[tlp]

The first question I have is what bag are you using & what other items are you taking along that you are looking at shaving grams of space ?
A 15mm, 21mm, 40mm, 70mm limiteds and an M 135mm f3.5 all put you right at 1000g.
IF you shoot Prime and if you have no problem with the M's all manual mode.
If you shoot zoom - the 20-40mm Limited & the 55-300 puts you at 733g + the 15mm Limited then puts you at 923g
If you substitute the 55-135* for the 55-300 above you are at 1048g then adding the 15mmL brings you up to 1238g
So you are looking at about 2.2 - 2.7 lbs.
Your body weight will probably fluctuate more on the trip than that .5 lb
Or - you could always get a Q or one of the other mentioned cameras mentioned above.

[redrockcoulee]

My wife has the Sigma 10-20 so I know how big it is. When I travel light I take the DA15 and the DA 70 in a Lowe Pro compact camera case that I bought for taking a Fuji X100. It is a slip loc so that it can easily attach to my belt, onto a bag or the harness of your backback. I also take my DA 35 2.4 and any two of those three fit into the small camera case. I just bought a 18-50 and it could replace any of those lenses in fitting into the bag. Plastic bags and shower bags can cover the camera and lens very easily. I often also carry a WGlll but any of the compact water proof cameras would be a must for me on a trip like this. I do have the tripod that you are taking and it is not the most stable but it is stable enough, just the hook to hang weight onto it for added stablilty. I have the choice of a F70-210 or FA-J 75-300, the latter hardly takes up any weigth.

I do not know if you have other equipment or your shooting style hence I just presented what I would do. In my case I might get a small lens case with slip loc for the DA 18-50 and take the 35 as well. I will be taking that gear and my Hasselblad on a trip to Iceland this spring but I will not be backpacking. Several have suggested the 20-40 which might be a reason to leave the 50 behind but I have no experience with it or most Pentax zooms.

Enjoy your trip, it sounds wonderful.

[BigMackCam]

Or - you could always get a Q or one of the other mentioned cameras mentioned above.

You know, I bought a Q7 to experiment with the extra reach it would give me with K-mount lenses, but I've ended up using it as a general photographic tool. When played to its strengths, it really is a cracking little camera, and I'd be more than happy to use mine as a long-term travel companion, along with the 02 and 06 zooms. My only concerns would be (1) no WR, and (2) too much DoF, so limited creative control...

[severalsnakes]

First decide why you are going, "see" the world or "photograph" the world!

If you are going to see the world and if I were you, I would leave the tripod at home and I would carray a bean bag insted of it...

And anyway consider the 10-17 FE insted of the sigma 10-20, Lightroom has profile for it, so it can correct the images.

Good ones!

I will come in as another Devil's advocate and throw out the idea of leaving the whole lens-changey situation of the DSLR behind and consider a compact and capable bridge camera, like the big buxx Sony RX10 II or much more modestly priced Fujifilm S-1. As they say: "The best camera is the one you have with you." I wouldn't want to be fussing with a camera kit when I could be enjoying an adventure I'd never had before/wouldn't have again.

[carrrlangas]

Of course it is a very personal choice.. I have done this kind of backpacking trip with my other half (And I assume you will be carrying the backpack for both of you, no?) so my recommendation is to leave everything at home and take a small camera and gorillapod at the most. Small camera like the MX-1 is great. If a viewfinder is a must then there are similar options from other brands. But the point is, in my experience, carrying all that weight will detract more than add to your experience. Of course there will be times when you will think "I wish I had my DSLR, tripod, filters and X lens for this situation) but then you can also do with what you have at the moment...
I think there is no way to really take the risk until you realize how bothering it is to carry al that weight all the time.
Also, it happened to me that some months into the trip I started leaving the DSLR in the backpack to avoid grabbing extra attention and carried it outside only when not in cities.

In the end, not only for camera stuff, my advice would be: CARRY AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE

[VoiceOfReason]

To be honest on some trips I have left most of my gear other than first the Kx and 18-135, then the K5 and 18-135, and finally the K3 and 18-135 in the hotel. If I were forced to carry only one lens on a trip and I was only allowed one lens then it would be my K3 and 18-135. I get far better IQ than a phone or a compact camera can get, and while it is not up to the pixel peeping IQ of most of the rest of my kit it is more than good enough for prints and web images, even bigger size ones.

