Thoughts about a Solo Prime for a Trek

pathdoc · 07-28-2017, 03:55 AM

Originally posted by mholford

I brought my 18-135 and 15mm lenses... The 15mm never made it onto the camera.

Last overseas trip I took with my family, I brought the DA15 along for ONE specific thing that I suspected even 18mm was not going to be wide enough for (Australian Maritime Museum; the insides of a Daring-class destroyer and an Oberon-class submarine). I was right. No other lens was simultaneously wide enough, small enough and handy enough. Apart from that, though, the 18-135 ruled the roost on digital. In the absence of a WR 18-250, it's pretty much the ideal one-does-all travel lens (the 16-85 is a contender too, and tastes/circumstances do vary from user to user, but IMO those 50mm at the long end make the difference for most people - and if you have one, there is no reason not to take it as a single-lens solution).

bm75 · 07-28-2017, 05:42 AM

Prague is divided by the Moldova river and if you plan shooting from the riverside, you'll need a tele also for cityscapes so perhaps something from 85 to 135 would be useful. I suppose the 100 macro will do fine. In Prague I shot alot from towers and I missed both a 15 mm and a fast tele in the FL said. my 2 cents. Regards. Matteo

**TER-OR** · 07-28-2017, 05:48 AM

While we're on that "tight places" subject I'd be tempted to take my 18-135 and 10-17 on trips, and since I probably couldn't resist, the 21mm as well.
I know it's not the OP's original premise...

**southlander** · 08-02-2017, 10:26 PM

If I was forced to a single prime lens, I would go 35mm FF equivalent or thereabouts. On the K-1, the FA31 or 35 would both be good. On Aps-c, the DA21 would be the nearest equivalent. The FA24 is also of the right length for Aps-C but from what I read of its reviews, field curvature might be a frustration for landscape photography in terms of getting adequate corner sharpness unless well stopped down.

Jonathan Mac · 08-03-2017, 12:37 AM

If I were to travel with a lone prime in my collection it would be the DA 35mm limited without a doubt. The 31mm FA limited would arguably be an even better choice as it's faster and slightly wider (but no macro), though still providing a normal field of view on APS-C.

You won't get the wide shots (unless you stitch later, which isn't always viable) but if you accept that you won't get the wide shots and embrace the fast normal prime mindset then I think you will find it works very well indeed.

pakinjapan · 08-03-2017, 01:15 AM

Originally posted by Biff

I have available the 12-24, 31, 40, 43, 77, 18-135 and 100 macro...

If it must be a prime from the list of lenses you currently have, this is another vote for FA31.
If It can be any prime, I would say 21 is the best for me. And in fact, It is the lens will usually go with me on any trip.

**UncleVanya** · 08-11-2017, 02:03 PM

There is no reason you can't make a single focal length work. There is also very little reason to do so.

**Biff** · 08-18-2017, 07:44 PM

Thanks everyone, I greatly appreciate your input.

I'm leaving in a week, and while I'm still a little tempted to take the 12-24 and/or the 43 or 31 Limited, I've pretty much decided to go with only the 18-135 and make the most of that lens for the entire trip with my K5IIs. We'll be moving around a lot with a group and I think that's the elegant solution for photography combined with hiking and enjoying the countryside, Vienna, Prague and towns in between.

bm75 · 08-19-2017, 12:01 AM

Da 12-24 would be useful, I would take it. A 2-lens kit covering from 12 mm to 135 mm is a pretty good combo.

SpecialK · 08-19-2017, 12:31 AM

I always recommend the 12-24, but the 18-135 will be handy.

**savoche** · 08-19-2017, 08:25 AM

I would go for the 18-135 because of its versatility and WR.

Something I do sometimes, though, is to take a prime only (usually the 43 or 70) and my little GR for wider shots. A brilliant combination.

31 Limited · 08-19-2017, 11:03 AM

In 2013 I went to Rome, Assissi, Florence, Pompeii, Sienna and Pisa on a group tour. Changing lenses to keep up with the group was not real practical. I did take the K5iis, 18-135, 12-24, FA 43 and one other lens that I don't remember. I didn't even put on the 12-24, though I could have. The 18-135 ruled the roost and I was happy with the results. The rest were just extra weight. If I did it again, I would take the 18-135 and maybe the 12-24, but for what I did the 18-135 was enough. Have fun.

