[K206]

Having responded to several other threads regarding the best primes for travel, I have started to think about my own setup again. I travel extremely light, with a small camera bag.

I have read many threads already (in addition to Hin's excellent article: Hin's Tech Corner: Pentax 1 Lens Choices), so I apologize if any of this is duplicative. However, I would enjoy hearing from others about their experience with specific setups. Please only include suggestions regarding small and light prime combos including the 15, 21, 35, 40, 50 and 70.

I have the DA 15, DA 35, and DA 40. Right now, for lack of a better option, I sometimes bring my M 135.

I am considering getting the DA 70 (and selling the DA 40), giving me a 15/35/70 combo. Does anyone have experience with this setup?

A 3 lens setup may be ideal, but I was wondering if people had good experiences with even less lenses.

For instance:

15/35 (I am contemplating doing this and just using my wife's P&S for telephoto).

15/40 (I could do this, but haven't tried it for travel yet).

21/70 (this seems popular on the forums but I would love to hear more about it).

21 only (this was mentioned recently by StephenMerola).

Thanks in advance for any replies.

[K McCall]

I LOVE prime lenses myself and took the best photo-trip of my life with just the DA 21, the FA 43, and the DA 70. I didn't feel like anything was lacking back then, but since that trip I've acquired quite a few more lenses. And so of course the line-up has changed.

I realize that most people probably shoot in the 20-70mm range, but almost all my favorite photos come from the far ends of the spectrum. In this regard the 12-24 has been a godsend. I suppose the 15mm would fit that bill so no matter what I would not leave this lens out. The difference between 21mm and 15mm is HUGE.

For me, if I had to choose only one more lens, I would choose the D-FA 100mm macro. That long lens allows you to get shots you otherwise couldn't get (places you can't get close to, street shots, etc. etc.). At the same time, you don't have to get THAT close to get a tight, well-composed shot. The non-WR lens is quite light, and I have no idea where my lens hood is and it hasn't seemed to make any effect whatsoever on my shots. In lieu of this , the DA 70 at least is close in focal length although you don't get the added benefit of that close-focusing or macro capability.

And then for a third lens, the 40mm mark really does seem to be about quite right. If you did choose the DA 15 and the DA 70, then you might want to substitute the DA 35 so at least you get the macro.

My vote:
Option #1: DA 15, D-FA 100, DA 40
Option #2: DA 15, DA 70, DA 35 Macro

Have a great trip, and don't get hung up on getting too many perfect shots!

[twitch]

My vote is either
15/35/70 if you will take quite a few landscapes ... or...
21/40/70 if it will be mainly people pics holiday

but really I think the 15/21/35or40/70 is better.

I have 4 limiteds and can't really imagine leaving any of them at home. What I tend to do is take them all away with me, then go out each day with one on the camera and another in a pocket. So one day it's the 15 & 40, another day the 21 & 70. Usually that's how I pair them up. If it's a camera bag kind of outing I'll take the appropriate zoom and use 2 of the limiteds to cover what the zoom doesn't (my favourite zooms are the 12-24 with the 40 and 70 or the 50-135 with the 15 and 21).

[SpecialK]

I recently got the 15/21/40/70 group of primes, which makes a nice little package. I might not bring the longer zooms (unless I planned on going to an airshow) but I don't think I could travel without the 12-24 and 10-17.

[Frank B]

A couple of thoughts, based on having traveled with the 15, 21, 35, 40 and 70 (though not always with all of them at the same time):

- Keep the 40, unless you really need the money. It is so small and light, and makes the camera seem so unobtrusive, that I can't see traveling without it.

- I've found that almost whatever I can fit the 4-lens set of 15, 21, 35 & 70 in I can also easily add the 40 if I really want to. One of my favorite small travel bags is a Domke F-5XB, it can hold all of those lenses and a K-7.

- I don't seem to do as much real macro when I'm traveling, so I'll often not take the 35, although if I'm only going out with one lens, it is the perfect single-lens choice to me.

- I generally have a Manfrotto table-top tripod with me, and all of those little lenses are so light that they work great on it.

