[UncleVanya]

On the wide zoom end, take a good look at the Sigma 10-20 f3.5. Search this main site for a comparative review of it against the pentax 12-24 and the Tamron 10-24 (the other 2 lenses in that comparison are now discountinued - sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 and sigma 12-24). When the review was written the Sigma 10-20 f3.5 was $50 less that the Pentax 12-24, at the moment its on offer at $449, making it a full $210 cheaper than the pentax.

I've had some stunning shots with it, and its got a rock solid DC focus motor in it, making it virtually silent in use.

I have no dog in this fight but I have seen a lot of comparisons of the 10-20 f3.5 vs. the 4-5.6 and the 4-5.6 has won most of them. It is also cheaper. The silent focus is nice however the speed isn't typically an issue with a landscape lens.

I do not have either of these lenses but I would suggest careful research before any UWA zoom since surprisingly there are a great number of good ones these days.

[BrianR]

D FA 100 WR plus a 1.4x HD TC would be another gap filling option. You get a 100mm f/2.8 and a 140 f/4 as well as a 56mm f/4 to fill in between the 40 and the 300. (40mm f/2.8, 56mm f/4, 100mm f/2.8, 140mm f/4, 300mm f/4) This option is moderately priced and provides really high IQ and keeps size and weight down. Adding the DA 15 to this would give you a really sweet prime kit. (Warning the HD TC is not meant for wide angle lenses and the DA 15 is specifically called out as incompatible!)

I initially thought I would use the tamron 1.4x TC as a gap filler like this. My usual bag has a DA14mm, FA50mm, DFA100mm, and now a DA300mm (occasionally an A28mm, mostly for reversing on the macro). It turns out I'm nowhere near selective enough about perspective to need to fill the gaps this way, the TC only gets used when the long lens isn't long enough, or when I want to go beyond 1:1 magnification with the macro. That's not to say the TC is a bad idea, or that others wouldn't find one handy as a gap filler, just my practical experience with a bag similar to the one you've proposed.

[normhead]

I go out all the time with my 18-135, and 60-250. I bought a Sigma 8-16 which I love as a lens, but to carry, I wish I'd purchased the 15 ltd. They were transitioning for DA to HD DA and everyone was out of stock when I tried to order the 15. I ended up with the 8-16. Great lens, but too much to carry with a 60-250. I know you have the 300 and it;s great lens, but I seem to get along just fine with the 60-250 and 1.4 TC. My original lens and the one I still use when I want to keep weight down is the DA 10-17 fisheye.

DA 10-17 Fisheye used for landscape.




60-250 with 1.4 TC


The tamron 90 macro is my wife's goto lens, the Sigma 70 macro is mine, the Pentax is the lightest in your camera bag.

The 16-85 and 18-135 are both good pseudo macro lenses, with the 16-85 giving a bit more magnification.

Here are a couple of images taken with the 18-135



DA_18-135-small_flowers by Norm_Head | Photobucket

It's not like 1:1 macro, but it's quite good

The Tamron 90 Macro, Sigma 70 macro and Pentax 100 macro are real 1:1 macros.
Sigma 70 macro


Tamron 90 Macro


You can do quite well with the 16-85 or 18-135.

[WPRESTO]

I will be seconding and thirding some recommendations already made.
1) for wide angle, the Sigma 10-20 is the bargain, great IQ, reasonably priced. The original version is just as good as the newer and can sometimes be had second hand at near-steal prices;
2) The Pentax 15mm is good enough to have a cult following, available used for near the price of the Sigma 10-20 new, but the difference in coverage between 15mm and 10mm is enormous;
3) The 50-135 is an outstanding optic, one of the best tele-zooms on the market for IQ, but it is both bulky and expensive;
4) Tamron and Sigma 70-200 f2.8 are a bit bulkier than the 50-135 (larger diameter, but only slightly longer), have excellent IQ, and will fill the gap in your telephoto range better than the 50-135 and less expensively than the 60-250;
5) If you want to stay with SFL lenses, the discontinued 135mm f2.8 Pentax is sometimes available used; it has decent but not outstanding IQ. The current 200mm f2.8 is very good, but a bit pricey and probably not a great deal better than the Tamron or SIgma 70-200 zooms and far less versatile.
6) The 50-200 Pentax is, IMHO, not satisfactory. Had one, didn't like it from the outset, replaced it with a 55-300 which was not available when I purchased the 50-200.
7) The 55-300 Pentax, as I posted elsewhere along with others, has no business being as good as it is for the price. It is compact, light and convenient, and in the 55-200 range the IQ is 100% satisfactory. It can be had at near-steal prices either new or used, and the original non-WR non-HD version has the optical formula so it's IQ is virtually identical to the current version. It is sometimes available used for $200 or less. If you're tight for money, this is absolutely the best lens to fill the gap in your telephoto coverage.

