Originally posted by Steve Beswick I guess my point is this - over the years there is a photography lesson I have to keep learning over and over again: Less is more, in that less gear tends to actually get me better photographs. This may not be true for you, and you are going for a longer period than me, so that may be a factor. Still, it is something to consider.
I tend to agree. I was in Yosemite and around Lake Tahoe about 18 months ago, and probably 80+% of my pictures were with the 15mm Limited on the K-3II. I just didn't feel the need to swap lenses a lot, the 15mm is a wonderful lens, and you just work with what you have. I also was in Germany last November and went with a kit that was just the 15mm and the 40XS and I got some great shots.
But... a consideration for Iceland is the weather, and waterfall spray. I'll keep the kit small, but will probably have the 15mm and 40mm Limiteds for general use, plus renting the WR 16-85mm for when the weather is dodgy or I'm standing under a waterfall. And I'll probably have the 55-300mm in the bag, just in case I need reach.
---------- Post added 12-01-17 at 08:48 AM ----------
I know this is the lens forum, but forgive me a slight diversion... tripods. I have a nice Vanguard that I'm very happy with, but it's a monster. I also have a Gorillapod SLR, which is all I had with me on my Yosemite trip last year and it worked out okay. Question is... would I be better off in Iceland with a travel tripod? I really rather not spend $150, $200+ on a travel tripod, but I see the benefits of something between the 5 pound beast and the essentially tabletop Gorillapod. I almost just want to take the big Vanguard, but with today's airline policies I fear that might incur confiscatory baggage fees (slight exaggeration, but airlines like Wow seem very strict on baggage).
Would it be worthwhile to buy an inexpensive, small travel tripod I could throw in the checked bag, and just take care that it's not so flimsy it doesn't topple over?