Light zoom for hiking

Alnjpn · 06-07-2020, 09:20 PM

Hi all,
I love my Sigma 17-50 2.8 on my K3, its the perfect combination. However, the weight of this combination is just getting me down. I am a regular hiker and I am looking for a lighter zoom. I occasionally go back to the kit 18-55 but find the results disappointing. I also use the GR but I still prefer the results and flexibility of the DSLR with a zoom

What is worth considering? Is the 18-135 worth considering? I know its lighter but I am concerned about the image quality.

I am also considering buying a lighter camera like the K70 or KP just to get the weight down.

Any thoughts or experiences more than welcome!

Unregistered User 8 · 06-07-2020, 09:29 PM

Originally posted by Alnjpn

Is the 18-135 worth considering?

This is a wonderful general purpose lens IMO. It has its own thread ( linked below ) and you can check it out on the K-3 specifically by going to the Sample Photo Search and entering the camera/lens combo. Good luck.

DA 18-135 WR, Show us what it can do - PentaxForums.com

bertwert · 06-07-2020, 09:33 PM - **1 Like**

I personally found the 18-135 an improvement to the 18-55. Being WR, it's also convenient 'all-in-one' lens for wet conditions.

As far as lighter weight - it's not much lighter (405g v 565g). If you want the lightest weight (not to mention better IQ), I'd suggest a pair of small primes (or trio, or just one), depending on your shooting style. Have a look through your images you shoot, and see what focal length you use most. For example, the combo of 21 Ltd + 40 Ltd is only 245g.

**Des** · 06-07-2020, 10:07 PM

Originally posted by bertwert

I personally found the 18-135 an improvement to the 18-55. Being WR, it's also convenient 'all-in-one' lens for wet conditions.As far as lighter weight - it's not much lighter (405g v 565g). If you want the lightest weight (not to mention better IQ), I'd suggest a pair of small primes (or trio, or just one), depending on your shooting style. Have a look through your images you shoot, and see what focal length you use most. For example, the combo of 21 Ltd + 40 Ltd is only 245g.

^ Good advice.

I see that the OP's profile lists a DA 21, DA 35 f2.4, DA 40 f2.8 and DA 50 f1.8. They are all compact, light weight and produce good images. The 21 and either the 40 or the 50 would be a good combination. For something wider you could consider the DA 15 Ltd (which is a little gem).

The DA 18-135 is quite capable, is WR and saves a lot of lens changes.

Another option is the DA 20-40 f2.8-4 Ltd, which is also WR, fairly compact and light weight (283g), with that Limited magic. It could even replace the 21, 35 and 40.

As for the body, I have both the K-3 and KP. I love the ergonomics of the K-3 (and the burst rate for birding), but honestly the image quality from the KP is a generation ahead. It gives an extra stop or more of usable ISO and the shake reduction is much better. Plus the tilting screen is a boon for tripod use and for shooting from awkward angles. It's only about 100g lighter than the K-3 (with the battery in each), but the difference feels significant.

My preferred walking kit is the KP, 15, 20-40 and DA 55-300 PLM - all fits in one bag, can do it all and is high quality all the way. If you don't need telephoto, KP + 15 + 20-40 is 700g + 190g + 283g = 1173g, compared to 800g + 565g = 1365g for the K-3 + 17-50 and the KP kit would be much more of a pleasure to use.

Last edited by Des; 06-09-2020 at 01:57 PM.

hcc · 06-07-2020, 10:18 PM

+1 for the DA18-135mm. You already got great advice IMHO.
I tend to prefer myself the DA18-270mm because of the longer reach, but I bought the DA18-135mm for my wife. She prefer the lightweight zoom lens DA18-135mm. I use also the DA18-135mm when I need WR, and the IQ is good IMHO for a zoom. PS: I am a prime shooter with a strong bias for primes

.
My 5 cents...

Bui · 06-07-2020, 10:30 PM

To keep very high quality and maintaining flexibility at the same time it will be hard to keep the weight down. A KP + 18-135 is 250g lighter than a K3 + Sigma 17-50. Noticeable but not that big of a deal. I usually hike with my Kp and 16-85/16-50, and sometimes when we go to places we know already I substitute the zoom for a 21 and/or 40 the combo is very light and of course I lose flexibility.

