Originally posted by Jonathan Mac I recently went on a trip to Japan and used my DA limited lenses for almost everything. The vast majority of my shots were taken with the DA 35mm and the 21mm, with a bit of use of the 70 and 15 and for two days almost everything was shot with the 18-55 WR because it rained all day.
Using primes was enjoyable and produced great quality images (as always with the DA ltds) but did require a lot of swapping. A DA 20-40mm would maybe have been ideal but I don't have that and it's a very expensive lens for what it offers. I had some old primes with me too (M 50/1.7, A 28/2.8 and M 120/2.8) because I also shot film but I rarely used those on the K3 and after a few days the 120mm stayed at home because it wasn't getting enough use to merit carrying it all day.
I love shooting primes as well. Actually, this is the reason why I love the DA20-40 so much. I see it as a 30mm prime with some framing flexibility, not so much as a zoom.
However, the risk of rain is the most important reason for the two DA*'s; both of which have been tried and tested in soaking wet circumstances.
Originally posted by Jonathan Mac As with everything, what you need will depend on your shooting style and preferences (and maybe the weather) much more than on where you're going.
I agree shooting style is the most important decision factor for lenses. For all subject matter except wildlife... Hence my main question relating to the FA*300/4.5.
---------- Post added 10-08-17 at 15:07 ----------
Originally posted by mannyquinto I went all over the USA last Spring and going to Japan won't be different. Take any wide angle between 15mm to 24mm ( I had the 21mm) , a 50mm and a long telephoto (I had the 55-300). You will be surprised that a 300mm would be used quite a lot.
I can see why a trip to the USA would see much use for a 300mm. Any trip I would undertake to Northern America would be very wildlife oriented. Thing is I'm not so sure about Japan. I'm not much of a fan of extreme tele except for wildlife. But having tested the capacity of the bag I will be taking, I'm inclined to take the FA*300/4.5 regardless.
---------- Post added 10-08-17 at 15:17 ----------
Originally posted by Pentaxke Yes, you do...!
I know I missed sth a little longer in Kamikochi. That's why I decided to get the DA* 60-250. Still contemplating the DA 1.4 TC as I find it a bit expensive, but might as well go for that...
Ok, ok, Having testing the capacity of my bag, I'll take the FA*300/4.5.
Originally posted by Pentaxke I know 16mm is your sweetspot, but I thought since you already take the Sigma with you The 20-40 LTD would suffice. Now you explained, I understand.
I knew you would. Let's hope I'll find the opportunities for those long exposures.
Originally posted by Pentaxke I cannot believe you will make a lot of shots with both the Sigma and the 10-17, but then I am not a big fan of UWA. One idea is to leave the Sigma at home and take the Samyang 10mm instead? I know I would love to have the 10-17 again but I am not all that certain I would take it with me to Japan. Of course that is all just me.
Well, the Sigma 8-16 will be great for interiors at least. Also, I generally include some panoramic street views in my photo books (8:3 ratio), and the 8-16 allows me to capture these in one go. But the Samyang 10/2.8 would do as well of course, and it lets in more light (astro: who knows there might be an opportunity?). It is slightly larger and heavier though... The DA10-17 is for carefully selected effect shots. Last time I used it, I took it to Myanmar three years ago and only shot 2 or 3 images with it, but all were among my favourites of the trip. Think I *will* go for the 10/2.8 and the DA10-17...
Originally posted by Pentaxke One word of advice, take the 50 macro instead of the 35 LTD. You will have a little more working distance and it is not that much bigger or heavier...
Good point. I see I will need some more thinking to decide which prime will take the last spot in the bag...
Tx again all!!
Wim