[Parry]

As I thought.....
My 18-135 and DA 55-300 comprise my lightweight travel kit for my K-3
When needed
100 macro
DA 55 1.4

My guess is that's less than the weight you'll be carrying for more functionality. For the K-1 substitute the 28-105 for the 18-135 and add the Sigma 24 macro.

DA* 55 1.4 375 gms.
DA 18-15. 405gm
DA 55-300 PLM 445 gm
DA 100 macro 2.8. 340

1675 grams.

I'm sure you have your reasons, but weight doesn't make sense. Selling the heavy lenses you can't lift make sense though. I just had shoulder surgery 3 months ago, a surgery I was told by an older surgeon (like mid forties) couldn't be done. The kid who performed it did it using arthroscopy. So far a great result. I'm not lifting my 3 kilo 300 2.8 yet but I'm getting there. I'm 72 years old and I'm not selling any heavy lenses yet.

Falling off motorbikes years ago. UK NHS don't want to know.

It's about travel weight, hand baggage. I'm sick of hauling stuff. Since the advent of mirrorless and adaptors, there's no reason for brand (mount) loyalty anymore. You can mix it up to suit your needs, native lenses with adapted (MF and soon AF) third party. Another example might be the epic Samyang XP 2.4/14 in Nikon or Canon to E-mount via adaptor. I won't bother with that though.

Regards cameras, the only loyalty I have is to my bank account and my shoulder. Slightly slower (f/1.8 and above), lighter on full frame mirrorless suits me.

Different strokes for different folks.

---------- Post added 01-03-21 at 00:50 ----------

The A7R IV weights 665g.
The Sony 20mm f1.8 weights 373g
The Sony Zeiss 55mm f1.8 weights 281g
The Tamron 70-180mm weights 810g

Total weight of the above (body included) = 2129g vs 2600g of the Pentax gear you chose (with K1 weight included). With either of the 2 primes on A7R IV the weight is similar to K1 weight (just the body).

The main difference (bodies aside) is in the tele lens. While you have extra 120mm in terms of reach, he chose a lens (Tamron 70-180mm) that has a constant f2.8 aperture, while you will be at f5.6 at 200mm and at f6.3 at 300mm with Pentax 55-300mm PLM. With a 2x adapter he can be at 360mm and f5.6 in case he need extra reach. As always, it all comes down to what each shoots with the gear available. Some may not need f2.8 and in this case a 55-300mm can cover the tele lens.

Tamron has a very interesting f2.8 trinity lenses that are sharp, light and quite affordable. I do hope to see them in Canon and Nikon mirrorless mount, but I think it may take a while...

Good assessment, Dan. The Tamron can't take a teleconverter is the only thing. I never use anything much past 180 anyway. The DFA focus breathing means you don't get to 200mm anyway, or so I'm told.

---

Last edited by Parry; 02-28-2021 at 10:56 AM.

[Dan Rentea]

Good assessment, Dan. The Tamron can't take a teleconverter is the only thing. I never use anything much past 180 anyway. The DFA focus breathing means you don't get to 200mm anyway, or so I'm told.

Hm, I didn't knew that. Good to know and I will add this info on the list I have with lenses that I'm following. Then, you will have to shoot in crop mode with A7R IV to get some extra reach while keeping around 26mp files.

[Parry]

Hm, I didn't knew that. Good to know and I will add this info on the list I have with lenses that I'm following. Then, you will have to shoot in crop mode with A7R IV to get some extra reach while keeping around 26mp files.

Yeah! Found out about the 26mp crop mode, means the A6000, if I can get the sensor properly cleaned up, can go for sale too! Win-win.

That or it goes the kids who'll destroy in a few days anyway.🤣

[normhead]

The A7R IV weights 665g.
The Sony 20mm f1.8 weights 373g
The Sony Zeiss 55mm f1.8 weights 281g
The Tamron 70-180mm weights 810g

Total weight of the above (body included) = 2129g vs 2600g of the Pentax gear you chose (with K1 weight included). With either of the 2 primes on A7R IV the weight is similar to K1 weight (just the body).

The main difference (bodies aside) is in the tele lens. While you have extra 120mm in terms of reach, he chose a lens (Tamron 70-180mm) that has a constant f2.8 aperture, while you will be at f5.6 at 200mm and at f6.3 at 300mm with Pentax 55-300mm PLM. With a 2x adapter he can be at 360mm and f5.6 in case he need extra reach. As always, it all comes down to what each shoots with the gear available. Some may not need f2.8 and in this case a 55-300mm can cover the tele lens.

