't nearly as memorable as the landscapes and street shots.

Have a great trip, and please post lots when you get back!

[Kozlok]

300 is only 20% longer than 250...Doesn't seem worth taking to me. You'll be happy to have you bag lighter.

[Parallax]

Photography related threads don't belong in GT.
Since this is about lenses, the Lens Discussion forum seems like a good place for it, soooo........

[Just1MoreDave]

I remembered someone taking just the 18-250 to Machu Picchu so I found this for you. Here is a link to his photos: https://www.flickr.com/photos/rfortson/sets/72157600787399995/

And here is one thread where he talks about it: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/6004-proper...-altitude.html

[i_trax]

i would take 18-250 Pentax or Sigma + DA 12-24 if you have it , otherwise Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5

[Dr Orloff]

Wildlife will not be the focus on this trip. Landscape will be the priority, along with some normal length travelogue photography. I have not been there for many years. There was a bus strike when I visited and we had to climb up from the Urubamba valley. Quite some effort but all the more worthwhile to appreciate the setting. A magical place, to be captured with your finest lenses.

[theWags]

Thanks for all the input folks. I was originally planning to bring the 300, but then thought it might not be used much and it's heavy to lug around. It looks like the verdict is unanimous - leave it home. So I will. And after seeing the link provided by Just1MoreDave, I decided it will be worth having my 90mm macro with me. So it looks like 3 lenses in the bag - 12-24, 90 macro, and the 18-250. Probably also bring my flash, and that's about it. I'll post some shots in late May.

I planned this trip without knowing much about the area, and so I allocated a few days in Mexico City on the way. Now, after seeing how much there is to see in Peru, I wish I could start over. Oh well, maybe another trip....

[peterjcb]

Thanks for all the input folks. I was originally planning to bring the 300, but then thought it might not be used much and it's heavy to lug around. It looks like the verdict is unanimous - leave it home. So I will. And after seeing the link provided by Just1MoreDave, I decided it will be worth having my 90mm macro with me. So it looks like 3 lenses in the bag - 12-24, 90 macro, and the 18-250. Probably also bring my flash, and that's about it. I'll post some shots in late May.

I planned this trip without knowing much about the area, and so I allocated a few days in Mexico City on the way. Now, after seeing how much there is to see in Peru, I wish I could start over. Oh well, maybe another trip....

This must be the "in" destination...my son is leaving this coming Thursday for the same trip...he's doing the hiking trail.

The DA35mm Macro limited would be an excellent lens to bring, it's small & compact and has outstanding IQ besides having Macro capability.
Or I might suggest a DA15 or FA 31, both are reasonably compact especially the DA15.
You might find yourself using the normal & wide lenses most of all on a trip like this.

[Sandy Hancock]

What body are using? Do you have any lenses apart from those already mentioned?
The air is pretty thin up there; every gram in your bag will feel like it's double the weight.

[theWags]

What body are using? Do you have any lenses apart from those already mentioned?
The air is pretty thin up there; every gram in your bag will feel like it's double the weight.

I have the K-3 body. The only other lens I have is a Pentax 17-70. Recent divorce has made it tough to buy the good lenses, lol. My macro lens is a 90mm Tamron that I really like. My wide angle is also a Tamron 10-24. I am a little worried about the altitude. We aren't doing any of the long hikes, but still... We'll be spending several days in Mexico City, which I understand is 7,300 ft, so that will help acclimate a little before heading up the big hill. I lived in Denver back in the Army, but now when I go it's different, especially at the ski towns. I'm 67 now. Should be interesting, in more ways than one

[bdery]

If hiking a lot, the 300 will be heavy. Ask yourself if that weight will be incapacitating for you. That's the main question.

As for me, I would have a hard time traveling with only a 18-250 because I wouldn't trust it for those once-in-a-lifetime images, IQ will be correct but not astounding. I'd bring a few small primes (21, 40, 100 macro in my case).

[theWags]

If hiking a lot, the 300 will be heavy. Ask yourself if that weight will be incapacitating for you. That's the main question.

As for me, I would have a hard time traveling with only a 18-250 because I wouldn't trust it for those once-in-a-lifetime images, IQ will be correct but not astounding. I'd bring a few small primes (21, 40, 100 macro in my case).

The thought of swapping primes scares me a bit. I think with all the tourist competition I need to be able to grab a shot quickly when it opens up. I've been doing a lot of reading on Pentax lenses and I just don't see any good alternative that would be a significant improvement over the 18-250. I've considered picking up the Sigma 70-200 2.8 and using it with my Pentax 17-70, but then I have the swapping issue again. Tamron has a new 16-300 that looks interesting, but not available for Pentax. So, while the 18-250 may not be perfect, it looks like the best alternative for my situation.