[Biff]

I think the range you have will cover most of it. I was there some time back for 11 days and don't recall the lenses I had (was shooting Canon film), but most of my shots were well within the 300 range, and also up close and scenics. I'd caution about spending time and attention chasing the marginal distance shots when there is so much beauty in the nearer distance to capture, plus you may be moving around a fair amount. I'm not suggesting 300+ may not be useful, but for me it wouldn't be the end-all or a must have if it required significant other sacrifices. My two cents.

And as others have said, enjoy! You'll be on an adventure, not a mission.

[skyoftexas]

Maybe I'm just looking for justification for my LBA, but I am debating whether to get the 300mm for our trip to the Galapagos Islands in May. We are travelling on a small, specialist ship (Galapagos Islands jun 2016 - Cheesemans' Ecology Safaris) for 2 weeks, and will be travelling a bit further afield, with more time on the ground earlier and later in the day, than some cruises, if that makes a difference (not sure it does).

We are planning to bring at least 3 bodies: my two K-3s and his K-5IIs (and maybe his K-30 as back-up). And we are thinking that our set-up will be to walk around with 3 bodies - one each equipped with the 55-300 WR zoom and the third reserved for the prime of choice, depending on the circumstances (e.g., the 300mm + teleconverter if we need a longer focal length, a macro, or a wider lens.

In the longer range we already have two 55-300 WRs, the 200mm 2.8, and the Sigma 120-400, the Pentax 50-135 2.8, and the Pentax 1.4 teleconverter. But that Sigma is huge, hard to hand-hold and it's not weather-resistant.

I am limited as to what I can carry (bad back and a gimped right baby finger), but Mr frogoutofwater will chivalrously carry some of the load.

What do you think? Bring on the justifications And maybe someone can be the voice of reason.

And here are a couple of completely irrelevant photos taken in Puerto Vallarta this morning with my 55-300. The 1x1 is cropped a fair bit, while the 2nd photo is not cropped at all.

Whew! Sounds like way too much equipment to me. You will be wondering which camera to use and the opportunity could escape. If it were me, I would take two camera bodies and my best four lenses, along with the teleconverter. Then make do with what you have. It will be plenty sufficient.

[frogoutofwater]

Whew! Sounds like way too much equipment to me. You will be wondering which camera to use and the opportunity could escape. If it were me, I would take two camera bodies and my best four lenses, along with the teleconverter. Then make do with what you have. It will be plenty sufficient.

I mean we'll walk around with three camera bodies between us (he'll carry two and I'll carry one), and a spare back on the boat for emergencies. And I didn't mean we would carry all that long glass I mentioned - just wanted people to know what we already have. In a given excursion, I rarely carry more than one body + 3 lenses (e.g. 50-135, 35mm prime, 55-300 zoom is about the most weight I usually carry). But I might bring more lenses on a trip - and swap them in and out of my camera bag depending on the day's objectives. Mr frogoutofwater tends to pack and carry everything including the kitchen sink.

When we were in Borneo two years ago, and I was relatively new to photography, I did find that the 55-300 served me well in most situations - but was inadequate if we were shooting into the forest and from a distance. And I sometimes find that when I'm photographing at the farm rescue that the 55-300 isn't great at the long end. So this is why I'm thinking that a lens with better IQ (probably a prime) would be a good option to have in my bag. The question becomes whether the 200 (plus teleconverter) will give me that quality (and reach) or whether I'd be better of with the 300 (plus teleconverter when needed). I think we will probably leave the 120-400 at home.

[Billk]

I would carry two bodies - one with the 300mm and one with a zoom (pr 50-135 or 55-300) - and have the TC ready to go if you feel you need more reach.


My 200mm is currently broken so I haven't been able to compare the 200mm plus TC with the 300mm.

[Lowell Goudge]

I would say you are pretty well covered with your collection of long lenses. If you aren't happy with the IQ of what you're currently using and you have the money to burn, then by all means add a DA*300 and also a pack animal to carry all that gear.

Seriously, I don't thing bringing all of those lenses is a good move. The 55-300 is light and has good IQ, at least in my opinion. I don't find 200mm all that useful for myself. It seems to always be too short or too long for what I want to shoot. My 200 prime is an older MF lens and I don't have much investment. I own a Sigma 150-500 which is also a big, heavy beast but it does have very good IQ if stopped down a little in good light. I'm not sure how the 120-400 compares to it. I know I don't like carrying my big Sigma very far. I use it for sports quite a bit, not far from my parking spot and my bird and wildlife shots are generally from a kayak or boat. I certainly hope you are bringing along a good wide angle for landscape shots. I can think of several good reasons why the DA 300 would be superior to bringing the Sigma but you need decide if the cost is something you can swing. I have a K300/4 which is very sharp wide open at f4 and performs well when the light gets low. I would love the newer DA*300. BTW, my K300/4 weighs almost as much as my 150-500 so it's also a beast to carry.

Just remember, the K300/4 is actually lighter than the DA300/4!

