[pres589]

I could see keeping the 55-300 on one body and a 15mm or 21mm ltd on the other. And if you can find one, add something like this to your kit;

SMC Pentax-M 28mm F2 Reviews - M Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database (assuming you can find one in time for your trip for a non-insane price)

And keep the 18-55 WR that you already own for a foul weather option. 4 lenses, 2 bodies, and it only blows past your $500 max by, uh, 40%? See how helpful this is?

[FantasticMrFox]

Wanting a good ultra-wide angle lens for landscapes is not LBA, it's perfectly reasonable.

[ThorSanchez]

That's a good set up. For years my personal set up was the 18-55, the 10-17, the Sigma 70-300 and a 50 1.7 for low light but you 35 2.4 will do that, just not as good.. So, your basic set up is quite functional.

So, I'd sit down and write a list of what you want to have 10 years from now and only consider purchasing lenses that are on that list, If you see yourself getting into full frame, scratch the 21 and 15. If you don't I'd consider the 10-17 fisheye or Sigma 8-16.

Just if you don't have a 50 1.8, what are you going to do in the bat cave? That's what I want to know

Actually, I do have an old manual Chinon 50 1.9 for when the light gets really scarce, but it's the first thing I leave at home when I'm going lite.

---------- Post added 02-27-16 at 11:07 AM ----------

I know you mentioned getting lightweight primes for hiking, but you might be better off getting something like the 16-85 or 18-135. I really enjoy the Rokinon 8mm FE, but I'm not sure I'd bring that hiking. That's where the DA 10-17 FE is handy. (I was trying to decide between a DA 10-17 or the DA 15, and I ended up with 10-17 because it was cheaper and more versatile.)

If you can only get one lens now, I'd say either the 10-17 FE or the 16-85.

I'd considered the 10-17 when I got the 8mm Rokinon, but now that you mention it that might be a good option. I've thought of the 18-135 as well.

---------- Post added 02-27-16 at 11:08 AM ----------

Wanting a good ultra-wide angle lens for landscapes is not LBA, it's perfectly reasonable.

I know, but it's more of a need vs want thing.

---------- Post added 02-27-16 at 11:11 AM ----------

You're not crazy to be considering the lenses you have in mind. You had a good point in wanting to raise your image quality while losing bulk and weight. Of the two lenses you are considering, I like the 15mm because it sits well in-between your 8mm and 35 mm. However...the line I quoted bothers me because it's not the lenses that will be making mind-blowing pictures. That's on you. If this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity...get up early, stay out late...look and think constantly...and shoot a lot. That'll make a whale of a lot more difference than any lens. And it's cheaper, too.

Exactly! That's my problem. I will probably be the limiting factor, not the lens. Some of my favorites are from the kit lens on a K-30. I'll go back and look after seeing one of my best keepers, sometimes assuming it was with my tack-sharp 35mm and be surprised it's the kit lens.

[FantasticMrFox]

I know, but it's more of a need vs want thing.

All of non-commercial photography is want rather than need. I don't need to take any pictures at all, but I want to. And I don't need a DSLR for that, I could use my old smartphone. But I want higher quality.

It's a hobby, it need not be rational

[GlennG]

But I've been thinking and dreaming and rationalizing about a wide angle prime for landscapes and light weight, small size for walking around and hiking. Either the DA 21mm f/3.2 AL, or the 15mm f/4. They both look great, but the rational part of my mind says I'll get really good results with what I have without blowing $300-500. The irrational me says who knows if you'll ever be back to Yosemite, so get some great glass to take mind-blowing pictures. Thoughts?

Yes, similar to others:


a. All that you say here seems completely rational to me
b. I agree with other that creating the photos probably has more to do with you than the lenses or cameras that you have. You probably have "enough" in the lens dept.
c. If there was any gap I see, it would be filled with the 15 Limited best, if only one lens. The suggestions above for the 10-17 are indeed intriguing. That is a lens that I've paid little attention to and it may be just the thing for what you may want/need.
d. A person can "work around" some gear limitations, but it may cost time. For example, one can use your 35 2.4 for wide angle shots by stitching several photos together. If you are on a family vacation, however, your time and the family's patience has to be balanced. In my own circumstances I must consider the convenience of zooms (DA* 16-50 is perfect for me), but I can tell that "best" lenses for this type of vacation is highly variable amongst us.
e. You might be able to gauge your own needs by looking at Yosemite and Tahoe photos in flickr, looking at the focal lengths used.
f. I've been to both locations, though years ago, prior to a photography hobby. Both are spectacular.
g. Above all, enjoy this time.

[r0ckstarr]

Either the DA 21mm f/3.2 AL, or the 15mm f/4.

Either? Either!? No. Both. Not either. Both. Get both. You need both of them. Need. You must have both.

[ChatMechant]

For a vacation in the Sierra's I would get a 12-24 to go with your 55-300. That would be a nice light kit and with two bodies you won't have to slow the group down changing lenses all the time. I went to Yosemite with a 10-20, 18-55 and 55-300 and never once used the 18-55.

[fwcetus]

Convince me my LBA is irrational

But LBA is totally rational in all respects and under all circumstances.

Even my therapist humors me agrees with me...

[mixberry]

Sigma 8-16 or 10-20 good to go....

use one body for tele and one body for wide, so you don't need to exchange lens, and avoid dust inside sensor to

[Fat Albert]

I'd personally get the 21, having owned both the 21 and 15. They share the same punchy colors, starbursts and flare resistance. However, I found the 15 to be a bit more difficult from a composition perspective. The 21 is more user friendly in that regard.

[robgski]

I'd considered the 10-17 when I got the 8mm Rokinon,

I have rented the 10-17mm several times, and really like it alot,it is an amazingly sharp lens, at US $305, you really can't go wrong.
I ended up buying the Rokinon 8mm instead for three reasons:
1. Have a Takumar 17mm, so I was covered for an almost rectilinear UWA (it aonly gets fishy when objects are close, but not much for landscapes on the K-5)
2. After renting the 10-17mm for different occasions, I found that I was really using the 10mm end more often, I like fishy shots in a variety of interior and exterior settings (If you crop, a lot of time you get a fairly undistorted UWA panorama, even at the 10mm end.
3. A Pentaxian put a Rokinon 8mm up for a fair price, and when taken into consideration with the other two reasons above, this was the deciding factor.

Obviously you have a few months to decide, I still suggest renting both lenses rather than guessing or buying both. If your schedule is like mine, you probably do more shooting over the weekend. You can rent for as little as three days, and if you do it right, you get Sunday for free and mail it back on Monday. I don't know where you live, but even on the East Coast you can find plenty of wilderness under an hours drive, even from NYC.

Also, consider joining one of the groups in my signature below, I look forward to seeing your pictures.

[wtlwdwgn]

LBA is NOT irrational. For a Pentaxian it's neurotypical!

[aleonx3]

If you don't own 5 50mm lenses then you don't have LBA. Keep buying.

No, no, you have to have about 20 or more 50mm lenses before you declare yourself having LBA.

[todd]

I have been surprised at the low prices I've seen DA15 selling for lately so coming from somebody who paid somewhere over $600 (can't remember exactly how much...) for it all those years ago, it's a no brainer... You won't be disappointed.

[Rupert]

You just need one lens...the Bigma 50-500. It covers a wide range and though it won't shoot a bat in a cave, it will shoot a raccoon on a dark night!



It is kinda hard to fit in a jacket pocket, but otherwise, it does fantastic!

Regards!