[pathdoc]

My thoughts:

18-250 - Wonderful for convenience and flexibility (I have the Pentax DA version), but not WR if the weather turns bad and needs a LOT of light at the long end (that f/6.3 is a killer).

28-105 - in cramped circumstances is not really a great focal length range on crop sensor, but if you are in wider, more open spaces it might be good.

I support the 18-135 as a recommendation of lenses you should consider buying. In terms of combined focal length range and IQ it has the best bang for the buck, is WR, and is more suited for outdoor use where longer shots are the order of the day. In a big city with narrow alleyways, lovely old buildings etc., there is a definite case to be made for the 16-85 instead to get in more at the wide end, but it's hair splitting and depends on the needs and experience of the individual. I own the 18-135 and I'm happy with it for what I do. Remember to consider your long-term needs - for your trip, the 18-135 sounds the more optimal; for general use over the next ten to fifteen years, where you live and what you do may justify the 16-85 if you went down that road. But if the 18mm your kit lens offers you is wide enough for general use, you know what you need to do. The WR is not useful on your current body, as you have said, but if you upgrade to a higher-end or more modern crop body in future it will make a very nice match.

Finally, I would feel remiss not having a really fast prime with me for night-time work, and the 50/1.8 is neither particularly large nor particularly weighty.

[UncleVanya]

Just for fun - this is what I have so far (K-r body, casual photographer). Have been going a bit nuts on eBay/Amazon etc for new/used lenses.

Pentax 35mm smc DA f/2.4
Pentax 50mm smc DA f/1.8
Pentax 10-17mm smc DA ED f/3.5/4.5
Tamron 18-250mm LD DiII f/3.5-6.3
Pentax 18-55mm smc DAL f/3.5-5.6
Sigma 28-105mm Aspherical f/2.8-4
Pentax 55-300mm smc DA ED f/4-5.8

I have kind of tight budget but want to take just 2 with me for western vacation. Even though the 55-300 is heavy, it is the best glass I have in this bunch.

What is missing?

Honestly the 18-55 plus 55-300 covers you quite well. Alternately the 10-17 plus 18-250. Yes I know you are missing the low light prime but with only two lenses that's my advice.

If you do take the 18-55 dal make sure you get a hood. Some knock off hoofs exist that are cheap.

---------- Post added 09-27-16 at 07:06 PM ----------

Also any spare room - stuff a tripod in there. Even if a gorilla pod it is better than nothing.

[rrstuff]

tripod is a good suggestion. MeFoto makes small tripods that are good for landscapes and can support all these lenses, they are around $100.

[IgorZ]

Seems like most comments are on focal lengths, but I would also look at the aperture. I would definitely take the 50,as it's the fastest lens you have and great for your traveling companions as well as Best Friends. 35 for landscapes and 55-300 for everything else. That puts you at three though...

[DeadJohn]

Western trip, Zion/Bryce Canyons, Best Friends Animal (so doggies and kitties) and some SF/LA walking around. Oh, and Vegas...

Not much wildlife in any of those spots, is there? I would leave the 55-300 at home. Bring the 18-250 or 18-55 for walkaround versatility. The 10-17 gives you ultrawide for cities (I don't like fisheye but big cities often need wider than 18mm IMO).

The combo above comes up short for low light. If you want a lot of night shots bring a tripod or swap the 50 for the 10-17.

P.S. Anecdotes suggest SF is swarming with brazen gangs of camera thieves. Be more wary than usual.

[UncleVanya]

I read where you are going again. And not having been to the places other than LA and SF I can only take Dead John at his word and that means the 55-300 is likely the wrong choice.

At that point I would opt for the 18-55 and 10-17 myself. Night shots of Vegas lights will look cool on the 10-17 and the slower speed will remove people if you go long enough in your exposure. At the 17 end it is much wider than the 18-55 and correcting perspective isn't too awful at that point. Low light shots of moving things will need high ISO. Enjoy. Also this kit won't look and scream expensive.

Highly suggest a non camera backpack or satchel type combo carrying arrangement.

[VoiceOfReason]

Not much wildlife in any of those spots, is there? I would leave the 55-300 at home. Bring the 18-250 or 18-55 for walkaround versatility. The 10-17 gives you ultrawide for cities (I don't like fisheye but big cities often need wider than 18mm IMO).