Tamron has a very interesting f2.8 trinity lenses that are sharp, light and quite affordable. I do hope to see them in Canon and Nikon mirrorless mount, but I think it may take a while...

You left out a macro lens which I consider essential, you included no 1.4 lenses, and you didn't include the weight of the 2X TC. As well you have to only two lenses less than 70mm.

OK, here's my kit I used after my shoulder surgery.
K-3 800gms
DA 21 ltd.-134 gms
40 XS 45 grams.
DA 55-300 PLM 445 gm

1424 gms.
One body 3 lenses, two primes and 100-300 covered. See if you can beat 1324 gms? Because that's a very functional kit with a K-P at 700gms (with battery.) Trade the 21 and 40 for the DA 20-40 li. and you have an excellent, light 2 lens package.

Seriously, cutting weight and sticking with FF doesn't make any sense with a bad shoulder.

I find it pointlessly offensive that you just make up kit you haven't used for the sake of argument. I post my kit. You post cherry picked nonsense just to make a point.

---

Last edited by normhead; 02-28-2021 at 11:38 AM.

[Parry]

You left out a macro lens which I consider essential, you included no 1.4 lenses, and you din't include the weight of the 2X TC. As well you have to only two lenses less than 70mm.

OK, here's my kit I used after my shoulder surgery.
K-3 800gms
DA 21 ltd.-134 gms
40 XS 45 grams.
DA 55-300 PLM 445 gm

1424 gms.
One body 3 lenses, two primes and 100-300 covered. See if you can beat 1324 gms? Because that's a very functional kit with a K-P at 700gms (with battery.) Trade the 21 and 40 for the DA 20-40 li. and you have an excellent, light 2 kit package.

Seriously, cutting weight and sticking with FF doesn't make any sense with a bad shoulder.

It's light enough and it makes sense for me. I can't handle a 3.2 kilo camera and lens combo. Something half the weight is manageable and brings joy rather than pain. I was done with crop years ago. Mostly because the FA Limited's render so well on 35mm.
Not a professional photographer, although I do sometimes use photos for work, it's really just a hobby. Collected too much over the years and it's in the way now. Becoming a burden. Time for a reconciliation and consolidation!

[repaap]

Falling off motorbikes years ago. UK NHS don't want to know.

It's about travel weight, hand baggage. I'm sick of hauling stuff. Since the advent of mirrorless and adaptors, there's no reason for brand (mount) loyalty anymore. You can mix it up to suit your needs, native lenses with adapted (MF and soon AF) third party. Another example might be the epic Samyang XP 2.4/14 in Nikon or Canon to E-mount via adaptor. I won't bother with that though.

Regards cameras, the only loyalty I have is to my bank account and my shoulder. Slightly slower (f/1.8 and above), lighter on full frame mirrorless suits me.

Different strokes for different folks.

---------- Post added 01-03-21 at 00:50 ----------



Good assessment, Dan. The Tamron can't take a teleconverter is the only thing. I never use anything much past 180 anyway. The DFA focus breathing means you don't get to 200mm anyway, or so I'm told.

You should have one DFA 70-200...? focus breathing affect only when you are focusing close up. If you are focusing something more further up than MFD you'll get whole zoom range from 70-200mm... But anyway, that does not matter to you anymore.

[Parry]

You should have one DFA 70-200...? focus breathing affect only when you are focusing close up. If you are focusing something more further up than MFD you'll get whole zoom range from 70-200mm... But anyway, that does not matter to you anymore.

Thanks for the explanation. It's never actually made any difference in any case and seems focus breathing is only really an issue to videographers. It's a beautifully made lens with phenomenal optics. But heavy.

[repaap]

Thanks for the explanation. It's never actually made any difference in any case and seems focus breathing is only really an issue to videographers. It's a beautifully made lens with phenomenal optics. But heavy.

It is heavy, I love mine. I can undesrtand if it is too heavy for someone like you with the injury thou. I won't let go of my copy of that lens. For videographers it does become problem only in few circumstances, but if don't zoom while shooting, it should be alright. Focus does not change much when zooming and I'v used my 70-200 with BMPCC 4K. Big lens for that too, but on proper tripod it don't matter much. nice reach on m4/3 sensor too and fast.

