[pathdoc]

What do you photograph? All of these lenses were made to solve different problems.

This. This SO MUCH.

Bold emphasis added.

My last travel-away kits were:

For a family holiday where we were "winging it" according to what we might see on a daily basis: DA 18-250 for everything at a pinch (I didn't yet have a DA18-135), and DA50 for low light in museums; both saw much use, and I bought an SMC Tak 28/3.5 while away because LBA and access to B&M stores). I had occasion to wish for a DA15 or wider.

For a solo trip to a major city: All the limited primes except the macro, because I'd recently bought them and with a combination of narrow streets and particular architectural detail, this was the ideal time to give them all some heavy use. They really don't take up much room in the camera bag! Again, B&M store available, LBA struck, and I came home with more lenses than I took away.

[Rondec]

I will admit that I take fewer lenses with me on a trip than I used to. I usually have some idea of an itinerary and the most frequently left home lenses are telephoto. Unless I'm going to a bird place or a zoo, I just don't usually need 200 or 300mm focal lengths. Typically I have a zoom to cover main focal lengths and a few primes to cover different things. On APS-C that would be a 16-50, DA 15, FA 31 and DA *55. It actually doesn't take up that much space, as the primes aren't that big. I may or may not throw in the FA 77 as it is pretty small too, but a little long for a crop camera.

[AldaCZ]

Vacation?

Q7 | 01 | 02 | 06

But KP is trying..

[pathdoc]

Someone, I think it was @ogl , put up a pic of the K-3 and the KP superimposed. In total height and total width they are little different. In height from bottom plate to top of the top plate where the knobs are, there is a small but significant difference.

In this respect, the KP seems to be to the K3 what the S1a is to the Spotmatic. I much prefer the S1a. The KP is no MX-reborn by any means, but those with smaller hands may come to love it.

[Nicolas06]

Went on my western trip. Couldn't decide which 2 or so lenses to bring, so brought ALL of them. (And yes I have been buying more and more, I have the lens bug). Other than a few test shots, I ONLY used the 10-17 fishie and the 18-135. So I lugged around my 15 and 21 limiteds, my 50 and my 55-300 and my wee 40XS (not a lug in that case but still taking room). Sheesh.

So now I wonder (again) - do I NEED all the other lenses?

Let's be clear you can get 90% of the photographic experience with a 2 lens setup and 80% with a single lens setup. The bigger/heavier the gear become and the more lenses change you have the more the experience transform in a gear centered experience than a photo walkaround or vacations/trip/whatever.

What more? From personal experience, once it is good enough, gear become the least important factor in the results you get.

The most important factors are:
#0: motivation
#1: subject.
#2: the right moment, right location and right light.
#3: composition
#4: post processing and choice of print/viewing medium
#5: photographic technique: getting things sharp, right shutter speed etc.
#6: A better lens
#7: A better camera.

What many people make as a mistake is to think they want to be like pro. Like to have a backpack full or gear, worst 5K-10K and that they'll wanna carry it everywhere to get the best out of it. Most pro don't even do that when they are not paid to do it. And many when they are on paid work think it is not enough anyway. They have assistants, paid model(s), make-up artists, full lighting setup and they may spend hours/day to create the scene. If they are into landscape they study the weather and may accept to wake up at 4am or sleep the night before in the wilderness to be at the right place at the right moment. If the conditions are not met, they'll go again... To get that war zone photo, they take the trip, risk their life etc. And maybe get quite small/light and forgetable gear...

The question really is if you really want to do that? If not, you likely don't need to take that much gear with you. On a trip as long as low light is not your priority, a 16-85 is going to get you almost everything you need.

Chances are that you'll see more difference by displaying the photo on a great oled screen instead of LCD or choose premium printing service instead of low cost/average one than by using an FA31 instead of 18-55 in many situations. That what I discovered myself recently. All that discussion on FF vs APSC, f/1.2 vs f/1.4 and all the stuff that the same: just selecting a better printing service or better display is going to be more visible...