Recently I bought an used K-01 for a very cheap price, and I plan to use it with the 18-50 retracted zoom. I think when it comes to Pentax ApsC this is the ultimate lightweight zoom package you can go for. In terms of image quality I will need to play with it a bit but I think it will be fine.

Sandy Hancock · 06-08-2020, 01:28 AM

The 20-40/2.8-4.0 Limited might be a worthwhile option. With the 10-17/3.5-4.5 Fisheye and the 55-300/4.5-6.3 PLM in your pack there's basically nothing you will miss, with very few compromises on image quality. All three are remarkably light and compact for what they offer.

Not that the 18-135/3.5-5.6 is a bad lens though - and if you are looking for a single lens solution it's hard to ignore.

**acoufap** · 06-08-2020, 01:58 AM - **1 Like**

On my last hike I wanted to go lightweight with "long reach" - up to 300mm. So besides the KP I took the DA15Ltd., DA18-135 and DA55-300PLM with me.

The latter is a great allrounder at any subject distance down to 95cm. It's simply a must-take-with-me.

Didn't want to change lenses a lot. So in the end I only used the DA15 and DA55-300PLM. Really didn't miss focal lengths between 16 and 50mm much. If necessary the lightweight DA20-40Ltd surely would fill this gap perfectly.

Next time time I'll not take the DA18-135 with me. I guess If I'd own the DA20-40Ltd this would be my third lens on hikes. But a lightweight 28 or 35mm lens could also serve as a standard FoV "filler".

Unregistered User · 06-08-2020, 04:09 AM

Originally posted by Alnjpn

Hi all,
I love my Sigma 17-50 2.8 on my K3, its the perfect combination. However, the weight of this combination is just getting me down. I am a regular hiker and I am looking for a lighter zoom. I occasionally go back to the kit 18-55 but find the results disappointing. I also use the GR but I still prefer the results and flexibility of the DSLR with a zoom

What is worth considering? Is the 18-135 worth considering? I know its lighter but I am concerned about the image quality.

I am also considering buying a lighter camera like the K70 or KP just to get the weight down.

Any thoughts or experiences more than welcome!

If you are concerned about the image quality don't! If you use the 18-135 on a K3(-II) it is a very good lens with high IQ. I bought it for use on the Samsung GX-10 and it kept getting better with the evolution of the Ricoh/Pentax flagships. So buy it and use it with your K3. It is very fast with AF. Even on the GX-10 it was quite fast compared to the kitlens combination 18-55/50-200. On hiking you should not take primes, it is a hustle to have to change lenses in the outdoors. And the danger of damaging the camera or lens is a bit larger than when you go with a good zoom. At the moment the 18-135 is very affordable used. If I go hiking I do not tug a bag of primes with me, just the one lens because it is and feels more convenient. Of course you could go for a 20-40, which is nearly the same reach as the Sigma, but on a hike I would prefer a longer reach. The DA 18-270 is on the heavy side and it misses all time manual focus. I strongly recommend the DA 18-135.

**rogerstg** · 06-08-2020, 05:51 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Alnjpn

Is the 18-135 worth considering? I know its lighter but I am concerned about the image quality.

It's a nice lens that I and my wife use often, especially when traveling light and are uncertain of the photo opportunities. The IQ is not lacking unless you plan to hike past lens test charts.

Like some others here, I usually carry my 55-300PLM, especially when hiking in wildlife areas. Sometimes I also bring along my 21mm limited for a wider shot if needed.

IMO, the DA 18-135 would serve you well.

**Just1MoreDave** · 06-08-2020, 08:48 AM - **1 Like**

The 18-135 often has "zoom creep", so it will gradually extend as you hike. It feels heavy to me after a while but it's probably the best combination of range, IQ, weather resistance and size without changing lenses. I'd find a way to carry it and a silicone band to control zoom creep.

My previous solution was an 18-55 and 50-200 WR pair. These are both very light and both fit in a cargo shorts pocket. Image quality is good enough. Switching lenses is sometimes annoying or sometimes an excuse to rest.

A lot of my hiking is in Colorado so it is rocky steep trails at high altitude with afternoon thunderstorms.

