[jkglogau]

I am going to Germany and Amsterdam this spring. My family will be doing a combination of city, small town and nature activities. I am looking for some comments on what in my kit I should bring. I need to keep it as light as possible but I want to get quality pics. My kit includes:

K-1
K-20D
DFA 24-70
DFA 28-105
DFA 70-200
DA 300
FA 31 ltd
DFA 100 macro
Irix 15
Sigma 18-135

Thanks in advance for recommendations.

[Serkevan]

I would say K-1 with 28-105 and 31 LTD as core kit. Then, *if needed*, consider the Irix 15 for UWA and the 70-200 or 300 for tele duty. I would personally bring a lighter tele zoom than the f/2.8.

[ebahle]

k1, 15 and 31

[Ivan]

The easiest option is K20+31mm. But I would take K1+31+24-70.

[photoptimist]

Photos of cities and natural landscapes benefit from wider angle lenses (the 15 or 24-70 on the K-1). City buildings are tall and landscapes are wide. Unless you take the time for panoramic tiling, wide angle lenses are essential.

Photos of small towns can be handled by any mid-range zoom but occasionally benefit from wider angle lenses if you can't back up any further.

Telephoto lenses (70-200 and the 300) get less use unless your nature activities include distant wild life. Likewise, macro might get less use unless your nature activities include flowers, mushrooms, insects, and the like.

But the biggest question is: how do you like to travel (and take photographs). If your travel schedule is packed or includes group tours, then there's little time for swapping lenses so the 18-135 or 28-105 might be essential. If you travel at a more leisurely pace, your family doesn't mind pausing for photos, or you get a chance to wander-and-shoot on your own, then a bag full of lenses is the way to go.

The lightest and more versatile kit would be the K20D + 18-135 or the K-1 + 28-105. Then it's a question of adding another lens or two (the 15 for a wider FoV, the 300 for telephoto, the 100 for nature-macros, or the 31 because you might love that lens.

Personally, I've never travelled with two bodies because I'd rather bring an extra lens than an extra body. But in this case, an argument could be made for the K-1 + 24-70 for wide-angle city/landscape and the K20D+18-135 for on go travel photos.

Have fun!

[mtgmansf]

So what do you like to shoot...would be my first question? For me, I would take the 15mm and the 100mm macro for sure - for portraits, flowers, landscapes, and flora, then the 24-70mm. Maybe add either the 70-200mm or 31mm, depending on favorite subjects/regular preferred lenses.
Of course, I could get along with just the 15mm and 28-105mm and one extension tube, but that is what suits my subjects of choice...

[c.a.m]

In my travels abroad, I've been served well by a small camera kit. Typically, I would take one camera and 2-3 lenses; for example a K-3 II, DA* 50-135, 35mm Limited, and DA 15mm Limited, plus various accessories (extra battery, CPL filter, white balance card, cleaning kit) in a small zippered pouch. Those focal lengths allowed for wide-angle shots in tight quarters; a normal lens for general purpose; and a telephoto for longer distances, portraits, or close-up details of buildings. I never felt that I needed anything else, and exploited the lenses I had in any setting. I have also traveled to a city with only the 35mm Limited, and came back with plenty of good images. During one visit to London UK, about 80% of my images were taken with the 35mm.

I never carried a second camera, because I figured my smartphone could serve as an adequate backup in case the main camera failed or was lost.

I think you could do well with the K-1, 28-105, and the Irix 15mm. You could include the FA 31 if you think you might need the wider aperture in low light.

- Craig

---

Last edited by c.a.m; 02-21-2020 at 10:47 AM.

[ramseybuckeye]

The K20D is a fine camera, but it’s not going to give you the performance that the K-1 will. Most specifically, low light shooting. Plus the advancements in auto focus, dynamic range, shake reduction, and more. Go to the camera comparisons and put the two cameras together and you’ll see many improvements.

[johnha]

Cities cry out for wide-angles (as wide as you can go) so definitely the 15, unless you're planning nature photography I can't see the 300 being very useful.

Last time I travelled with the K-1 I took a K17FE, FA20-35, FA50 and M80-200 (didn't use the 50, only used the 17FE once), from that I'd suggest: 15, 31 & 70-200.

If I'm not travelling but want to keep the weight down, I'll take the 20-35 and either M135/3.5 or my Super-Tak 85 or FA50 with a 2x TC (I don't have a fast 100mm-ish).

I'm contemplating either the 24-70 or 28-105 for WR, but I have FA28-80, FA28-105 and a Tamron AF 24-135 but don't like using them (they unbalance the camera too much when carrying). They would be handy as a walk-around zoom but I'm only interested in the wider focal lengths (hence the 20-35 is hardly off the K-1).

Before the K-1 arrived, my two body kit was a K-5 & LX with FA20-35, FA50 and M135/3.5 which gave a nice mix of crop & FF focal lengths.

[WorksAsIntended]

I personally would take the k1 and 31mm only.
If you love doing uwa shots in cities, take the 15mm too.

Another typical kit would be k1 with 28-105.

Your tele lenses are all pretty big, probably too big for this occasion.

[C_Jones]

The K-1, 24-70 and 70-200 would cover most opportunities, unless you want to utilize two bodies mounted on lenses, then you could bring the K-20D. A travel tripod would come in handy most likely, if you want to shoot longer exposures.

[3by2]

It's a fairly personal decision I think. As a comparison I went from the UK to Australia and took a DA21mm, DA35mm and DA100mm, a travel tripod and a Manfrotto pocket tripod permanently attached to the bottom of the camera. There were occasions in cities when wider than 21mm would have been better, so I'd take that option as you have it.

I didn't take a camera bag but packed everything in it's own case and distributed it around as travel plans dictated space and need, so either in the rucksack or the suitcase, mostly rucksack but having it separate allowed me to shove it all into small spaces with other things like clothes and toiletries. I discounted most zooms for this on size and weight grounds.

Mostly I took memories but occasionally I had time for concentrating on photography whereupon the rucksack essentially became a camera backpack with everything in. I didn't use the travel tripod much and it lived in the suitcase but I was still glad I took it for the odd evening and night scene and the little Manfrotto pocket tripod proved useful a few times and took up no space and works well with the smaller primes.

I didn't take a laptop either but backed up memory cards to USB via a useful gadget called a Ravpower filehub, which also enabled me to transfer pictures to my phone and update online albums, whatsapp or social media if you desire too. Might not be something you need but I mention it in passing as it has quite a few useful little functions.

[jkglogau]

Thanks everyone for your advice. My first choice is the 24-70 for wide because of its amazing quality and it is fast enough for shots in churches etc. It is also wide enough for landscapes. The 70-200 would be nice to have for longer shots but it is very heavy. Maybe the 300 instead but it may be too long. I know this is a first world problem but I want to get good quality images. :-)