[timb64]

We went to the Galapagos decades back, then using a ZX5n. Had a Sigma 300 f4 APO macro and also a Kenko 1.5X TC. There were many situations where the birds are so close you could touch them. Sea lions on the beach can be approached within 10 feet easily. Marine iguanas seem to totally oblivious to humans. BUT, there are some birds you cannot approach: owl & hawk to name two. Even with the 300 + 1.5X an owl out waiting to pounce on a bird when it emerged from a tunnel nest was too far away for a really good capture. Hawk in a tree was even further away. Oyster catchers disputing ownership of a dead crab were close enough to use the 300 alone, but only if I remained still. All the finches as well as the lovely vermilion flycatcher are small and even when close a 300mm is welcome. You cannot walk just anywhere so you cannot necessarily get closer to a subject. My advice: take pretty much everything and a 300mm will definitely get used. If you have a TC as well, you'll be glad for it.

How close can you get to the hawks?



Lightly cropped from Tammy 18-200 on a kr



I would think a 55-300 should be more than sufficient!

[WPRESTO]

How close can you get to the hawks?



Lightly cropped from Tammy 18-200 on a kr



I would think a 55-300 should be more than sufficient!

You're lucky. We only saw one, and it was far off in a tree, no possibility of walking up closer. On the other hand, in the course of sailing from island to island we got a reasonably good look at a great blue whale (but inadequate for a decent image).

[hjoseph7]

You want to enjoy yourself too. Traveling is about experiencing certain new things that are best left to memory. If all you want to do is take pictures all day long, then you would have missed out on half the trip. I think you should be fine with the equipment you have unless you work for national Geographic or something.

[timb64]

You're lucky. We only saw one, and it was far off in a tree, no possibility of walking up closer. On the other hand, in the course of sailing from island to island we got a reasonably good look at a great blue whale (but inadequate for a decent image).

Really envious of your whale sighting,nothing like that on my trip.
As several people have said it's the memories you have that are just as important as the photos.

[WPRESTO]

Really envious of your whale sighting,nothing like that on my trip.
As several people have said it's the memories you have that are just as important as the photos.

As luck would have it, we got closer, more photogenic sightings of a great blue on during a whale watch in Iceland, but they don't usually lift their tails out of the water when diving in the manner of humpbacks, so mostly you get the blowhole and part of their back.

[WPRESTO]

This is an enhanced, but uncropped scan from a chrome of the only sighting of an owl (at lower left) we had on the Galapagos, taken with the 300mm Sigma + 1.5X Kenko TC. IQ has been degraded some in scanning. The only sighting of a hawk was more distant, so I did not bother scanning that chrome.

[TedW]

I think all things considered I would probably rent the DA 60-250. This would cover most every need. I bet even cropped the 250 would likely equal the uncropped 55-300. Then you get the lower light capabilities and the excellent sharpness. Then I use the DA 18-135 on the other camera as it can be very good in the 25-50mm range. I would also probably carry along a 35mm prime just because they are so light and small.

The downside is it weighs a couple of pounds.

[WPRESTO]

You will not regret to 60-250 nor begrudge its weight once you see the results. Be sure to check the AF registration and fine tune it if necessary.

[skunktail]

For what it's worth, I got a Sigma 50-500 (the new stabilised one) before I went to alaska last year.

If i carried that and the DA 16-50 it would have been all I needed. I actually found the versatility the best part, no matter how close or far away, I had the perfect focal length right there. There were times I was using 50mm and 500mm within moments of each other.

That said, that thing is expensive and weights a tonne. Enjoy your trip.

[sharik]

... more time on the ground earlier and later in the day, than some cruises, if that makes a difference (not sure it does).

Yes, it can make a big difference. On regular cruises, one usually gets the Golden Hours and Blue Hours (the best time for photography) only at sea.

We are planning to bring at least 3 bodies: my two K-3s and his K-5IIs (and maybe his K-30 as back-up). And we are thinking that our set-up will be to walk around with 3 bodies - one each equipped with the 55-300 WR zoom and the third reserved for the prime of choice, depending on the circumstances (e.g., the 300mm + teleconverter if we need a longer focal length, a macro, or a wider lens.

In the longer range we already have two 55-300 WRs, the 200mm 2.8, and the Sigma 120-400, the Pentax 50-135 2.8, and the Pentax 1.4 teleconverter. But that Sigma is huge, hard to hand-hold and it's not weather-resistant.

I am limited as to what I can carry (bad back and a gimped right baby finger), but Mr frogoutofwater will chivalrously carry some of the load.

What do you think? Bring on the justifications And maybe someone can be the voice of reason.

The answer would depend on whether you can tolerate frequent lens changes in the field. If, like me, you prefer to do it as rarely as possible, then the best solution is just two good zooms permanently mounted on different bodies. One would be a tele zoom such as your DA 55-300 or Sigma 120-400, or better still, a DA*60-250, and another a "standard" zoom such as DA 16-85 or one of the 17-70 lenses. With this combination, all your basic photographic needs will be covered, and the risk of contaminating the camera with dust and salt, and losing the critical moments, minimized.