[Na Horuk]

-The 100mm Wr, but it will save less than 150gr and the bulk looks relatively identical.

I would do this, but I am not much of a tele shooter. If you want super telephoto, the 100mm might not be enough. But I make more use of the macro function than I would of the extra telephoto zoom range.
The rest of the gear sounds very similar to what I usually carry with me. Though, I often leave a couple of the lenses at the hotel or wherever if I go on a longer hike, where carrying too much gear would become cumbersome.

Sounds like you will have an interesting trip. Best of luck and do post some photos

[frogoutofwater]

First decide why you are going, "see" the world or "photograph" the world!

I think this is the most important piece of advice in this whole thread. Either goal is appropriate, but the question is which one is YOUR goal? If it's to see the world (with your S/O), then I agree with the various posts that recommend that you minimize your gear as much as possible:

1. one or two versatile WR zooms that cover what you like to shoot (landscapes) and what you might become interested in as you travel (e.g., just the 16-85 or the 18-135, or maybe one of those plus the 55-300)
2. one small and fast lens that suits the kind of photography you like (or think you might want) to do on a RTW trip. Even if you're mostly interested in landscapes, on a once-in-a-lifetime RTW trip, I'll bet you'll also be interested in doing some portraits of the people you meet. Another possibility is macro. So something like the 35 2.8 macro (which I mentioned earlier) or the 50 mm 1.8 (or 50 mm macro, although it's bigger, heavier and more expensive). And if you only bring one zoom and it's the 16-85, then maybe bring the 100mm macro (instead of the 35 or the 50) as your portrait lens. But I think a wider lens that enables you to do environmental portraits would be a better travel lens.
3. forego the tripod unless you're convinced that you can't hand-hold the lens to do the kind of landscape photography you love.

If your goal is to photograph the world, though, then by all means bring a bigger bag of gear - but then I think you might need to reconsider the whole "one backpack" thing.

[savoche]

You might be more serious about photography than I am, but...

First decide why you are going, "see" the world or "photograph" the world!

I think this is the most important piece of advice in this whole thread. Either goal is appropriate, but the question is which one is YOUR goal? If it's to see the world (with your S/O), then I agree with the various posts that recommend that you minimize your gear as much as possible:

1. one or two versatile WR zooms that cover what you like to shoot (landscapes) and what you might become interested in as you travel (e.g., just the 16-85 or the 18-135, or maybe one of those plus the 55-300)
2. one small and fast lens that suits the kind of photography you like (or think you might want) to do on a RTW trip. Even if you're mostly interested in landscapes, on a once-in-a-lifetime RTW trip, I'll bet you'll also be interested in doing some portraits of the people you meet. Another possibility is macro. So something like the 35 2.8 macro (which I mentioned earlier) or the 50 mm 1.8 (or 50 mm macro, although it's bigger, heavier and more expensive). And if you only bring one zoom and it's the 16-85, then maybe bring the 100mm macro (instead of the 35 or the 50) as your portrait lens. But I think a wider lens that enables you to do environmental portraits would be a better travel lens.
3. forego the tripod unless you're convinced that you can't hand-hold the lens to do the kind of landscape photography you love.

If your goal is to photograph the world, though, then by all means bring a bigger bag of gear - but then I think you might need to reconsider the whole "one backpack" thing.

I think this is good advice.

Even on shorter travels of just a few weeks I will usually bring a relatively small kit of K-3 + 18-135 + 55-300 and, depending on my destination, one or more of DA 15, FA 43, and DFA 100, as well as a Gorillapod (or sometimes a light tripod). On my only long trip, however, 6 months in Africa (many years ago), while I did bring an SLR and tele lens for the safari heavy start of the trip, I sent that equipment home before the rest of the trip, leaving me with a decent compact. Too much stuff is a killer when travelling for long.

I will come in as another Devil's advocate and throw out the idea of leaving the whole lens-changey situation of the DSLR behind and consider a compact and capable bridge camera, like the big buxx Sony RX10 II or much more modestly priced Fujifilm S-1. As they say: "The best camera is the one you have with you." I wouldn't want to be fussing with a camera kit when I could be enjoying an adventure I'd never had before/wouldn't have again.

