[RioRico]

I'm deciding between:
- tamron 28-75mm
- sigma 28mm 1.8
- canon s90
- none
...
What I have right now:
- Pentax k-x + kit lens
- vivitar 28mm 2.8
- pentax-A 50 1.7
- vivitar 55mm 2.8
- pentax-fa 100-300mm
- tamron 10-24mm

I haven't taken my K20D kit to Europe yet, but it's gone through Mexican and Central American cities and villages built on the same scale. My original kit, and still the most used, are DA10-17, DA18-250, and FA50/1.4. I disagree with those arguing against a long lens, which I use extensively even in small towns. Of what you have, I'd say take everything except the 55/2.8. If you bought an 18-250, you could also skip the 18-55 and 100-300. If you could then afford to replace the 28/2.8 with the 28/1.8, do so.

Here's what I'd recommend:

Your 10-24 as a general interior lens.
An 18-250 as a general walkaround.
The 50/1.7 and 28/1.8 for LOW light.
A Raynox DCR-250 for REAL closeups.
And it wouldn't hurt to have a flash.

In comparison: I rather wish I had a 10-20 or thereabouts, but my 10-17 fisheye will do. I'll continue to carry the 18-250 and 50/1.4. I'm modding my Nikkor 85/2 for a K-mount. And I hope to get my Vivitar 24/2 fixed. With those, I'm ready for inside/outside shooting. Add my Raynox and the AF-360 flash, and I'm ready for almost anything. And my 5mpx Sony DSC-V1 in my pocket, of course. Yup, I'm almost ready to return to the Amalfi Coast!

[hcc]

I agree with most comments, although I prefer to travel lighter: i.e., with a minimum number of lens(es). I use the DA18-250mm as my basic travel lens. I like to travel with a small bag and the DA-18-250mm mounted on the K-7 fits nicely ion amsall top-loader bag. The DA18-250mm is the supreme all-rounder lens with an excellent IQ for its class and range.

The main shortcoming of the DA18-250mm is the low light conditions. I have a fast prime just for these occasions (Nokton 58mm f1.4).

It is a great pity that the DA18-250mm is discontinued, and I hope that Pentax will introduce soon a WR version of the 18-250mm.

[leadbelly]

I'd probably bring the kit lens and if you must have another lens, consider the new D-FA WR 100/2.8. It can be used as a portrait, short tele and macro lens... of course the best partner for that is the DA* 16-50/2.8 as your general walkaround and for interior shots. Both are fast enough for a lot of situations. (I've the 16-50, and thinking of what I just typed, I just might go and get the DFA WR 100 macro lens... sold my 50-135 since it wasn't getting used much) Two lenses, both f2.8, and will likely cover most of what you'll be shooting.

[GeneV]

I think your argument supports my earlier post that bringing a 18-250mm plus his 10-24mm is a good combo.
Bringing a fast small prime for night shots (leaving it at the hotel room during daytime) can be a good thing also.
I own a Tamron 18-250mm which is ideal for such a trip I think.

The other route the OP suggested, a P&S camera can be good as well.
I like the Lumix FZ-35 super zoom a lot. Very fine optics!

- Bert

Look, I'm not really making an argument, but no, for me, it does not support wearing an 18-250 around my neck, when I won't use the long end of it. The kit lens is of the same or better image quality, and much lighter and smaller. I'd rather stick something longer on the camera only when I need it.

[Lowell Goudge]

Look, I'm not really making an argument, but no, for me, it does not support wearing an 18-250 around my neck, when I won't use the long end of it. The kit lens is of the same or better image quality, and much lighter and smaller. I'd rather stick something longer on the camera only when I need it.

I'm with you on this one Gene. I guess there are a couple of additional points to consider, and this is how to transport them from home base to the new (temporary) base, and what you take out and about with you.

It may be a 2 case/bag scenario.

I am seriously considering getting a hard case, which I can lock, and litterally chain to the bed frame or toilet in a hotel using a PC security cable, plus a much smaller shoulder bag/back pack that would hold either 2-3 lenses or a camera with one lens. mounted plus a second lens.

The idea being that while I too have a big lowepro phototrekker backpack (about 2 feet long) and while this is great for carrying a lot of gear from point to point, I am tired of being a pack mule.

