[UserAccessDenied]

... with your requirements and trip plans the DA 15 and 55-300 and Raynox make perfect sense. ...

I agree...
I don't know if I can justify all three right now

Maybe the 55-300mm, then the raynox, then the DA15?

I've been thinking about the 55-300 for some time so I might as well go for it, trust your instincts right?



I would love to get the cheaper one too, but the WR is appealing to me.
Ideally I'd like my whole line to be WR, but that's unrealistic

I'm always in a situation where rain or a dust storm seems imminent (not really, but I like to think so )

[TER-OR]

The other thing you'll want to consider is how you carry your camera. I really like a sling strap, it's more secure and comfortable than a neck or shoulder strap. That won't be expensive. Some have tripod mount connections, which keeps the lens facing down, which is good and bad depending on where you're hiking.

If you do real backpacking with a full pack, you're going to want to find a way to hang your camera from your shoulder straps. I don't know where to send you for those, but Joby is probably a good start. You'll want your hands free while packing, so you can use your walking stick etc. Speaking of which, there are walking sticks with tripod mounts!
Again, I can't recommend any but I may start looking myself. just search 'walking stick tripod mount' and you'll find some good discussions.

Joby makes the Gorillapod, too, which is nice if you have a remote control so you can do timelapse or just good selfies.

Here was our fun winter hike at Starved Rock State Park last winter - the weather has to be good to make a winter trip worthwhile there. The frozen waterfalls are what people want to see. https://flic.kr/s/aHsjSE5jVk

---------- Post added 02-06-15 at 10:43 AM ----------

I agree...
I don't know if I can justify all three right now

Maybe the 55-300mm, then the raynox, then the DA15?

I've been thinking about the 55-300 for some time so I might as well go for it, trust your instincts right?



I would love to get the cheaper one too, but the WR is appealing to me.
Ideally I'd like my whole line to be WR, but that's unrealistic

I'm always in a situation where rain or a dust storm seems imminent (not really, but I like to think so )

I think your reasoning is sound. The 18-135 is pretty good wide-open, really good at around 24mm. Take your time with lens purchases, they're an investment in your hobby so you want the right tools.

[UncleVanya]

I always like to link to Why you Need a Telephoto Zoom Lens for Landscape Photography - Digital Photography School for those that want UWA for landscape.

It always gives some food for thought

I was hoping for something more weighty when I looked at the link. I didn't care for either of the shots posted. I would love to see someone's shots of the Grand Canyon with ultrawide and tele and stitched shots to show how you can change perspective and what the effect of each is.

I never owned a really wide angle lens until this year when I bought the DA 15 in December and started shooting with it in January. It is quite different. For years I didn't know what I was missing. I always shot landscapes with telephotos - that was my norm - and many were great - but that's not a reason to say you should use that as the normal choice for wide vistas. My time shooting landscapes with Tele's was mostly during film era so there were no stitching options worth thinking about. Now it may be possible to get the perspective of the DA 15 without the dedicated lens. I have trouble visualizing this perspective without the lens in hand - I haven't developed an eye for stitching yet.

[jrpower10]

I did Yellowstone and the Grand Tetons last summer. Yes, the landscapes are vast, but you also have plenty of room most places to back up. The bulk of my landscape shots were with the DA 16-50, and not that many at 16.

If you can only get 1 lens and the DA 55-300 meets your budget requirements, get it. I used my DA 300 extensively shooting wildlife and birds, which you'll get plenty of both. And, trust me, when you see that grizzly bear you'll really appreciate not having to get too close to photgraph it

[arkav]

I already wanted the 55-300wr; do you think this would "replace" my desire for the 100mm wr macro? (at least temporarily) - Since I could get the 55-300 + Raynox for less than the 100mm wr macro alone?

IMHO, the 100 WR macro is a lot of money to invest in a specialized lens unless you're going to use it extensively. I own it myself, but it's hands down my most used lens ( when there isn't snow on the ground ) and it has paid for itself. I don't really use it as a macro lens per se ( I almost never go down to 1:1 ), but I sometimes get down around 1:2. I would think that for the average person who only does occasional closeup/macro, it's probably overkill. Of course, it's also a good short tele lens. If you decide you want a dedicated macro lens at some point, you could get an older 100mm F4 macro for a fraction of the cost. Even a used DFA 100 macro should be a fair bit cheaper than a new 100 WR. Or maybe a 50mm macro would be better - depends on what you intend to shoot with it.

I only do day hiking, and I'm very conscious of how many lenses I carry. If I was doing a multi-day backpacking trip in the wilderness, I'd be even more leery about carrying too many lenses. But maybe your back is stronger than mine

I've never used anything like the Raynox, but I don't see why you couldn't put it on your 18-135.

---------- Post added 02-06-2015 at 01:23 PM ----------

I would love to see someone's shots of the Grand Canyon with ultrawide and tele and stitched shots to show how you can change perspective and what the effect of each is.