**SteveinSLC** · 06-08-2020, 09:37 AM - **1 Like**

Depends a little on your priorities for what you want to shoot while hiking. If you're in an area with lots of wildlife, and you want decent pics of that, then 135 will be short, and you'll want a 55-300 option. The PLM is great for hiking. Light, compact, WR, and fast focusing on my KP.
If you're more focused on landscapes, any of the various options mentioned. DA 15, 20-40, or the 16-85, which is bigger and heavier than the 18-135, but wider and higher quality. My current setup is the 16-85 and 55-300 PLM. But if you're looking for a single lens option, and want light weight, the 18-135 is pretty hard to beat. I tend to be interested in wildlife, so don't think I would be happy with a small prime or only the 20-40.

**mikesbike** · 06-08-2020, 12:32 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Des

My preferred walking kit is the KP, 15, 20-40 and DA 55-300 PLM

Ditto for me, except more often for ultimate compactness I only rarely take the 55-300mm but instead take the DA70mm or FA 77mm to extend reach if needed. If I think I will need yet more zoom range, just in case- the DA 18-135mm is always along on any trip! My carrying method is perfect for this approach, a belt-loop/cross-shoulder strap mid-size camera holster case. In this way any zoom creep by the DA 18-135mm is something I have never experienced in my 10 years owning it. The DA 15mm is so tiny it will fit comfortably into the front accessory pocket! It actually lives there, and easy to forget I have it along until I see a need for it.

**mgvh** · 06-18-2020, 07:46 AM

For hiking when I want to enjoy the walk and take along something smaller and lighter and don't plan to drop behind my wife in order to change lenses, I just take the 18-135. Weather sealed, good quality... My 16-85 is definitely a better lens, and I love the extra wide end, but for hiking, it's a bit bigger, and I miss the 135mm end.

06-07-2020, 09:20 PM	#1
Alnjpn Senior Member Join Date: May 2015 Location: Osaka Posts: 158	Light zoom for hiking Hi all, I love my Sigma 17-50 2.8 on my K3, its the perfect combination. However, the weight of this combination is just getting me down. I am a regular hiker and I am looking for a lighter zoom. I occasionally go back to the kit 18-55 but find the results disappointing. I also use the GR but I still prefer the results and flexibility of the DSLR with a zoom What is worth considering? Is the 18-135 worth considering? I know its lighter but I am concerned about the image quality. I am also considering buying a lighter camera like the K70 or KP just to get the weight down. Any thoughts or experiences more than welcome!

06-07-2020, 10:30 PM	#6
Bui Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2016 Photos: Gallery Posts: 316	Light zoom for hiking To keep very high quality and maintaining flexibility at the same time it will be hard to keep the weight down. A KP + 18-135 is 250g lighter than a K3 + Sigma 17-50. Noticeable but not that big of a deal. I usually hike with my Kp and 16-85/16-50, and sometimes when we go to places we know already I substitute the zoom for a 21 and/or 40 the combo is very light and of course I lose flexibility. Recently I bought an used K-01 for a very cheap price, and I plan to use it with the 18-50 retracted zoom. I think when it comes to Pentax ApsC this is the ultimate lightweight zoom package you can go for. In terms of image quality I will need to play with it a bit but I think it will be fine.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Smart photo gear kit for nature hiking, sailing, and big city visit	akptc	Travel, Events, and Groups	45	02-24-2019 07:56 AM
People My Week For The Hiking Of The Frock	Kerrowdown	Post Your Photos!	8	10-19-2018 02:17 AM
Lens suggestions for light k3-ii hiking setup....	mapguy	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	33	02-16-2018 09:34 AM
Total Light. Total Light. Total Light.	bxf	Pentax Full Frame	215	11-12-2014 08:53 AM
light travel/hiking tripod?	OmegaKulu	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	2	07-29-2010 05:35 AM

06-07-2020, 09:29 PM	#2
Unregistered User 8 Closed Account Join Date: Mar 2015 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,694	Originally posted by Alnjpn Is the 18-135 worth considering? This is a wonderful general purpose lens IMO. It has its own thread ( linked below ) and you can check it out on the K-3 specifically by going to the Sample Photo Search and entering the camera/lens combo. Good luck. DA 18-135 WR, Show us what it can do - PentaxForums.com

06-07-2020, 09:33 PM - 1 Like	#3
bertwert Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2015 Location: Golden, BC Posts: 15,172	I personally found the 18-135 an improvement to the 18-55. Being WR, it's also convenient 'all-in-one' lens for wet conditions. As far as lighter weight - it's not much lighter (405g v 565g). If you want the lightest weight (not to mention better IQ), I'd suggest a pair of small primes (or trio, or just one), depending on your shooting style. Have a look through your images you shoot, and see what focal length you use most. For example, the combo of 21 Ltd + 40 Ltd is only 245g.

