[polmed]

Hi,

I mostly shoot with my K30 with 18-55mm lens, and sometimes change to 50-200mm lens. It all works fine. However, recently I've been traveling quite a bit, and sometimes it annoys me quite a bit that some scenes just slipped during the time I change my lens.

A few questions I have:
1. Is traveling lens worth it? People keep telling me it depends on what I use them for, but I only been shooting for 2 years (on and off), and like to try on all possibilities. So I'm wondering if a traveling lens is worth to get. I should probably add that, as of now, I found myself shooting mostly landscapes, city scape, sunset, macro, night scenes, and sometimes animals.

2. I heard that for traveling lens, you don't need to go over 140mm. Is that true? How often does 140mm+ being used?

3. I've found a few traveling lens for K30, Tamron 18-270, 18-200 (about $150 USD), Pentax 18-135, and Sigma/Tamrom 24-300 (about $360). What would be a good choice for me?

Thank you in advance.

[causey]

Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC Macro HSM Lens Reviews - Sigma Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

[ramseybuckeye]

The Pentax 18-135 will deliver much better IQ than what you have now, you would notice the improvement in details. It is much higher priced than the others you list, but it is a better lens.

[Paul the Sunman]

I agree. The 18-135 will cover most travel situations, and do it well. Unless of course you need something longer for wildlife or something faster for poor light.

[RonakG]

My vote goes for the 18-135, though I haven't tried the other options you have mentioned. It has served me really well as travel lens past 2 years. The range of focal length is very good and the IQ is better than the 18-55 kit lens. Check out my Flickr, almost all photos from last 2 years are taken with 18-135.

[6BQ5]

+1 for the DA 18-135mm. It is a very good zoom lens and with WR seals it makes for a great travel companion. Is it perfect? Of course not - but what is?

[hcc]

Ypu received some goo advice above. I travel a lot and in needs for a compact 'travel' lens.

I have two 'travel' all-around lenses: DA18-135mm and DA18-250mm. The former is compact and WR. The latter has a longer reach, but can only be found 2nd hand. Both are excellent travel lens, whe you need to travel light and do not want to swap lenses. They are both light, compared to the Sigma 18-250mm, another valid suggestion. After nearly 4 years of travel, I tend to favor my DA18-250mm for the extra reach, as well as the lens sturdy construction. (THe DA18-250mm is not WR, but very, very sturdy.)

The down side of any 'travel' lens is low light. For that reason, a number of Pentaxians (incl. myself) travel with a spare fast fifty in the pocket: a fast lens like a 50mm f 1.4.

In my case, I favor strongly my Voigtlander Nokton 58mm f1.4 to complement my DA18-250mm (or my DA18-135mm), The VL58mm is MF, light, solid (metallic body) and great IQ.

I add that I shoot a lot outdoor sceneries for which the VL58mm is a great lens. In my case, my VL58mm f1.4 works as both low light lens and my special lens when I want to take some special lansdcape scenery in poor contrasting lighting (eg smog, smoke, fogg). The VL58mm excels in these situations (https://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/voigtlander-58mm-f1-4.html).

Hope that the comment may help.

---

Last edited by hcc; 01-01-2015 at 11:50 PM.

[tibbitts]

For a superzoom I'd prefer the 16-300 Tamron. Unfortunately you'd also need a large wrench to attach it to a k-mount camera. Being limited to an 18-xxx, possibly the 18-300 Sigma, depending on how the reviews turn out.

[Des]

I completely agree with hcc. I have the Tamron 18-250 (the Pentax DA 18-250 is the same lens, rebadged) and used it as my only lens for 6 years. I got many enjoyable shots. If I were a DSLR beginner again now I would still go with a superzoom but I would do what hcc says - carry a small fast prime (e.g. DA 50 f1.8) as well, plus I would shoot in RAW and use PP software. I now use DxO Optics Pro and it does wonders with shots from the superzoom even without tweaking.

No doubt the 18-135 is sharper, but would you miss the reach? If you shoot wildlife, definitely. These shots all with my 18-250:

[frogoutofwater]

Like you, I used to have an 18-55 + 55-200 as my walkaround and travel lens pair when I was using a Sony NEX. But I got frustrated with the number of times I seemed to have the "wrong" lens on my camera for a given shot. So when I switched to Pentax, I decided to get the 18-135 and the 55-300 as my walkaround pair. Mr frogoutofwater has one of the superzooms (I can't remember which but the range is either 18-250 or 18-270). I think I have the better set-up because of lens quality. Generally, I get better quality images from my two lenses than from his single lens. (Granted, I spend a lot more time practising photography than he does, but I don't think it all comes down to the photographer.) I appreciate having the extra zoom length in my 55-300 when we photograph wildlife (in our trip to Borneo) or at the farm animal sanctuary we visit regularly. And I generally find that I don't need to switch between lenses very often during a particular excursion (whereas when I had the 18-55 + 55-200 I felt like I wanted to switch lenses every 20 minutes ...) For a city excursion for example, I've usually got the 18-135 on my camera and if I want to photograph animals outside, I've usually got the 55-300 on one of my cameras.

[formercanuck]

You may want to try renting the lenses to see how you'd like them. I have an old Sigma 18-200mm DC and did a lensrental on the DA 18-135 for a trip to Hawaii. I didn't feel like I lost anything. I guess you could go through your pictures and check what focal length you normally use.

[Yos]

I have both Pentax 18-135mm WR and Tamron 18-200mm and I can recommend both of the lenses as a travel companion.
Get the WR lens if you want to be able to use it in any weather. If you are on a budget, get the Tamron lens.

[arv]

IMO the new Sigma 18 - 200 Contemporary is worth of second look. It is quite compact and gets good reviews for such a superzoom.

A.

[EarlVonTapia]

Superzooms rock for travel! I have an 18-250 and it did a stellar job on a long trip I took last year. Unless you plan on seeing waterfalls and beaches every day, I wouldn't worry too much about weather sealing. Cameras are tougher than they look!

If I was to get a superzoom today, I would take a long hard look at the Sigma 18-200 Contemporary. It loses a bit of reach from the super superzooms, but I think it will probably be a bit better in the quality department.

[emalvick]

I've always worried about superzooms and their quality. I was even hesitant to buy the 18-135 when i did because it quite a zoom range. From the samples I've seen from the 18-200+ varieties, the 18-135 is definitely a better lens.

On a few recent travel excursions, specifically a trip to New York and Northern Washington back over the 2014 winter, I traveled with the 18-135 on the lens and the Pentax 55-300 (or for New York a wide angled zoom) in the bag. 99% of the shots were with the 18-135. I didn't need the zoom or a wider angle much. On the New York trip, without a 55-300, I only regretted not having more zoom once, and cropping made up for that. For my shooting, I generally only need 200 mm + when I'm shooting wildlife, and usually I do that exclusively rather than here or there. In those cases I'd rather have a better telephoto than the all in one type lens.

I've also been spoiled by having a lot of these better lenses, so you might just browse the lens review and lens clubs for the superzooms and see the quality people are getting and compare it to the quality you get with your current combo and whether the convenience is worth it. The superzooms look to be equivalent to the 18-55 and 55-200 combo from what I've seen, so that might be adequate for you.