The combo above comes up short for low light. If you want a lot of night shots bring a tripod or swap the 50 for the 10-17.

P.S. Anecdotes suggest SF is swarming with brazen gangs of camera thieves. Be more wary than usual.

I have a special camera strap with piano wire in it for places like that.

[rrstuff]

I read where you are going again. And not having been to the places other than LA and SF I can only take Dead John at his word and that means the 55-300 is likely the wrong choice.

At that point I would opt for the 18-55 and 10-17 myself. Night shots of Vegas lights will look cool on the 10-17 and the slower speed will remove people if you go long enough in your exposure. At the 17 end it is much wider than the 18-55 and correcting perspective isn't too awful at that point. Low light shots of moving things will need high ISO. Enjoy. Also this kit won't look and scream expensive.

Highly suggest a non camera backpack or satchel type combo carrying arrangement.

I would take some telephoto, even if just for telephoto shots of griffith observatory with LA downtown in the background (cheesy but nice, e.g. Griffith Observatory and Downtown LA at Dusk | Telephoto sho? | Flickr), for detail in bryce, or for long shots of city buildings in SF. You probably won't need 300mm, frankly DA 18-135 would be a perfect lens for these, if supplemented by a high quality dedicated wide angle, and maybe a fast normal.

[pres589]

I'd grab the 10-17 (come on, it's perfect for this, and if you want you can defish at home in post) and the Tamron 18-250. Otherwise I'd do as suggested above and sell some gear if it means you can get an 18-135. I've never used the 10-17 or the Tamron 18-250 but they review pretty well, especially the 10-17.

I really like my 18-135. Excellent all-arounder. Negatives are IQ dropping past about 75mm (which I rarely care about) and it's not a light grabber.

I might also consider a Tamron 17-50. Another interesting combo would be your 10-17 paired with a 20-40 Ltd although that lens will break your budget.

[mechmike10]

If it was me, I'd take the 18-250 and an OpTech rainsleeve for use if it rains. Although you probably won't be shooting wildlife at either Bryce or Zion, it is nice to have a longer reach just in case, and you definitely want the wide end. With only one lens, you won't have to worry about changing lenses and dust on the sensor, and it will be much lighter.

[Kozlok]

I have a largeish supply of high end lenses, but on the move and packing lightly, I think the Sigma 17-70 is a great traveling companion. I have the original one, which is actually quite inexpensive. I prefer the IQ significantly vs my 18-135. No, it's not perfect, but not bad, either.

Pack the 10-17 for fishy fun and add the Sigma.

[madison_wi_gal]

OK, I just added the 18-135 to the collection! And I decided I can probably take *three* lenses (as long as one is a wee prime). But I don't want to bring my tripod, too bulky. A monopod would be fine, I can also use it to whack any potential SF camera thieves on the wrist.

Any monopods out there worth the bother?

[VoiceOfReason]

OK, I just added the 18-135 to the collection! And I decided I can probably take *three* lenses (as long as one is a wee prime). But I don't want to bring my tripod, too bulky. A monopod would be fine, I can also use it to whack any potential SF camera thieves on the wrist.

Any monopods out there worth the bother?

Walmart was selling a pretty solid one for less than 20 bucks before. Might be worth checking.

[UncleVanya]

OK - so with the 18-135, perhaps the 10-17 and the DA 50 or DA 35.

Monopods work OK - I use them from time to time but I find that they keep me from being as mobile as I want and they don't provide me the support I need except when a long slow lens is used for daylight work. Unless you are taking a lens with a tripod foot and have a nearly stationary subject or at least a subject that is always in the same basic area - I wouldn't mess with the monopod myself. A gorilla pod mini-tripod is a great boon however - small and light and able to be used on top of any flat surface or grabbing a lamp or fence etc.

Portable Lightweight DSLR Tripod | GorillaPod SLR-Zoom

This one can hold 3kg.

[rrstuff]

whack any potential SF camera thieves on the wrist.

Any monopods out there worth the bother?

For this application, this might be more effective...
https://www.amazon.com/SABRE-RED-Spitfire-Pepper-Spray/dp/B0077SYFB8/ref=sr_...spray+keychain