You may need different gear for different practices like a 55-300 or 150-450 for wildlife a 16-85 for landscapes and walkaround or a 17-50 + 70-200 for weddings/events but the key is that it doesn't make sense to get everything at the same time. it is only slowing you down and only decrease the satisfaction you get out of it. Get out, take photos, enjoy life, and spend less on gear !

As an illustration: Getting great wildlife picture is easier in Tanzania than in a zoo: the wildlife density is better, the background look much better and a mere 55-300 do wonders. You could spend 10K on extreme telezoom, advanced camera and fail to get nice pictures if instead you stayed in the wrong location.

All with K3 and 55-300:

[UncleVanya]

My most recent big trip was in the spring of 2016. I took a
Panasonic LX-7 only. 24-90 or 20-105 effective when manipulating aspect ratio. It's a small sensor camera like the Q7 but with a very fast and sharp zoom fixed to it. Perfect for my needs in London and Paris with a gang of two kids a wife a father in law and a brother in law who is mentally disabled.

---------- Post added 01-28-17 at 08:08 AM ----------

However there are trips where the k3 and many lenses go with me.

[Lowell Goudge]

Went on my western trip. Couldn't decide which 2 or so lenses to bring, so brought ALL of them. (And yes I have been buying more and more, I have the lens bug).

you mean LBA??

Other than a few test shots, I ONLY used the 10-17 fishie and the 18-135. So I lugged around my 15 and 21 limiteds, my 50 and my 55-300 and my wee 40XS (not a lug in that case but still taking room). Sheesh.

So now I wonder (again) - do I NEED all the other lenses?

Yes, but you need to consider when travelling what you are going to do, and what you need.

I have at last count about 60 lenses, and yes I did have LBA . But I have about 15-20 M42 lenses from 16mm though 300mm, similarly I have manual focus K/KA lenses from 8-400mm plus 70-210mm and 200-500mm zooms

Then I have AF zooms from 10-200mm plus 1.4, 1.7 and 2x converters. (The 1.7x is the Pentax AF converter)

But when I go out, it is somewhat mission oriented, and I take much less.

Travelling, I will take my sigma 10-20, my Tammy 28-75, and if I know there is a wild life portion, I will take my 70-200/2.8 and 2xTC. If there is no wildlife opportunities the 70-200 stays home, but I might slip a couple of KMount primes into the bag.

If I am driving to a destination, as opposed to flying, I might take more, in a hard case, that is locked by cable into my trunk if it is a long trip where I might get out of the car several times between destinations, but I have not done that for a while. Short trips to cottage, etc, I might take most or all of my legacy lenses for either m42 or k mount, just to play.

The other point is, even if I have the 70-200 and the TC with me, unless the hotel or what ever is in a specifically seedy area, I can usually put it in a safe or the room is safe enough etc, that out in the city I don't have it with me. Then I take my 2 bodies,more with each lens, with me on walks, one camera and lens in a shoulder bag, the other in hand.

I find zooms much more convenient for travel, and usually don't need to go over 75-80mm in cities. I have done, for example a up to a week in cities like Paris, Prague, New York, etc, with only 1 body and 2 zooms if I really want to go light because I know the use of anything else is so infrequent it does not matter. I think you found this out.

The other thing to consider, is if you limit your lens selection, it forces you to think in terms of what can you do, in a situation, with what you have right now! It might even make you a better photographer.

Edit note! One thing to consider is whether you have a "home base" when travelling, and the possibility of more than one bag, I.e. One bag or case to get to the temporary home base, where you can carry all your equipment and a second to use when making short trips away from home base, or do you need to carry it all with you all the time! This is a big decider.

---

Last edited by Lowell Goudge; 01-28-2017 at 07:12 AM.

[pathdoc]

But when I go out, it is somewhat mission oriented, and I take much less.

Yes, this.

I've mostly settled on a family-trip rig that is one superzoom (DA18-135 for foul weather, DA18-250 for fair or for my *istDS) and a fast fifty for low-light work (DA50/1.8 is light and cheap), plus something to enable macro if I want it (e.g extension tube set or a deglassed T/C).