As I posted earlier, I have done trips to europe with 1 bodt and 3 lenses, a 10-20 a 28-75 and a 135. This works just fine as long as you are city bound or landscape limited. I agree for wild life it sucks, but you don't tour eurpoean cities to do wild life photography. My last trip to france 3 years ago had my sigma 70-200F2.8 along for the ride. I think I used it only once in 2000 photos. my 10-20 got used, used again, and used some more for about 60% of all shots. For me, it is a no brainer.

If someone came out with a single lens P&S with a 35mm equivelent of 20mm to 100mm F2.8, in 10-12 mP with image quality and flexibility of a DSLR, I would buy one and only take it for travel. Until then, I go with 2-3 lenses only unless I know there are wild life possibilities.

[bymy141]

Look, I'm not really making an argument, but no, for me, it does not support wearing an 18-250 around my neck, when I won't use the long end of it. The kit lens is of the same or better image quality, and much lighter and smaller. I'd rather stick something longer on the camera only when I need it.

Yes, you are right, the 18-250mm is heavier.
It's 430g, versus 220g for the 18-55mm II.
Together with an K-7 it's 1184 grams versus 974 grams.
That's 210 grams, or 21%, extra weigth for 195mm extra focus length.

- Bert

[GeneV]

I'm with you on this one Gene. I guess there are a couple of additional points to consider, and this is how to transport them from home base to the new (temporary) base, and what you take out and about with you.

It may be a 2 case/bag scenario.

I am seriously considering getting a hard case, which I can lock, and litterally chain to the bed frame or toilet in a hotel using a PC security cable, plus a much smaller shoulder bag/back pack that would hold either 2-3 lenses or a camera with one lens. mounted plus a second lens.

The idea being that while I too have a big lowepro phototrekker backpack (about 2 feet long) and while this is great for carrying a lot of gear from point to point, I am tired of being a pack mule.

As I posted earlier, I have done trips to europe with 1 bodt and 3 lenses, a 10-20 a 28-75 and a 135. This works just fine as long as you are city bound or landscape limited. I agree for wild life it sucks, but you don't tour eurpoean cities to do wild life photography. My last trip to france 3 years ago had my sigma 70-200F2.8 along for the ride. I think I used it only once in 2000 photos. my 10-20 got used, used again, and used some more for about 60% of all shots. For me, it is a no brainer.

If someone came out with a single lens P&S with a 35mm equivelent of 20mm to 100mm F2.8, in 10-12 mP with image quality and flexibility of a DSLR, I would buy one and only take it for travel. Until then, I go with 2-3 lenses only unless I know there are wild life possibilities.

Lowell, your choices make sense to me. I don't even mind having more lenses, but I just don't think the weight around my neck is well spent on the 18-250. I haven't quite decided on my combo yet, but if I were putting something of the size and weight of the 18-250 around my neck, it would probably be my DA17-70. I'd rather have the IQ than the extra reach. A longer zoom or prime in the the bag is handy enough for me given how seldom I need it.

I'm also looking at a multiple case/bag scenario. I bought some of the PacSafe products which have locks and steel mesh reinforcements. One could be left at the room locked to a pipe or something (that's their design).

[Lowell Goudge]

Lowell, your choices make sense to me. I don't even mind having more lenses, but I just don't think the weight around my neck is well spent on the 18-250. I haven't quite decided on my combo yet, but if I were putting something of the size and weight of the 18-250 around my neck, it would probably be my DA17-70. I'd rather have the IQ than the extra reach. A longer zoom or prime in the the bag is handy enough for me given how seldom I need it.

I'm also looking at a multiple case/bag scenario. I bought some of the PacSafe products which have locks and steel mesh reinforcements. One could be left at the room locked to a pipe or something (that's their design).

Exactly

for me within reach means locked in the hotel. the things I would want a long lens for in a city, I will see while doing a tour, recognize I want a different angle (lens) and plan to go back and take with that lens. Unless you are really rushing through things, you usually have time to go back for a different perspective. Otherwise what is the poiint, you are on a trip to relax not rush around at the same pace you work at the rest of the year./

aside from the difference in IQ the 17-70 is MUCH faster. I would rather have speed at a useable focal length, than give up speed for an impractical or seldom used focal length

[RioRico]

Look, I'm not really making an argument, but no, for me, it does not support wearing an 18-250 around my neck, when I won't use the long end of it.