06-07-2020, 10:07 PM	#4
Des Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Victoria Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 6,424	Originally posted by bertwert I personally found the 18-135 an improvement to the 18-55. Being WR, it's also convenient 'all-in-one' lens for wet conditions.As far as lighter weight - it's not much lighter (405g v 565g). If you want the lightest weight (not to mention better IQ), I'd suggest a pair of small primes (or trio, or just one), depending on your shooting style. Have a look through your images you shoot, and see what focal length you use most. For example, the combo of 21 Ltd + 40 Ltd is only 245g. ^ Good advice. I see that the OP's profile lists a DA 21, DA 35 f2.4, DA 40 f2.8 and DA 50 f1.8. They are all compact, light weight and produce good images. The 21 and either the 40 or the 50 would be a good combination. For something wider you could consider the DA 15 Ltd (which is a little gem). The DA 18-135 is quite capable, is WR and saves a lot of lens changes. Another option is the DA 20-40 f2.8-4 Ltd, which is also WR, fairly compact and light weight (283g), with that Limited magic. It could even replace the 21, 35 and 40. As for the body, I have both the K-3 and KP. I love the ergonomics of the K-3 (and the burst rate for birding), but honestly the image quality from the KP is a generation ahead. It gives an extra stop or more of usable ISO and the shake reduction is much better. Plus the tilting screen is a boon for tripod use and for shooting from awkward angles. It's only about 100g lighter than the K-3 (with the battery in each), but the difference feels significant. My preferred walking kit is the KP, 15, 20-40 and DA 55-300 PLM - all fits in one bag, can do it all and is high quality all the way. If you don't need telephoto, KP + 15 + 20-40 is 700g + 190g + 283g = 1173g, compared to 800g + 565g = 1365g for the K-3 + 17-50 and the KP kit would be much more of a pleasure to use. Last edited by Des; 06-09-2020 at 01:57 PM.

06-07-2020, 10:18 PM	#5
hcc Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Brisbane, Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,005	+1 for the DA18-135mm. You already got great advice IMHO. I tend to prefer myself the DA18-270mm because of the longer reach, but I bought the DA18-135mm for my wife. She prefer the lightweight zoom lens DA18-135mm. I use also the DA18-135mm when I need WR, and the IQ is good IMHO for a zoom. PS: I am a prime shooter with a strong bias for primes . My 5 cents...

06-08-2020, 01:28 AM	#7
Sandy Hancock Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,275	The 20-40/2.8-4.0 Limited might be a worthwhile option. With the 10-17/3.5-4.5 Fisheye and the 55-300/4.5-6.3 PLM in your pack there's basically nothing you will miss, with very few compromises on image quality. All three are remarkably light and compact for what they offer. Not that the 18-135/3.5-5.6 is a bad lens though - and if you are looking for a single lens solution it's hard to ignore.

06-08-2020, 01:58 AM - 1 Like	#8
acoufap Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Munich, Germany Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,191	On my last hike I wanted to go lightweight with "long reach" - up to 300mm. So besides the KP I took the DA15Ltd., DA18-135 and DA55-300PLM with me. The latter is a great allrounder at any subject distance down to 95cm. It's simply a must-take-with-me. Didn't want to change lenses a lot. So in the end I only used the DA15 and DA55-300PLM. Really didn't miss focal lengths between 16 and 50mm much. If necessary the lightweight DA20-40Ltd surely would fill this gap perfectly. Next time time I'll not take the DA18-135 with me. I guess If I'd own the DA20-40Ltd this would be my third lens on hikes. But a lightweight 28 or 35mm lens could also serve as a standard FoV "filler".

