[Des]

Another thing is the 1.4x HD TC can be had for £285 new... this could get the 100mm DFA to 140mm

I've tried the TC with my DFA 100 WR (as a medium tele - macro is another story). Still only gets you to 140mm, and I'm not convinced the results are better than cropping.

It's true the 100 is so sharp it can stand a lot of cropping (K-3 is great for this). Here's an example, taken with the K-3 and DFA 100 (no TC) from maybe 3-4 metres away and heavily cropped:



But you still need to be quite close to do this, and even then 300 would have been significantly better.

A lot of the time here the light is good enough for f8 at 300mm, at which point the 55-300 consumer zoom isn't all that far away from a 300mm prime. Most of the shots in my previous post were taken with an 18-250 superzoom or 55-300. Even the superzoom was OK at f8 - but I often found 250mm too short. Perhaps I am labouring the point. ;-)

Yes Rob got shots of urban birds with the 77 (the kestrel was an excellent get, but it pains me to see the hated Indian Mynahs). I've done that too; in fact I've got bird shots with my 43. Yes, crimson rosellas will land on your head at Wilson's Prom, and the same with rainbow lorikeets at Currumbin. And yes you can photograph koalas at Tooronga Zoo or Healesville Sanctuary or a sadly overpopulated place like Cape Otway with a phone camera. But once you get out in the bush that's the exception, not the rule.

Of course all this advice is general. You haven't said where you are going, or for how long, or what you are interested in seeing, or even whether it is purely a holiday rather than a business trip or family reunion. I'm assuming holiday, and that you are interested in wildlife and nature as a major part of the trip.

---

Last edited by Des; 08-28-2016 at 03:23 PM.

[Conqueror]

To give you an idea...

Current stops I'm thikning of are Cairns, Sydney, Auckland, Wellington (if possible).

So it will be a mix of urban and landsacpe

Combination of visiting family and holiday


I'm wondering about the 50-200mm WR (light should be good, so could stop down) or 55-300mm PLM

At the wider end ... my thoughts are confused

I'm wondering about trying to do it all with 2 lenses though, and having second thoughts about taking the FA 31

[Des]

Far North Queensland is a wildlife paradise. Plenty around the Sydney region too. Go the PLM - it's compact, WR, quiet, IQ looks promising, and the extra reach is invaluable.

If you do that, your wide-normal choice would be 15 and 31 (557g) or 16-85 (488g) or 18-135 (405g). Factors to consider are weight, bulk, WR, versatility/convenience, focal range, aperture speed, image quality and (if you go for a zoom) price. If you are not taking a flash (and no popup on the K-3ii), speed is a consideration.

For myself, I'd go with the lenses I had, with the bonus of extra width, extra speed (31 anyway) and top image quality, at the cost of WR, versatility and a little weight.

But don't agonise too much. There is no bad option.

[surfar]

This fellah will be laughing at you when you get downunder!

[Conqueror]

Managed to get a good deal on the 55-300mm RE PLM.. I guess I'll need to look into the firmware update on the K-3ii

Thinking of taking the FA 31 + 55-300mm PLM to travel light

and possibly the 100 DFA or 55 DA* ....

yes I will be without a WA lens... I think the 31 will cope with a lot of situations though

the 100 or 55 might be worth taking due to extra IQ at those FL and WR... in the case of the 100 also the macro

[Des]

You won't regret the 55-300 PLM. And if you don't think you would use it much at home, you would easily be able to sell it.

As between the 55 and 100, I'd suggest taking the 100, for the macro option and greater separation of function and focal length from the 31. The 100 is just a superb lens for flowers, butterflies, and all manner of small things, and I also like it for landscapes. If you are taking the 31, the wider aperture of the 55 is less important - unless you plan to do a lot of portrait shots.

I'm still tipping that you'll grab the 15 on your way out the door!

[lesmore49]

I have the 18-135, not the 16-85.

When I first conspired getting the 18-135, I admit I was somewhat hesitant, as I had read this lens was not sharp. I bought it and I found my copy is very sharp. It has an exceptionally usable zoom range...everything from moderate wise angle to moderate telephoto. It has provided many keepers and is just right for a carry around lens.

Mine does have a bit of lens creep, but I don't find this to be a big deal.

It's WR, reasonable priced, sharp and has a very useful range.