So it's a matter of personal style. Some use long lenses in small spaces, some don't. I always find some detail or face or juxtaposition somewhere that's way out of reach of a kit-size lens. I've shot HF and FF 135 in German towns and villages from Saar to Hof, and I was REAL glad I had a 400mm tube. I've shot APS digital in Euro-scale towns from Bisbee to Taxco and beyond, and I was REAL glad I had that 18-250. I sure wish I'd had the right cam and a superzoom when I was around Naples, and Copan, and Sherbrooke.

The weight of K20D + 18-250 doesn't bother me; if it did, I'd get a wider strap. The other lenses fit well in my Ameribag along with (too much) other stuff; no bother. I carry what I think I need. I think I need the 18-250. If someone else thinks they don't, fine. We all have our personal styles.

[GeneV]

Yes, you are right, the 18-250mm is heavier.
It's 430g, versus 220g for the 18-55mm II.
Together with an K-7 it's 1184 grams versus 974 grams.
That's 210 grams, or 21%, extra weigth for 195mm extra focus length.

- Bert

My primary travel body is a K-x. It weighs 515 grams. Its kit lens (DAL18-55) weighs 200 grams. There is a huge difference between the way it carries with 200 grams hanging off the front and with 450 grams with 2cm more length. It is one of the reasons why my DA 17-70 generally stays on the K20d, and the DA pancakes live on the K-x.

I prefer to travel abroad with a minimum of devices that need chargers. I took out the power for my floor in a hotel in Tuebingen, Germany a few years ago with a charger for my GPS which was supposed to work with 220v/50hz. The GPS died as well.

[Lowell Goudge]

I prefer to travel abroad with a minimum of devices that need chargers. I took out the power for my floor in a hotel in Tuebingen, Germany a few years ago with a charger for my GPS which was supposed to work with 220v/50hz. The GPS died as well.

You must have been popular, in the dark with no idea where you were

[GeneV]

You must have been popular, in the dark with no idea where you were

Luckily, the floor pretty much consisted of our rooms, so I only had to deal with management. The bad part is it was a narrow hall and 5 flights of stairs up.

[rparmar]

What I have right now:
- Pentax k-x + kit lens
- vivitar 28mm 2.8
- pentax-A 50 1.7
- vivitar 55mm 2.8
- pentax-fa 100-300mm
- tamron 10-24mm

You don't need any more lenses -- you need less. I would take only two or three with me, and only take one or two out on a given trip from the hotel, one on the camera and another in a pocket or small bag. Otherwise you (and/or your companions) will not enjoy yourself as much as you should.

You could do pretty well anything with the A 50/1.7 and Tamron 10-24mm. I see no need for longer focal lengths.

[RioRico]

You could do pretty well anything with the A 50/1.7 and Tamron 10-24mm. I see no need for longer focal lengths.

I'm sorry, but stuff DOES happen outside those ranges. Very interesting stuff. Stuff happens in the distance; or details are just beyond our reach. Stuff happens around us in less-than-adequate light. Some stuff happens very very close up. Being limited to a wide-angle zoom range in good light, and headshots in low light, excludes very much else. I prefer not to be so limited in what I see and can capture.

Even in film days, the range of common lenses was wider, with 28 or 35, and 50, and 135. Translated to our dSLRs, they'd be 19 or 24/2.8, 35/2 or faster, and 90/2.8. Someone traveling on their first and what may be their only trip to a different world will regret losing many good shots because they hadn't the right lenses.

[rparmar]

I'm sorry, but stuff DOES happen outside those ranges. Very interesting stuff. Stuff happens in the distance; or details are just beyond our reach. Stuff happens around us in less-than-adequate light. Some stuff happens very very close up.

And the only way to get all of that in adequate quality is to carry six lenses. That just doesn't work. I have taken enough trips to Europe and each time I reduce my kit by one or two items.

Someone traveling on their first and what may be their only trip to a different world will regret losing many good shots because they hadn't the right lenses.

I think this is the first time I have disagreed with a post you have made. But I must say that this is a terrible attitude. If the only reason you are travelling and seeing other parts of the world is to get perfect pictures, then there is something wrong about your priorities, in my humble opinion. (Unless that is your one reason for the trip -- but I don't think we are talking about a professional travel shooter here.)

First one must enjoy. Next one must share. These priorities help make the trip a truly memorable experience. Fixating on cameras gets in the way of both of these activities.

Thirdly one might wish to capture something to return with.

If one worried about every missed shot one would enjoy nothing at all.