[bwield]

Getting ready for a trip to Yellowstone has given me an oppertunity to upgrade my lense collection the last couple of months.

As far as the trip is concerned I would like to limit it to 3 (maybe 4) lenses because of the excessive backpacking that will take place..

SO far I have recently upgraded to the 16-45mm which I am very happy with, and also picked up the new 55-300mm which is an upgrade over my older sigma 70-300 dg lense.

I've been toying with many different lenses to round out the trip, everything from the bigma, da* 50-135, sigma 10-20.. 10-17 fisheye and a bunch of different limited pancakes, but i cannot some to any sort of decision.

Anyone have any thoughts of which they would buy to round of the trip lense collection??

[heatherslightbox]

Let's see...
16-45: good choice
55-300: good choice

If I were you, I'd definitely pick up the Sigma 10-20. It looks big, but it's not as heavy as it looks. I've got one on loan from a fellow Pentaxian and I really like it, so I'll probably be getting one of my own sometime down the road. With what you'll have, you'll have 10-300mm covered in zooms, which should be enough for most situations.

Primes--since you're going to be out in nature (aaahhh!), animals and beautiful landscapes aren't going to be the only natural things you'll want to shoot. If you think you might want to do any closeup/macro work, I would suggest that you pick up a short dedicated macro--either the new DA35/2.8 or DFA 50/2.8, both which are excellent lighterweight options.

HTH,
Heather

[Aegon]

I just bought the DA* 50-135, and though the lens is super nice, it is too big and unnecessarily fast for landscape work. I had to rearrange my whole bag to fit the lens (small bag, really).

I am happy with the decision, but it doesn't seem like the right lens for a hiking trip. Smaller lenses weigh less and cover more ground, and they'll work great for landscapes.

[bwield]

Ya, I think that size is really going to be the thing that keeps me away from the bigma and athe 50-135.

I think smaller options will probably serve me better

[Canada_Rockies]

Getting ready for a trip to Yellowstone has given me an oppertunity to upgrade my lense collection the last couple of months.

As far as the trip is concerned I would like to limit it to 3 (maybe 4) lenses because of the excessive backpacking that will take place..

SO far I have recently upgraded to the 16-45mm which I am very happy with, and also picked up the new 55-300mm which is an upgrade over my older sigma 70-300 dg lense.

I've been toying with many different lenses to round out the trip, everything from the bigma, da* 50-135, sigma 10-20.. 10-17 fisheye and a bunch of different limited pancakes, but i cannot some to any sort of decision.

Anyone have any thoughts of which they would buy to round of the trip lense collection??

My vote for lens #3 would be the DA 12-24. It will get you into the wide scenic range (18-36 equiv). You can see some samples on my Flickr site - all the Elk River shots were with the 12-24. I put them all up, including the one with flare from having the sun in the image.

[bwield]

I had been thinking of the 12-24mm but thought that the overlap from my 16-45mm would be probably a little too much

I am doing a similar trip in summer and the option number one is my decission:

Optimally, I would go with:
Option 1:
2 bodies
Sigma 10-20
Pentax/tamron 18-250 (nice close focusing capability)
Pentax DA*300 f4+TC (if avalaible)

Option 2:
Sigma 10-20
Pentax 55-300
Dedicated macro (say a Tamron 90 or similar)

Option 3: what you have
Pentax 16-45
Pentax 55-300
Dedicated macro

Option 4: if you have tripod and you are strong
Sigma 10-20
Pentax 16-45
Bigma

Oh well, I guess that I am not helping too much

[BBear]

SO far I have recently upgraded to the 16-45mm which I am very happy with, and also picked up the new 55-300mm which is an upgrade over my older sigma 70-300 dg lense.

Not completely trying to hijack the thread, but you have the lens that I am planning on buying soon.


DA 16-45 > replacing 18-55 kit lens
DA 55-300 > replacing 70-210


How do you like your current set up? are you satisfied with the range above? Planning on keeping them?



Thanks!

[rparmar]

I must say that if you're backpacking that still seems like a lot of weight to carry. I wouldn't have three lenses unless two were light and small.

[bwield]

BBEAR:
I do like them, very much.
I think both lenses are a large step up from the kit and the 70-210

[bwield]

Well I plan on taking my lowpro sling shot bad, so it will easily take my camera and 4-3 lenses while still being very managable.

[beaumont]

I couldn't/wouldn't go without my 18-250 for the full range...

[roentarre]

DA 16-45 > replacing 18-55 kit lens
DA 55-300 > replacing 70-210

Thanks!

Da 16-45 will be used the most. An important lens to bring is a good reliable wide angle prime or zoom.

The rest is not so crucial.

[rparmar]

I agree the DA 16-45 will be used a lot. I need to echo what Heather said and suggest a macro. I wouldn't go anywhere without one.

[NaClH2O]

Bucking the trend

I'd say that with the 16-45 and the 55-300 you have pretty much the full range of focal lengths required, unless of course you want to go much wider. I would think carefully about bringing a fast prime, like the FA50mm F1.4. I'm sure there will be some low light photo ops that a light weight fast prime would be ideal for. I think there will be more opportunity to use a low light lens instead of a macro.

NaCl( a 'fast 50' is the way to go)H2O