[Billk]

Your subject matter likes are very similar to mine and I think the DFA 100mm macro would be fantastic for you (I have the Sigma 70mm macro which is also great - just not as ruggedly built and not water resistant).


Add the 1.4TC to those three lenses and you would have an awesome nature photography kit.


The DA 50-135 also sounds like a wonderful lens (although I'm probably limiting myself to FF lens purchases from now on).

[Kath]

Strong recommendation for the Sigma 10-20 3.5. I added it this year to my kit and couldn't be more pleased with the quality and breadth of coverage it provides. I wanted to avoid any fisheye effect of other ultra-wides and this lens comsistently delivers. I also have the 15 Ltd, but the additional fov on the 10-20 has been extremely useful.

As to your gap needs I can only offer that I am very fond of my 18-135. I didn't expect the excellent IQ it provides and am very happy with the results.

[wissink]

Don't forget that if you want to save $$$, you can use your 40 on a tripod and stitch images together for UWA. I've done this many times with my DA 35ltd. You end up with more resolution and a little bit more work.

I don't know if this method will work for indoor work though unless you can correct for perspective changes on your tripod.

[BigMackCam]

Don't forget that if you want to save $$$, you can use your 40 on a tripod and stitch images together for UWA. I've done this many times with my DA 35ltd. You end up with more resolution and a little bit more work.

I don't know if this method will work for indoor work though unless you can correct for perspective changes on your tripod.

This is a technique I'm keen to try, but haven't yet got round to. Some of the results I've seen are very impressive...

[wissink]

I've tried it handheld even, just take a bunch of overlapping shots. It turns out rather decently I'd say. The downside is motion / ghosting when people are walking or leaves blowing.

[crewl1]

For your Utah trip I would buy a good tripod if you don't already have one. Above are all good lens suggestions.
Not sure if money is an issue but I have had good success buying used in our marketplace, being able to try many different lenses and selling the ones without any loss that I did not want to keep.
It is Black Friday there all the time

[DeadJohn]

SNIPPED FOR BREVITY ... But basically I am the person who will either spy out birds in flight, baby animals, iguanas, animals from afar, or I tend to come really close to a flower and they to get the stems and petals with nice bokeh, but my 40mm cannot get close enough. Also, I like some general landscapes with some animal in it...

You have several good choices available. This is how LBA begins.

The DFA 100 WR macro is a good performer. It's sharp at all distances, not just macro. The 100 is small and conserves precious bag space. It is surprisingly dense, though, adding more carrying weight than it's compact size suggests. The 100 is one of Pentax' best lenses in my opinion. If you want to go with an all-prime kit, the DA15 + DFA100 fill gaps in your current 40 + 300 lineup. That would give you a killer 4 lens kit.

The 60-250 is more versatile if you don't need macro. You might even be able to leave your 300 at home when you don't plan to do a lot of long distance shooting. The 60-250 plus a wide angle zoom (you already said you were shopping for one) is a good two lens zoom kit, eliminating a lot of the lens swapping that would go with the 4 prime lens kit above.

As others have pointed out, the 55-300 is surprisingly good for its cost. It's a viable alternative to the 60-250. The 55-300 is less sharp, doesn't have silent focusing, and is slower for low light than the 60-250. It costs a lot less and is much more compact. The 55-300 is a good companion to your DA* 300. Use the DA* when you expect to take many photos at 300mm like birds in flight. Switch to the 55-300 when you need to jump back and forth between 300 and wider lengths without repeatedly changing lenses.

[UncleVanya]

You can add a close up lens of high quality to the 60-250. That plus a 1.4x TC is a lot of flexibility.

[KatPal]

All really amazing suggestions, summaries and experiences- as I am a review and forum addict, I am leaning toward the 100mm macro wr, as it really seems to produce amazing images as well being versatile without quality sacrifice. Just wish there were more samples of non macro work to show it's diverse abilities- do you guys think it will do well for some of the canyon/fields/outdoors/animal distance shots? Since it is winter, the macro discipline might have to wait until spring for beautiful insects and flowers to pop out.

Still undecided about the UWA- 12-24 seems to have bit better reviews than 10-20, but also the price...is 15mm better in terms of image quality? The prices seem reasonable for that one...

---------- Post added 11-24-15 at 12:14 PM ----------

Oh- my dream scenario would be is sigma releases 150-600 for pentax, then I would sell my 300mm...but until then, even 300mm leaves me wanting more reach so cannot rid of it to get the 60-250.

[bertwert]

even 300mm leaves me wanting more reach

Get the Pentax 1.4x TC, it works great on that lens (or so I've heard) making a 420mm F5.6 lens

[KatPal]

Get the Pentax 1.4x TC, it works great on that lens (or so I've heard) making a 420mm F5.6 lens

Yes- I have heard that too TC is in my stars and very soon!