[Dan Rentea]

You left out a macro lens which I consider essential, you included no 1.4 lenses, and you didn't include the weight of the 2X TC. As well you have to only two lenses less than 70mm.

OK, here's my kit I used after my shoulder surgery.
K-3 800gms
DA 21 ltd.-134 gms
40 XS 45 grams.
DA 55-300 PLM 445 gm

1424 gms.
One body 3 lenses, two primes and 100-300 covered. See if you can beat 1324 gms? Because that's a very functional kit with a K-P at 700gms (with battery.) Trade the 21 and 40 for the DA 20-40 li. and you have an excellent, light 2 lens package.

Seriously, cutting weight and sticking with FF doesn't make any sense with a bad shoulder.

I find it pointlessly offensive that you just make up kit you haven't used for the sake of argument. I post my kit. You post cherry picked nonsense just to make a point.

It wasn't meant as an offensive comment. I was speaking about differences between the 2 tele lenses, one of them being f2.8 while the other being f4.5-f6.3 (reach vs. aperture). We discussed in other topics about the actual use of gear and I told you more than once that when comes to performance, I talk only about the lenses or cameras I used. This was not such a case and that's why I spoke about the difference in terms of aperture between the Pentax and Tamron lens, as you mentioned above for example KP or 20-40mm which as far as you said in other topics you haven't use. I also learned something which I didn't knew about the Tamron, that it doesn't have a TC available. I don't use TCs on lenses with little reach (70-180mm, 70-200mm) and this is the reason I didn't knew about the use of TC, if this is your concern.

If I would have to choose a light APS-C combo right now, between all the camera brands available I would pick the following:

1. Sony A6600 at 503g (with battery and memory card inserted)
2. Tamron 17-70mm f2.8 at 525g
3. Tamron 70-180mm f2.8 at 810g

Total package weight = 1838g. This kit would be 414g heavier than your kit, but I would have constant f2.8 from 17mm to 180mm. Replacing the 70-180mm lens with a 70-300mm f4.5-f6.3 lens and the kit would be similar in weight with yours, but with a big advantage from 17 to 70mm due to constant f2.8 aperture. The main reason for this choice of mine would be the two f2.8 Tamron lenses.

If you go out and shoot with K3 and 21mm f3.2 lens (good lens, I had it), you'll have a total weight of 934g and you will be limited by the focal length. Going out with Sony and 17-70mm f2.8 you'll have a total weight of 1028g, but way more flexibility for extra weight of 94g. Now, if you keep the same focal length for Sony, you can replace the 17-70mm f2.8 with Sony 20mm f1.8 at 373g and the difference between K3 with DA 21mm lens and A6600 with 20mm f1.8 will be exactly 58g in favor of Sony with the benefit of having f1.8 instead of f3.2.

Then, K3 with 40mm f2.8 will have 851g, while A6600 with Zeiss 40mm f2 will have 864g. Again, 13g advantage of Pentax with a little more advantage in terms of aperture for Sony (f2 vs. f2.8).

If you go out and shoot with K3 and 55-300mm, your total weight will be 1245g. Going out with Sony and Tamron 70-180mm f2.8 your total weight will be 1313g. You loose 120mm but you gain 2 stops in terms of aperture for extra weight of 68g. Replacing the 70-180mm f2.8 with Tamron 70-300mm f4.5-6.3 and the total weight will be 1048g, which is 197g lighter than your kit. Both 70-180mm and 70-300mm are full frame lenses, while 55-300mm PLM is an APS-C lens.

As I said, it all depends on what you plan shooting. Me, I would trade the extra 120mm reach on the tele lens for constant f2.8 from 17mm to 180mm. But that being said, I can't find any reason to go back to APS-C. The best lenses available are the full frame ones anyway (new Pentax lenses like 50mm f1.4, 85mm f1.4, etc.) so for me a full frame makes much more sense... In this regard, a Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 at 550g with a Tamron 70-180mm at 810g would make a nice and light 28-180mm f2.8 kit with A7R IV at less than 2kg.

With:
1. Tamron 17-28mm f2.8 at 420g
2. Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 at 550g
3. Tamron 70-180mm f2.8 at 810g

you have a 17-180mm f2.8 full frame combo or a 25-270mm f2.8 APS-C combo from 3 lenses at the weight of Pentax 70-200mm f2.8 alone (1780g for 3 f2.8 lenses vs. 1755g for Pentax lens).

