[NecroticSoldier]

I would not worry too much about theft. Just get decent travel insurance; it will not replace the lost photos (consider some backup system) nor compensate for emotional damage but at least you don't have to worry too much about the financial implications of theft.

Don't get me wrong, I understand your fear, but don't let it get the better of you. You will not have a life and you will definitely not enjoy your holiday.

Have a good and safe trip and show us some photos when you get back.

WimS

;D thank you. I'm not sure about travel insurance... I'm only 16 so I don't know anything about these things. I just live and learn. Thank you I will enjoy it. I'm just now deciding between a 18-250, 55-300, and the Tamron 70-300 (incase I can't afford the others)

[Ira]

;D thank you. I'm not sure about travel insurance... I'm only 16 so I don't know anything about these things. I just live and learn. Thank you I will enjoy it. I'm just now deciding between a 18-250, 55-300, and the Tamron 70-300 (incase I can't afford the others)

Rotten kids won't take any advice!

Cheap, manual, primo quality primes!

[NecroticSoldier]

Rotten kids won't take any advice!

Cheap, manual, primo quality primes!

Haha! I only got 2 primes so far... not sure what else to bring though... if I were going prime o.O

[aleonx3]

My kit for casual or non-photography jaunts is a DA 18-250, FA 35mm and Raynox 150 macro adapter. I use a 16-45, 55-300, 10-17 fisheye and several primes in my regular kit. I will definitely bring my regular kit for anything longer than a weekend trip, but I will also pack the 18-250. The 18-250 has great appeal as a travel lens. IQ is as good as the 18-55 II, but barrel distortion is heavier on the wide end and it's more prone to vignetting. The lens correction feature in the K-x and K-7 correct barrel distortion and CA in Pentax DA lenses but not on the Tamron 18-250.

The 55-300mm has slightly better IQ (sharper at the long end, slightly nicer colour & contrast). The biggest difference is the range, and it's not just the 50mm difference. At subject distances less than infinity, the field of view of an internal focus lens like the 18-250 decreases. My tests showed the 18-250 at full zoom and a subject distance of ten meters (30 feet) has the same fov as the 55-300 at 200mm. This makes a large difference in subject size.

Life's a compromise. You have to decide; the slightly improved performance and range of the 55-300 or the convenience and higher cost of the superzoom.

I used to like the idea of superzoom, but realized that it is too much compromise. I have moved beyond that now, so DA 55-300mm is the only one I keep and at the long end between 250-300mm this lens provides good IQ and clarity. So, I will bring that along just in case I need the extra reach.

You KNOW you're going to want that 12-14!!!

But I am really amazed by how many of these manual lenses fit in this little bag, whereas my Tamron 90 Macro hardly gets in there at all. (My seven lens count DIDN'T include this lens!)

Still have side and front pockets for batteries, cleaning supplies, a few filters, etc.

Yes, it is very hard to decide, I like the 12-24mm but I use the 24mm end most of the time (rarely on the wide end). So, I was thinking that my 24mm Chinon multicoated would good enough. I will take your advice and add the 12-24mm if there is room in my bag.