Travel Photography - Opinions please, wide to long zoom vs. ??

I am trying to make a lens-buying decision and could use a little help.

Most of my photography is travel-related - landscapes, architecture, street scenes, the typical traveler stuff. I am looking to replace one or both of the "kit" lenses I have for my Pentax K200D. In the old film days, I had 6 high quality lenses for my Canon F-1 but I am just not interested in carting that much stuff around anymore. My current set is an 18-55mm and a 50-200mm. Both pretty cheap.

I am considering one of the wide-to-long zooms such as the Pentax 18-250 or the similar offerings from Sigma or Tamron. Any opinions on those lenses? The obvious advantage would be avoiding lens changes. I am just not sure how well the wide-long zooms perform. I am not interested in the "VC" or "OS" versions as the Pentax does shake reduction in-camera.

The other option I have considered is just keep the longer zoom I have for the occasional tele shot but replace the 18-55 with something like a 17-70mm/f2.8-4.5 Sigma for walking around. The Pentax 17-70mm/f4 looks good too but is much pricier.

Any experience or sage advice?

HI,

I recently upgraded my Pentax 16-45 f4 to the 17-70 f4. I'm very happy with it. The SDM focussing is very quiet and quick (it's SDM only, does the K200D support this? Not sure, so I thought I would point it out just in case). Image quality is better than the 16-45 also and would be much better than the 18-55.

Equipment choices are so much about the way people do things and the style of their photography that I hate giving advice about it, but here goes.

I've thought about giving up all my lenses and going for a super zoom, but I'm not happy once I look at the image quality - particularly at the long end. The images are just too soft. I've ended up going for a range of f4 constant zooms (12-24, 17-70, 60-250) and a macro lens as my lens line up for carrying around. You said you do a lot of landscapes and architecture photography, do you find that 18 is wide enough for all your pictures? I've found the 12-24 range very good in tight places.

I have heard nice things said about the Pentax 18-250 lens, but haven't tried it (it's f6.3 at the long end which is just too dim for me).

For Pentax product information in real life (and for just interesting conversations about almost anything) the mailing list at www.pdml.net is very useful. The unfortunate reality is that most forums will give you lots of advice for Canon and Nikon, but not Pentax.

Hope this helped.

... I have heard nice things said about the Pentax 18-250 lens, but haven't tried it (it's f6.3 at the long end which is just too dim for me)...
Thanks for your input. It is pretty much what I have been thinking.

FYI. The Pentax 18-250mm was recently discontinued. It is virtually the same lens as the Tamron 18-250mm so I could still get it but have concluded, as you, that f6.3 is just too slow at the long end.

I admit to laziness. I was trying to reduce the number of lenses I carry on the road and 1 seemed too good to be true. I have concluded that it was. ;)

Thanks for the link.

I've played around with ultrazooms, but even big $$$ ones like the Canon 28-300 had clear compromises to an equivalent cost set of narrower-range lenses.

With the type of shooting you do, I'd say you probably have close to the right pair of lens ranges. Most of my shooting is with 12-24, 24-105 and 100-400. I have 5 other lenses, but they only come out for special situations (need f/1.8 speed, need macro, need fast and long-200/2.8). I suspect something in the 17-100 range could serve as a typical walkaround lens with a 100-300 or so for other situations.

I admit to laziness. I was trying to reduce the number of lenses I carry on the road and 1 seemed too good to be true. I have concluded that it was. ;)

I have the Tamron 18-270mm for my Nikon D90. Admittedly it's not as good as carrying several lenses. However, it allows me to carry a pretty good lens, take decent pictures and not take up a lot of room. Almost all of my travel is for work so I don't have any extra room for multiple lenses with my laptop, folders, clothes, etc. that I need for work. Just my $.02 :)

I don't use Pentax (Nikonista) so my musings are more theoretical than practical. Unless there is a clear difference in speed or image quality, I don't quite see the point of going from 18-55 to 17-70.

The long all-arounder zoom is attractive from a convenience point of view but their performance is just about almost something of a compromise.

What I might consider if I were you, is to keep the existing lenses and get a fast prime lens to complement your setup. A 50 mm prime is an excellent all-around lens (I have six lenses from 10 mm to 400 mm and the 50 mm is attached more than half of the time). And the faster, the better. I use a 1.4 lens which means I can shoot with very little available light and can also get fantastic bokeh and blurred backgrounds.

Cheers,
T.

... I suspect something in the 17-100 range could serve as a typical walkaround lens with a 100-300 or so for other situations.
Kind of mirrors my thinking. I wish I could find a 16- or 17-100 range lens but for Pentax mount, I think 17-70 is about it. That still overlaps my longer zoom, which starts at 50mm.

... I don't quite see the point of going from 18-55 to 17-70.
...
... get a fast prime lens to complement your setup...
Thanks for your comments.

The point is to replace a cheap, rather crappy kit lens with something a bit higher quality that will zoom out to at least cover portait length.

As for the fast prime lens, I take your point. In my film days, I had an f 1.4 prime on my F1. But my purpose here is to cut down on the number of lenses I carry around not add another one. :)