As for price and weight comparation:
1. K-1 II with Pentax 15-30mm f2.8, Pentax 24-70mm f2.8 and Pentax 70-200mm f2.8 cost at B&H today 6020$ and the total weight of this combo is 4507g.
2. A7R III (released 3-4 months before K-1 II) with Tamron 17-28mm f2.8, Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 and Tamron 70-180mm f2.8 cost at B&H today 5275$ and the total weight of this combo is 2437g.

There is a 745$ price advantage for Sony combo with a 2070g weight advantage for Sony also. Even if you replace A7R III with A7R IV and you will still have a 45$ cheaper combo than Pentax with a full frame 61mp sensor or with a 26mp APS-C option included. I don't know about you, but I call this portability for the ones looking at both full frame and APS-C while having fast f2.8 aperture lenses in the bag. That's why I hope to see Tamron lenses in RF and Z mount, because they bring portability at quite good performance and price.

[Parry]

It wasn't meant as an offensive comment. I was speaking about differences between the 2 tele lenses, on of them being f2.8 while the other being f4.5-f6.3 or reach vs. aperture. We discussed in other topics about the actual use of gear and I told you more than once that when comes to performance, I talk only about the lenses or cameras I used. This was not such a case and that's why I spoke about the difference in terms of aperture between the Pentax and Tamron lens. I also learned something which I didn't knew about the Tamron, that it doesn't have a TC available. I don't use TCs on lenses with little reach (70-180mm, 70-200mm) and this is the reason I didn't knew about the use of TC, if this is your concern.

If I would have to choose a light APS-C combo right now, between all the camera brands available I would pick the following:

1. Sony A6600 at 503g (with battery and memory card inserted)
2. Tamron 17-70mm f2.8 at 525g
3. Tamron 70-180mm f2.8 at 810g

Total package weight = 1838g. This kit would be 414g heavier than your kit, but I would have constant f2.8 from 17mm to 180mm. Replacing the 70-180mm lens with a 70-300mm f4.5-f6.3 lens and the kit would be similar in weight with yours. The main reason for this choice of mine would be the 2 f2.8 Tamron lenses.

As I said, it all depends on what you plan shooting. Me, I would trade the extra reach on the tele lens for constant f2.8 from 17mm to 180mm. But that being said, I can't find any reason (as it seems neither OP) to go back to APS-C. The best lenses are the full frame ones (new Pentax lenses like 50mm f1.4, 85mm f1.4, etc.) so for me a full frame makes much more sense... In this regard, a Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 at 550g with a Tamron 70-180mm at 810g would make a nice and light 28-180mm f2.8 kit with A7R IV at less than 2kg.

With Tamron 17-28mm f2.8 at 420g, Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 at 550g and Tamron 70-180mm f2.8 at 810g you have a 17-180mm f2.8 full frame combo from 3 lenses at the weight of Pentax 70-200mm f2.8. That's why I hope to see Tamron lenses in RF and Z mount.

I haven't used the Tamron or the Sony 1.8/20, but as with anything, lenses get shortlisted based on reviews, user testimonials, videos etc. I did own the Sony Zeiss 55, it's bizarrely good.

If it came down to the minimum, which it might, keep the Samyang 2.8/14 (resale value is next to nothing anyway), the Three Amigos on Monster Adaptor and add that Tamron. It would be enough. The 20 and the 55 are only on there because they're optically exceptional, light weight and desirable focal lengths. Optional. Probably will. Depends on money.

My Carl Zeiss Distagon 2/35 and Planar 1.4/85 are going as part of a 56 item sell off. These are phenomenal, but rarely used. This has to be a zero cost exercise, preferably leaving ££££ left over. It's trading down whilst at the same time trading up if you know what I mean. Good to be on the positive side of cost right now.

Hope this gave the OP a few ideas on how to decide essential kit based on overall kit weight to stop very costly mission creep. If you can't carry it all don't buy it, keep it to exactly what you'll regularly use (unless you're into fast 400's or other really big, heavy and expensive for specific purposes).

My strategy.

[Dan Rentea]

I haven't used the Tamron or the Sony 1.8/20, but as with anything, lenses get shortlisted based on reviews, user testimonials, videos etc. I did own the Sony Zeiss 55, it's bizarrely good.

If it came down to the minimum, which it might, keep the Samyang 2.8/14 (resale value is next to nothing anyway), the Three Amigos on Monster Adaptor and add that Tamron. It would be enough. The 20 and the 55 are only on there because they're optically exceptional, light weight and desirable focal lengths. Optional. Probably will. Depends on money.