This probably just made things worse, didn't it?

[TOUGEFC]

My vote for you is to go with the - 15/35/70 or 15/40/70 setup.

That kit would be very much like my combo (15/43/77) i find it to be a killer kit, very light and compact, and you can shoot just about everything with it.

[K206]

Sounds like lots of votes for the 15/35/70 or 15/40/70 combos. Hard to disagree with that kind of combo.

Although the DA 40 is one of my all time favorite lenses, I think I am leaning towards the 15/35/70 combo. This is mostly due to the FOV of the 35 over the 40 (the 40 seems a little long sometimes).

Frank B - you have a great point about keeping the 40 though. It is tough, as I am trying to upgrade from the K20d to the K-7 and the extra money would help to justify the jump. I am almost certainly selling my DA 17-70 though (and getting the kit lens with the K-7 for easy snapshots/parties/etc). BUT, I also need to get the DA 70 which is pretty pricey...(so yes, Frank, I guess you did make it worse -- but in a good way...)

From this limited sample, I'm not seeing as much support so far for the DA 21 (although I know many people love it and swear by it). It is interesting that K Mcall had one of the best photo trips of her life with the DA 21/43/70 (shout out for Keitha as one of my all time favorite photographers, and who also responded to my DA 40 vs. DA 35 thread a long time ago). Just like then, I am concerned that the 21 would not be wide enough for many travel situations. But I am still intrigued with it for a one lens option. In this capacity it may replace a future 18-55 kit as I could just leave it on the camera for extended periods of time. Of course, I have the DA 35 which may suffice in this capacity, although I have not tried it yet (I tried the DA 15 and found it too wide).

I have read some threads on whether the DA 21 is a nice complement between the DA 15 and DA 35 but would like to hear more if people are willing (any other 21/70 users out there?)

Twitch, could you please elaborate on your 15/40 and 21/70 shoots? How do you decide? Is it random? Do you find yourself missing a lens (then kicking yourself for leaving such a small lens at the hotel?) Do you find the DA 21 an excellent addition? If so, how? Sorry for all the questions, but I am very intrigued...

Please keep the travel prime kit suggestions coming!

[hcc]

Everyone is different and you will get a lot of answers. Let me share my own experience of travelling around the world and shooting primarily outdoor with my K-7.

My typical travel combo is a zoom (18-250mm) and a fast prime (Nokton 58mm f1.4) together with the K-7. The DA18-250mm is typically mounted on the K-7 and the prime is in my jacket pocket.

However I also travel infrequently with a one-prime-travel kit. When I choose to travel light, with one prime lens only, my favorite is the FA31mm mounted directly on the K-7. No lens swapping. The FA31mm is really a great lens for a wide range of shot and it does fulfill my neeeds.

Food for thoughts....

[Pentaxor]

21 and 70 for me. wide shots for views and short telephoto portraits.

[SPB]

Well it depends on what you photograph I guess.

I frequently go out with just one lens, and that is the 40mm DA Limited. I do a Classic car show every year and there I use the 21mm almost all day. When I am at a zoo I use the 100mm WR Macro.

So yes it is perfectly possible to go with just one lens and a very small camera bag!

Depends on lots of things and you will get very varied answers to prove that theory.

When I am holidaying I take 21/40/35 Macro/70. Usually ending up using 40/35 most of the time and occasionally 70..

[GeneV]

Having responded to several other threads regarding the best primes for travel, I have started to think about my own setup again. I travel extremely light, with a small camera bag.
.

I am also a stickler for traveling light, and I prefer the smallest PacSafe camera bag. However, on my last trip, I only got it down to 4 primes. DA Ltd 15/21/40/70

If I were to pare that down to my two most used lenses it would be 40 then 21. Three lenses would pick up the 15. But then the 70 didn't take up much room when I took the hood off, and it gave me a razor sharp tele. The quality of the shots made it worth taking even if I didn't shoot that FL as much.