Should I go backpacking for several months now, I would prioritise small size and portability over most other factors. A superzoom of good quality (ideally something like a RX10) would be my choice, and maybe a fixed lens compact with a large sensor for landscapes and unobtrusive use (e.g. Ricoh GR).

Would I miss my "real" camera at times? Yes, probably. But most of the time I would just enjoy the adventure.


Edit: Somehow missed carrrlangas' post, but lots of wisdom in that one

[skierd]

Another vote for getting the 20-40, adding it to the 10-20 and 55-300, and calling it done if you're married to a dslr kit.

Otherwise, get a waterproof p&s (we have an Olympus TG3 but the Pentax version is great too) and a good pocket 35mm film camera so a) you're forced to print pics from the trip and they'll exist in real life and b) you don't spend the whole trip behind the camera.

My go-to travel camera is my Olympus XA and for a year long trip I'd bring 2 of them for reliability and a ton of velvia for the tropics, portra 400 for the streets, and ektar for in between. Or maybe instead my ZX-7 and the DA40 limited. its soft on batteries and you can get them cheap on Amazon, and with the pancake it's almost pocketable.

[chochichaeschtli]

I'm joining the group of "carry as little as possible". I once made an excel sheet with all the weights i was going to carry. What i dare to state after that:
- nothing is lighter than your plastic fantastics - except my 40mm xs :P - and weight is more important than size.
- accessories are important: a common camera bag is likely to constitute 30-40% of all your camera gear. that's why i just used clothes and waterproof outdoor bags for protection. plastic fantastics are also cheap, so don't worry
- accessories are important 2: don't take long cables (cut the power cable, replace the usb cable with a 12g card reader) and heavy power adapters with you.
- if you just plan to shoot on occasion while traveling, i. e. arriving on a nice spot, i. e. not a planed shot at sunset taking 3 hours of preparation, then may leave your tripod at home. Use your bag, your environment instead (i often use my wallet and a rock/wall/chair). and if your fellow traveler is as patient as any fellow traveler is, you don't want to use the tripod anyway of course if you plan to use your filters extensively, forget my opinion. although a tripod is basic for photographing its not for traveling.
- If you have the 55-300, you'll hardly ever need your 50/1.8.
- crop and stitch! if you have your 35mm and you desperately need 20mm.... stitch. if you need 10 and you only have your new 15mm... stitch.
- don't ask what you want to take with you, but ask what fits in your backpack with a limited weight, e. g. max. 20kg incl. food, water, clothes, etc.

so 15mm, 35mm, 55-300mm - 800g?

[TzalamChadash]

I'm with the carry as little as possible group. If you don't want to invest in a fixed lens but high price high end camera, then take the 18-135 WR and a DA 40mm/2.8 which takes no space at all.

I'd recommend the k-50 and a AA battery adaptor. Nothing like being on a trip and able to plop in standard alkaline batteries if charged ones run out.

[BarryE]

Must say if be nervous lugging this around and only having one body. If it were to break ...? How about grabbing a GR for the wide end and having it when you want to move lightly. Save weight by ditching the wide zoom ...?

[mholford]

congrats on the trip - sounds amazing... very jealous.

If I was in your shoes - I would leave almost all my gear at home.
I'd bring my Camera (no grip), extra batteries, lots of memory cards, and my 18-135WR.
Maybe 1 fast prime for portraits / indoor shots (either a 50mm or 70mm)

As much as I normally am a pack rat (I tend to bring 4 or 5 lenses on a half day hike) I'd be absolutely minimizing my gear for a trip like that and taking the most versatile lens that was light and WR.

In addition I'd bring my waterproof p&s to have super handy for the impromptu shots that come up unexpectedly.

I agree with the other posters who ask "are you seeing the world (& photographing) or photographing the world" If the main reason for going is to capture amazing photos - then fill you boots with as much gear as you can lug around. If you're there for the experience and want some great photos as memories of it... then keep the kit light.

Just my $0.02...

[TER-OR]

I'd take the DA 16-85 along with an ultra-wide lens like the Sigma 10-20. I might add an inexpensive, compact but high quality telephoto zoom such as the old M 75-150 f4, but I would not bring along the DA 55-300.

That would probably be my thoughts too. Or the 18-135 if that's a better budget. It's not perfect, but it's good and WR probably helps where you're going.