[Jimdandy]

Hi all,
I was hoping someone could give me there best guess as to whether the pentax 55-300 would be the best compliment to the lenses listed in my signature.
I know it's a personal thing, but, I'm planning a trip to Walt Disney World, just the wife and I, and am most interested in photographing the animals at the AK park. Will the 55-300 plus a monopod be good enough?

I would love to have the Sigma 70-200 plus TC but afraid it might be to cumbersome. Maybe the extra speed of the 2.8 sigma would be worth it for more handheld on the fly shots?

We are planning on taking our time so I don't mind changing lenses where appropiate. Also I feel the need for an AF lens so would leave the Promaster behind. I also have a Bogen 3001 tripod and am considering taking it too, unfortunatly it doesn't have a ball head, so it's a little slow to work with.
Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you

Jim

[rockmaster1964]

I took a 28-200mm lens last year to Disney and never wished I had more reach. The 50-200 might be a better choice since it is smaller and lighter. I would not take a tripod unless you want to haul it around all day. If you plan on riding any rides it will be in the way. I would take your Sigma 18-50mm with you also.

[Marc Sabatella]

300mm would be unnecessary in the Magic Kingdom and most other Disney parks, but probably not at Animal Kingdom. As for whether it's "sufficient", well, I'm sure there will always be times when one could use more reach, but I'd imagine it would come in handy. On the other hand, for my money, 300mm isn't *so* much longer than 200mm that I'd be in a hurry to pick up the 55-300 if you are otherwise happy with your 50-200.

[Jimdandy]

Thanks for the advice guys, I wasn't planning to carry a tripod all day, but instead thought I'd use it for evenings or resort photo ops.
I really thought the extra reach of a 300mm at the Animal Kingdom park would be a good idea.
We are planning 10 days so we're in no big hurry.
I only have 98$ invested in the 50-200, so not a big loss to leave it behind if I bought the 55-300. From reading posts and reviews I thought the 55-300 was reguarded as really good for the money. I may need to recheck the carry lenght and weight, as I assumed it was rather compact also.
I was planning to carry three lenses, long zoom (55-300), 10-20 and the 18-50, in a waist or sling pack if I can find one, but will ask in the proper forum.
Maybe I could do without the monopod? I wasn't sure about hand holding a lens at 300mm, so thats why I asked about the 55-300 with a monopod being good enough.
Surley the rides could accomodate me and this amount of gear. Of course I'll keep things dry!
Thanks so much!

[Marc Sabatella]

The 55-300 seemed pretty noticeably larger and heavier to me when I comapred them in a shop (I have the 50-200), but I tend to be super picky about that. By the numbers: 440g versus 260g, 111mm versus 78mm. It's still "relatively" compact, though, compared to many other telephoto zooms.

As for monopod, I'm kind of ambivalent. SR helps a lot, and so does finding something to lean against to brace yourself with. So it's not like you *need* a monopod. But if you don't mind carrying it, I'm sure it would help some, and would probably more be more valuable with the 55-300 (because it's longer and heavier) than the 50-200.