Andy

08-03-2017, 01:15 AM	#36
pakinjapan Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Tokyo Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,041	Originally posted by Biff I have available the 12-24, 31, 40, 43, 77, 18-135 and 100 macro... If it must be a prime from the list of lenses you currently have, this is another vote for FA31. If It can be any prime, I would say 21 is the best for me. And in fact, It is the lens will usually go with me on any trip. Last edited by pakinjapan; 08-03-2017 at 01:26 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Landscape Trek Photos	trigger.happy	Photo Critique	12	04-27-2016 07:23 AM
Star Trek Composite	Arcanum70	Monthly Photo Contests	2	02-11-2016 10:18 AM
Landscape The Rainforest Trek	daacon	Post Your Photos!	15	03-10-2011 06:21 AM
eco-trek IPO DAM	Ansbert	Post Your Photos!	18	09-15-2008 05:06 PM
several photos from a local mountain trek	lastdodobird	Post Your Photos!	6	02-28-2008 08:27 PM

07-28-2017, 03:55 AM	#31
pathdoc Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2015 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,381	Originally posted by mholford I brought my 18-135 and 15mm lenses... The 15mm never made it onto the camera. Last overseas trip I took with my family, I brought the DA15 along for ONE specific thing that I suspected even 18mm was not going to be wide enough for (Australian Maritime Museum; the insides of a Daring-class destroyer and an Oberon-class submarine). I was right. No other lens was simultaneously wide enough, small enough and handy enough. Apart from that, though, the 18-135 ruled the roost on digital. In the absence of a WR 18-250, it's pretty much the ideal one-does-all travel lens (the 16-85 is a contender too, and tastes/circumstances do vary from user to user, but IMO those 50mm at the long end make the difference for most people - and if you have one, there is no reason not to take it as a single-lens solution).

07-28-2017, 05:42 AM	#32
bm75 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Italia Photos: Albums Posts: 354	Prague is divided by the Moldova river and if you plan shooting from the riverside, you'll need a tele also for cityscapes so perhaps something from 85 to 135 would be useful. I suppose the 100 macro will do fine. In Prague I shot alot from towers and I missed both a 15 mm and a fast tele in the FL said. my 2 cents. Regards. Matteo

07-28-2017, 05:48 AM	#33
TER-OR Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Dundee, IL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,699	While we're on that "tight places" subject I'd be tempted to take my 18-135 and 10-17 on trips, and since I probably couldn't resist, the 21mm as well. I know it's not the OP's original premise...

08-02-2017, 10:26 PM	#34
southlander Site Supporter Join Date: May 2012 Location: Adelaide Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,364	If I was forced to a single prime lens, I would go 35mm FF equivalent or thereabouts. On the K-1, the FA31 or 35 would both be good. On Aps-c, the DA21 would be the nearest equivalent. The FA24 is also of the right length for Aps-C but from what I read of its reviews, field curvature might be a frustration for landscape photography in terms of getting adequate corner sharpness unless well stopped down.

08-03-2017, 12:37 AM	#35
Jonathan Mac Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Madrid, Spain Posts: 10,897	If I were to travel with a lone prime in my collection it would be the DA 35mm limited without a doubt. The 31mm FA limited would arguably be an even better choice as it's faster and slightly wider (but no macro), though still providing a normal field of view on APS-C. You won't get the wide shots (unless you stitch later, which isn't always viable) but if you accept that you won't get the wide shots and embrace the fast normal prime mindset then I think you will find it works very well indeed.

08-11-2017, 02:03 PM	#37
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,406	There is no reason you can't make a single focal length work. There is also very little reason to do so.

08-18-2017, 07:44 PM	#38
Biff Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: SF Bay Area Photos: Albums Posts: 1,082 Original Poster	Thanks everyone, I greatly appreciate your input. I'm leaving in a week, and while I'm still a little tempted to take the 12-24 and/or the 43 or 31 Limited, I've pretty much decided to go with only the 18-135 and make the most of that lens for the entire trip with my K5IIs. We'll be moving around a lot with a group and I think that's the elegant solution for photography combined with hiking and enjoying the countryside, Vienna, Prague and towns in between.

08-19-2017, 12:01 AM	#39
bm75 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Italia Photos: Albums Posts: 354	Da 12-24 would be useful, I would take it. A 2-lens kit covering from 12 mm to 135 mm is a pretty good combo.

08-19-2017, 12:31 AM	#40
SpecialK Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: So California Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,481	I always recommend the 12-24, but the 18-135 will be handy.

08-19-2017, 08:25 AM	#41
savoche Master of the obvious Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Lowlands of Norway Posts: 18,311	I would go for the 18-135 because of its versatility and WR. Something I do sometimes, though, is to take a prime only (usually the 43 or 70) and my little GR for wider shots. A brilliant combination.

08-19-2017, 11:03 AM	#42
31 Limited Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Idaho Posts: 67	In 2013 I went to Rome, Assissi, Florence, Pompeii, Sienna and Pisa on a group tour. Changing lenses to keep up with the group was not real practical. I did take the K5iis, 18-135, 12-24, FA 43 and one other lens that I don't remember. I didn't even put on the 12-24, though I could have. The 18-135 ruled the roost and I was happy with the results. The rest were just extra weight. If I did it again, I would take the 18-135 and maybe the 12-24, but for what I did the 18-135 was enough. Have fun. Andy