[gnaztee]

I'm an advocate of the 21/70 combo for travel. However, I also have the 15 and, until a couple of weeks ago, the 35 with me. I've sold the 35 in favor of the 43 as I didn't have a fast lens in my bag, so a 4-prime setup. Honestly, they're so small it's hard not to take all four! I don't necessarily like having four choices, and if I fall in love with the 43, it might be the natural partner to the 21 instead of the 70. Then, the 15/70 would be in the bag for particular situations.

I really think the 21 is near the perfect length for street/travel photography (I'm not a "classic" street photog, I only do it when I travel). And the 70 is great for details/candids/the odd portrait. I carry the 15 for the times I want a particular shot, but I don't walk around with it on the camera.

Basically, I've taken another look at my travel kit just as you are, and I've come to the conclusion that this is what I'm trying to put together:

Fujifilm X100 (23mm f/2...drool)
K-7 with DA 15/43/70 and the 50-200 WR

All of this will fit easily in my Timbuk2 messenger with the padded insert from my Kata 467i, and give me:

Compactness, light weight (relatively...I love when I Google "travel lens kit" and get forum responses from C+N users hauling three huge zooms, like the 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200...holy crap), image quality, fast lenses (2), pretty wide (I'll leave my 12-24 at home for landscapes), length if I really need it, WR if I really need it, and a backup camera...I envision city walking with the X100 in my hand and the K-7 in the messenger bag with one of the LTDs on it, chosen according to my mood

Anyway...huge tangent...sorry But if I wanted to get to two lenses and one body, I'd most likely go 21/70.

[Lowell Goudge]

I think something in the lines of a 15, 35, 70 would be workable, although I have found that I use my sigma 10-20 at 10mm a lot of the time.

being restricted to 15mm might make you work a little harder in some areas to get the entire subject in the frame, especially when considering old europeen cities and narrow streets, or for interior shots, in churches etc, if that is one of your specific likes.

But aside from that it is pretty reasonable.

Whether you pick 35 or 40 mm is your decision.

Note my minimum kit is a sigma 10-20 and tamron 28-75. I have never really found a need for going longer unless specifically doing wioldlife or sporting events while travelling

[K206]

I think I will have to keep the 15 in the bag. Although I have used it mostly for architecture, etc. and my shots have not been amazing yet, I think I just need to get more creative with it. It will be too valuable as a wide angle in the narrow streets of Europe...

Also, I will just have to make a choice b/w the 35 and 40 which have many threads (one started by me). I am leaning 35 right now...(the question is still whether to sell the 40).

I am going to get the 70. I have nothing similar and it sounds like it rocks. For travel it might be a "specialty" area for me as I don't shoot a ton of mid tele, but it will be super useful sometimes and in non-travel situations (portraiture).

So my basic travel kit would be 15/35/70...

So I guess my questions have boiled down to whether the 21 is a nice addition to fill the gap (of which there are other threads I have been reading). And whether I should splurge on the 21 instead of getting the kit with the K-7. Perhaps I should start another thread. But feel free to chime in with any additional thoughts...

[GeneV]

I think I will have to keep the 15 in the bag. Although I have used it mostly for architecture, etc. and my shots have not been amazing yet, I think I just need to get more creative with it. It will be too valuable as a wide angle in the narrow streets of Europe...

Also, I will just have to make a choice b/w the 35 and 40 which have many threads (one started by me). I am leaning 35 right now...(the question is still whether to sell the 40).

I am going to get the 70. I have nothing similar and it sounds like it rocks. For travel it might be a "specialty" area for me as I don't shoot a ton of mid tele, but it will be super useful sometimes and in non-travel situations (portraiture).

So my basic travel kit would be 15/35/70...

So I guess my questions have boiled down to whether the 21 is a nice addition to fill the gap (of which there are other threads I have been reading). And whether I should splurge on the 21 instead of getting the kit with the K-7. Perhaps I should start another thread. But feel free to chime in with any additional thoughts...

I would just throw in that the main advantage to the 40 for travel is that it adds virtually nothing in volume or weight. It is like carrying a free lens, and can be slipped into pockets in clothes or pouches on bags. For that reason, alone, I'll never sell it even though I have a 35 and another 40 I really like.