I never owned a really wide angle lens until this year when I bought the DA 15 in December and started shooting with it in January. It is quite different. For years I didn't know what I was missing. I always shot landscapes with telephotos - that was my norm - and many were great - but that's not a reason to say you should use that as the normal choice for wide vistas. My time shooting landscapes with Tele's was mostly during film era so there were no stitching options worth thinking about. Now it may be possible to get the perspective of the DA 15 without the dedicated lens. I have trouble visualizing this perspective without the lens in hand - I haven't developed an eye for stitching yet.

There are some interesting panorama examples in this thread:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/38-photographic-technique/286417-panorama-pan-issues.html

I'm not sure you could get the exact same perspective as the 15mm lens by stitching images shot at a different focal length, but you could capture a similar vista. You would be shooting at a shorter focal length, so the effect would be different. Depending on what lens you use, you could potentially have fewer problems with field curvature and distortion, and you could certainly get a wider aspect ratio, but you're stitching together multiple photos so their could be artifacts.

I wasn't suggesting pano as a substitute for the 15 LTD - from everything I've heard it's a great lens. The OP wants to cover a lot of bases, but can only afford to buy and carry a few lenses. If he wants a long zoom for wildlife, then he will likely have to forego the WA prime. Stitching pano's together from shots taken with his shorter zoom is a "next best" option to having the WA prime.

[UserAccessDenied]

The other thing you'll want to consider is how you carry your camera. I really like a sling strap, it's more secure and comfortable than a neck or shoulder strap. That won't be expensive. Some have tripod mount connections, which keeps the lens facing down, which is good and bad depending on where you're hiking.

If you do real backpacking with a full pack, you're going to want to find a way to hang your camera from your shoulder straps. I don't know where to send you for those, but Joby is probably a good start. You'll want your hands free while packing, so you can use your walking stick etc. Speaking of which, there are walking sticks with tripod mounts!
Again, I can't recommend any but I may start looking myself. just search 'walking stick tripod mount' and you'll find some good discussions.

Joby makes the Gorillapod, too, which is nice if you have a remote control so you can do timelapse or just good selfies.

Here was our fun winter hike at Starved Rock State Park last winter - the weather has to be good to make a winter trip worthwhile there. The frozen waterfalls are what people want to see. https://flic.kr/s/aHsjSE5jVk

---------- Post added 02-06-15 at 10:43 AM ----------



I think your reasoning is sound. The 18-135 is pretty good wide-open, really good at around 24mm. Take your time with lens purchases, they're an investment in your hobby so you want the right tools.

haha great minds think alike!
I've already purchased a light-weight tripod and wired remote shutter, a wrist strap from Black Rapid with the Tripod sling attachment so I can throw any kind of strap on it... As I carry a TON of paracord with me, I could always lace up a strap for around my shoulder.

I'll be doing "test" shoots with my 18-135 for now.

Maybe in a few weeks/months the 55-300mm wr will come across the marketplace at a price worth grabbing... but it's new on Amazon now for $337?!
That's a steal!

Thanks again everyone for all the help here/
I've learned a lot and will definitely be checking into the world of Raynox as well as some of the 15mm WA lenses.


Much appreciated fellow pentaxians!

Look out for some of my photos!
Hopefully get some good opportunities out there!

[arkav]

I've learned a lot and will definitely be checking into the world of Raynox

Don't forget the closeup diopter option. It's even cheaper than the Raynox, though probably not as good. Not sure if you can get one to fit your 18-135.

[UncleVanya]

I agree...
I don't know if I can justify all three right now

Maybe the 55-300mm, then the raynox, then the DA15?

I've been thinking about the 55-300 for some time so I might as well go for it, trust your instincts right?



I would love to get the cheaper one too, but the WR is appealing to me.
Ideally I'd like my whole line to be WR, but that's unrealistic

I'm always in a situation where rain or a dust storm seems imminent (not really, but I like to think so )

Sure - this isn't a bad plan and along the way you may find you can get the landscape wide shots using stitching and save the money for something else - but the DA 15 is quite special so don't use it unless you want to be forced to buy it... LOL. The DA 55-300 SMC version is the one I have and here's an example shot that I did recently with just the native close focus ability of the lens:



Cropped I did a bit more with this but this should give you ideas. The subject in question is an Oak Leaf Hydrangea blossom shot at minimum focus distance which in theory is about .24x magnification.

[shuttles12000]

Here is my 2c worth.
I travel light and I use the k-30 with 18-135 as well, but I also take a Panasonic LX 7 with me. The reason? It has a fast lens, shoots raw, covers an excellent range 24-90, and doubles as a macro lens for less weight than my k-30 camera body. AND I have a fallback camera if the k-30 fails.
But you really should look at the 55-300 lens. Where you are going there is a lot of camera shy wildlife and you will miss a lot of shots without the extra reach.