06-08-2020, 04:09 AM	#9
Unregistered User Guest	Originally posted by Alnjpn Hi all, I love my Sigma 17-50 2.8 on my K3, its the perfect combination. However, the weight of this combination is just getting me down. I am a regular hiker and I am looking for a lighter zoom. I occasionally go back to the kit 18-55 but find the results disappointing. I also use the GR but I still prefer the results and flexibility of the DSLR with a zoom What is worth considering? Is the 18-135 worth considering? I know its lighter but I am concerned about the image quality. I am also considering buying a lighter camera like the K70 or KP just to get the weight down. Any thoughts or experiences more than welcome! If you are concerned about the image quality don't! If you use the 18-135 on a K3(-II) it is a very good lens with high IQ. I bought it for use on the Samsung GX-10 and it kept getting better with the evolution of the Ricoh/Pentax flagships. So buy it and use it with your K3. It is very fast with AF. Even on the GX-10 it was quite fast compared to the kitlens combination 18-55/50-200. On hiking you should not take primes, it is a hustle to have to change lenses in the outdoors. And the danger of damaging the camera or lens is a bit larger than when you go with a good zoom. At the moment the 18-135 is very affordable used. If I go hiking I do not tug a bag of primes with me, just the one lens because it is and feels more convenient. Of course you could go for a 20-40, which is nearly the same reach as the Sigma, but on a hike I would prefer a longer reach. The DA 18-270 is on the heavy side and it misses all time manual focus. I strongly recommend the DA 18-135.

06-08-2020, 05:51 AM - 1 Like	#10
rogerstg Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Rhode Island Photos: Albums Posts: 1,168	Originally posted by Alnjpn Is the 18-135 worth considering? I know its lighter but I am concerned about the image quality. It's a nice lens that I and my wife use often, especially when traveling light and are uncertain of the photo opportunities. The IQ is not lacking unless you plan to hike past lens test charts. Like some others here, I usually carry my 55-300PLM, especially when hiking in wildlife areas. Sometimes I also bring along my 21mm limited for a wider shot if needed. IMO, the DA 18-135 would serve you well.

06-08-2020, 08:48 AM - 1 Like	#11
Just1MoreDave Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Aurora, CO Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,340	The 18-135 often has "zoom creep", so it will gradually extend as you hike. It feels heavy to me after a while but it's probably the best combination of range, IQ, weather resistance and size without changing lenses. I'd find a way to carry it and a silicone band to control zoom creep. My previous solution was an 18-55 and 50-200 WR pair. These are both very light and both fit in a cargo shorts pocket. Image quality is good enough. Switching lenses is sometimes annoying or sometimes an excuse to rest. A lot of my hiking is in Colorado so it is rocky steep trails at high altitude with afternoon thunderstorms.

06-08-2020, 09:37 AM - 1 Like	#12
SteveinSLC Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2017 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 568	Depends a little on your priorities for what you want to shoot while hiking. If you're in an area with lots of wildlife, and you want decent pics of that, then 135 will be short, and you'll want a 55-300 option. The PLM is great for hiking. Light, compact, WR, and fast focusing on my KP. If you're more focused on landscapes, any of the various options mentioned. DA 15, 20-40, or the 16-85, which is bigger and heavier than the 18-135, but wider and higher quality. My current setup is the 16-85 and 55-300 PLM. But if you're looking for a single lens option, and want light weight, the 18-135 is pretty hard to beat. I tend to be interested in wildlife, so don't think I would be happy with a small prime or only the 20-40.

06-08-2020, 12:32 PM - 1 Like	#13
mikesbike Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2016 Location: Southeastern Michigan Posts: 4,562	Originally posted by Des My preferred walking kit is the KP, 15, 20-40 and DA 55-300 PLM Ditto for me, except more often for ultimate compactness I only rarely take the 55-300mm but instead take the DA70mm or FA 77mm to extend reach if needed. If I think I will need yet more zoom range, just in case- the DA 18-135mm is always along on any trip! My carrying method is perfect for this approach, a belt-loop/cross-shoulder strap mid-size camera holster case. In this way any zoom creep by the DA 18-135mm is something I have never experienced in my 10 years owning it. The DA 15mm is so tiny it will fit comfortably into the front accessory pocket! It actually lives there, and easy to forget I have it along until I see a need for it.

06-18-2020, 07:46 AM	#14
mgvh Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: MD Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,033	For hiking when I want to enjoy the walk and take along something smaller and lighter and don't plan to drop behind my wife in order to change lenses, I just take the 18-135. Weather sealed, good quality... My 16-85 is definitely a better lens, and I love the extra wide end, but for hiking, it's a bit bigger, and I miss the 135mm end.