On this next trip, fast-fifty honours will go to the FA50/1.4 instead of the DA50/1.8 because I intend - if at all possible - to sample the K-1 in-store and take some shots with it in full and crop modes with a lens that can handle both.

The exception is this - knowing where I am going and what I will almost certainly be doing, my DA15 is coming along too - going on board a museum ship demands the widest rectilinear lens one has in one's possession. I am half-tempted to take a film rig in parallel, in which case I will probably drop my ME or MX into my travel vest pocket with a body cap on, and it can run the FA50 if I really want to do the film thing.

Oh, and I am taking an M42/K adapter in case I come across cool stuff in camera stores.

[pres589]

One thing I consider with a travel kit is what focal distance range I do not want to have not covered OR what range I won't want to be not quite wide or not quite long enough. Example; if I had my crop dslr with me, a two lens kit of the 12-24 and 28-105 Pentax zooms sounds awesome, right? Only issue is, 20 to 35ish mm is where a lot of my shots take place. I don't want to be wishing I had the other lens on and changing lenses constantly. This is one reason I really like the 18-135; it's very nice from 20 to 40mm and reasonable on out into the 70's.

If I were going single lens, I'd probably buy a Tamron 17-50, or possibly a used screw drive converted Pentax 16-50.

[Lowell Goudge]

....snip I don't want to be wishing I had the other lens on and changing lenses constantly. This is one reason I really like the 18-135; it's very nice from 20 to 40mm and reasonable on out into the 70's.

If I were going single lens, I'd probably buy a Tamron 17-50, or possibly a used screw drive converted Pentax 16-50.

i use 2 bodies, no changing lenses, and if the higher resolution body has the shorter lens then the gap is covered by cropping. remember you can print really big with a 16 mp crop out of a k3 for example. so if you are missing a 20-35 range, just crop to get it.

[mgvh]

I just wrote a report on a 2 week trip to Turkey / Greece, and I can confirm what Nicolas06 noted above. I took 80% of my shots with just the DA 18-135 and 90% of them when I include the DA 10-17 FE. The other lenses I carried do all have their purpose, but if I had to go light, I could!

[madison_wi_gal]

Next test is to bring just the 18-250 Tam on a short Iowa road trip. Dyersville Field of Dreams, Dubuque/Davenport various and the largest truck stop in world (yes, seriously, this interests me). Yes, I'll grab the 50 in case I REALLY need some light but let's see if one lens does the job.

[pathdoc]

Trucks are long objects when they have their loads on, especially if assembled as road trains with more than one trailer in tow (the Aussies do this for rural long-haul; not sure whether anyone else does). You might want yourself wanting the fisheye or the DA15 in those circumstances?

[photoptimist]

Next test is to bring just the 18-250 Tam on a short Iowa road trip. Dyersville Field of Dreams, Dubuque/Davenport various and the largest truck stop in world (yes, seriously, this interests me). Yes, I'll grab the 50 in case I REALLY need some light but let's see if one lens does the job.

Enjoy the 18-250! There's a lot to be said for super-zooms in terms of convenience. In my 40 years of owning cameras, there have been periods when I've used only superzooms. They offer unprecedented speed of framing scenes with just the right focal length and for trying different compositions of the same subject at different focal lengths. They may not be the lightest, the brightest, or the sharpest, but they will let you get the picture in many scenarios where changing lenses isn't possible or would lose the moment.

And after you take enough pictures with the 18-250, you can start to see your favorite focal lengths and buy suitable primes. They say a superzoom is like a whole bag of primes but maybe it will make you buy a bag of primes.

But do bring the 50 which will be nice for getting "portraits" of interesting truck parts and maybe bring the 15 for some UWA picts.

Have fun!

[madison_wi_gal]

..You might want yourself wanting the fisheye or the DA15 in those circumstances?

Oh, I'm sure I'll pack the fishie at the last minute. I do like it...