My Carl Zeiss Distagon 2/35 and Planar 1.4/85 are going as part of a 56 item sell off. These are phenomenal, but rarely used. This has to be a zero cost exercise, preferably leaving ££££ left over. It's trading down whilst at the same time trading up if you know what I mean. Good to be on positive side of cost right now.

Hope this gave the OP a few ideas on how to decide essential kit based on overall kit weight to stop very costly mission creep. If you can't carry it all don't buy it, keep it to exactly what you'll regularly use (unless you're into fast 400's or other really big, heavy and expensive for specific purposes).

My strategy.

I kept only the lenses I use and sold the ones that I wasn't using much. I use EOS R as my main camera with 3 lenses when I have paid shootings: Canon 16-35mm f4L for group shots, Canon 35mm f1.4L and Canon 85mm f1.4L. For travel I have also 35mm f1.8 (I replaced the f2 EF version with the f1.8 RF version) and 85mm f1.8.

I found out that I don't need the focal lenghts between 85mm and 200mm so I got rid of the lenses in this focal range. The only one I miss from time to time is the 135mm f2L lens. For wildlife I rent lenses. The Tamron 70-180mm f2.8 it's interesting due to weight and price. It's a lens that I could buy for these 2 reasons.

I don't like going to shoot with a bag full of lenses so I understand the need for light gear. As you can see above what lenses I use, I understand the choice of primes also. The f1.8 ones may not be the best on a demanding sensor as the 61mp one is on the A7R IV, but I don't think that anyone will buy them to make big prints.

[Parry]

I kept only the lenses I use and sold the ones that I wasn't using much. I use EOS R as my main camera with 3 lenses when I have paid shootings: Canon 16-35mm f4L for group shots, Canon 35mm f1.4L and Canon 85mm f1.4L. For travel I have also 35mm f1.8 (I replaced the f2 EF version with the f1.8 RF version) and 85mm f1.8.

I found out that I don't need the focal lenghts between 85mm and 200mm so I got rid of the lenses in this focal range. The only one I miss from time to time is the 135mm f2L lens. For wildlife I rent lenses. The Tamron 70-180mm f2.8 it's interesting due to weight and price. It's a lens that I could buy for these 2 reasons.

I don't like going to shoot with a bag full of lenses so I understand the need for light gear. As you can see above what lenses I use, I understand the choice of primes also. The f1.8 ones may not be the best on a demanding sensor as the 61mp one is on the A7R IV, but I don't think that anyone will buy them to make big prints.

Solid advice. Less really is more, Dan. Yes, rent special when need special.

The slower (1.8's) on the A7RIV seem to top the charts...

Which Lenses to maximise the potential of the Sony A7RIV? for Sony E mount test/review on Sony Alpha Blog

A few surprises in that list. Samyang AF range doing extremely well for the prices.

The Three Amigos I just can't part with. It's that almost intangible rendering, especially the 43. So many fond memories.

[surfar]

So many fond memories.

The Three Amigos I just can't part with

No Monster news and its March(here).So they are a bit behind.

[Parry]

No Monster news and its March(here).So they are a bit behind.

No rush. Going to take a while to shift existing gear. Discipline. I'm only spending what comes in, as it comes in and it's not as though most of us are going anywhere, any time soon.

Presently trapped in the dystopian hell that is the UK, 6,500 miles from home. Learnt 3D photo realism during this time in prison. Can't keep photographing the same pot plant and window box.🤣

What a nightmare.

[UncleVanya]

The DFA focus breathing means you don't get to 200mm anyway, or so I'm told.

Does anyone have real numbers to show the extent of the focus breathing. I have seen very short (near MFD) shots that show some but i have seen practical portrait use and I don't think it matters much at those distances. I know on the 60-250 which is a focus breathing monster - it is at the worst at about 10' and under and virtually disappears by 10m (30+ feel). This means it has little practical impact for most of us. Tony Northrup used this as a reason not to switch to Nikon years ago as the Nikon DSLR F mount equivalent had similar behavior but the Canon EF mount L glass didn't. The newer mirrorless lenses are reversed - with the Nikon Z doesn't have much if any focus breathing and the Canon now has quite a bit but with a very small compact design. (bear in mind that I may have details slightly off, but the general trend should be accurate).