Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
One Lens For Scotland
Page <<first <prev 3 of 8 next> last>>
Apr 29, 2022 06:49:59   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States
 
traderjohn wrote:
It really isn't. People complicate it. The paranoia of backing up everything three times, "spare" cameras.

I suppose I trust my equipment too much...

Reply
Apr 29, 2022 06:57:51   #
tcthome Loc: NJ
 
Longshadow wrote:
Wow, I didn't know photography life could be so complicated.


Point, focus & compose, refocus if need be, shoot! Of coarse their are artistic choices if so desired.

Reply
Apr 29, 2022 07:02:09   #
NormanTheGr8 Loc: Racine, Wisconsin
 
Tamron 18 300

Reply
 
 
Apr 29, 2022 07:03:36   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States
 
tcthome wrote:
Point, focus & compose, refocus if need be, shoot! Of coarse their are artistic choices if so desired.

That doesn't seem too complicated to me.

Reply
Apr 29, 2022 07:23:59   #
zug55 Loc: Naivasha, Kenya, and Austin, Texas
 
Longshadow wrote:
I still refer to the lens as what it is, 18-200.
Whatever the field of view between camera formats is, it is relative, I don't worry about it.
"This" is what I get on my <APS-C> camera with an 18-200.
I acknowledge the difference, but don't worry about, nor do I dwell on it it.


I completely agree with this. If you shoot with an APS-C camera with a 18-200mm lens, you know what you get, regardless of the numbers salad. There is no need to think about this any further.

The problem is here on UHH. OP has APS-C camera. Yet many Hoggers recommend a full-frame 24-105mm based on their own full-frame experience. The Sony 24-105mm is a perfect travel lens--if you have a full-frame body, like the Sony A7 III. But if you shoot with an APS-C body, like OP, it is not because of the crop factor. That is all. Same numbers, different impact depending on camera body.

Reply
Apr 29, 2022 07:33:37   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States
 
zug55 wrote:
I completely agree with this. If you shoot with an APS-C camera with a 18-200mm lens, you know what you get, regardless of the numbers salad. There is no need to think about this any further.

The problem is here on UHH. OP has APS-C camera. Yet many Hoggers recommend a full-frame 24-105mm based on their own full-frame experience. The Sony 24-105mm is a perfect travel lens--if you have a full-frame body, like the Sony A7 III. But if you shoot with an APS-C body, like OP, it is not because of the crop factor. That is all. Same numbers, different impact depending on camera body.
I completely agree with this. If you shoot with an... (show quote)


Reply
Apr 29, 2022 07:59:18   #
larryepage Loc: North Texas area
 
zug55 wrote:
"Wide enough" indeed is a relative term, and different photographers legitimately have a different take on what is wide enough.

In the other part of my answer, I recommended the Sony 18-135mm--which is remarkably similar to the 18-200mm you are using, particularly at the wide end. So where is the disagreement? OP has a Sony a6400 and wants *one* light-weight lens suitable for a trip to Scotland. In my humble opinion, the Sony 18-135mm, while not perfect, comes close to meeting that objective.

The underlying issue is that many UHH users wildly mix full-frame and APS-C in their discussion. While the focal lenfth of course does not change, whether it is used on a APS-C or full-frame body, what the lenses do on the respective bodies changes a lot because of the crop factor involved.

Specifically here, some folks recommended a 24-105mm lens. This is a full-frame lens, which is a great one-and-done travel lens if strapped on a full-frame body, like my Sony A7 III. If OP were to use it on an APS-C body, like his Sony a6400, it would be 36mm (full-frame equivalent) at its widest, which in my humble opinion is not "wide enough" for an all-purpose travel lens. This is based on my significant travel experience--I am currently based in Nairobi and am on a two-month side trip to Ireland, Spain, Portugal, France (from where I write this), Germany, Switzerland, and Sweden. The 18-135mm would bring that to 27mm full-frame equivalent, which is not perfect but more workable than 36mm full-frame equivalent. As you say, it is what it is.
"Wide enough" indeed is a relative term,... (show quote)


Like many, I have both crop and full-frame cameras. I also have a number of lenses, including an 18-200mm DX Lens and a 24-120mm full frame lens. I bought the 24-120 as a "sometimes alternative" for the 17-55mm f/2.8 DX lens that I've happily used for close to 15 years.

While the 18-200 is a generally serviceable lens, it has some noticeable quirks that would cause me some concern taking it as my "only" lens on a trip halfway around the world. The 24-120 is just generally a better lens, not to mention faster. So I'd much rather have to deal with those few times that I might have to make a panorama or otherwise deal with a lens that isn't quite wide enough than deal with a lens which uncorrectably makes all of my photographs a little less "good."

To me, questions like this bring to the front the question, "Do you drive your photography, or do you allow your equipment to drive and define your photography?"

Reply
 
 
Apr 29, 2022 08:03:04   #
Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb
 
Don't know Sony but Tamron has a 28 To 300mm that I use in travels (Europe & Asia).

Reply
Apr 29, 2022 08:33:53   #
John N Loc: HP14 3QF Stokenchurch, UK
 
GeneinChi wrote:
Going to Scotland for 17 days in October. As I see it, there are all sorts of photo ops from inside abandoned castles to city scenes to gorgeous landscapes and everything in between. I only want to take one lens on a Sony a6400. If you’ve been to Scotland, what lens would you recommend? Thank you in advance..
Gene


A Waterproof one. Not familiar with SONY but I'd go wideangle with a low 'F' if you fancy streetscenes and interiors with perhaps a 4 or 5x zoom. But weathersealed would be very wise. Or an OPTECH sleeve.

Reply
Apr 29, 2022 08:37:54   #
fetzler Loc: North West PA
 
GeneinChi wrote:
Going to Scotland for 17 days in October. As I see it, there are all sorts of photo ops from inside abandoned castles to city scenes to gorgeous landscapes and everything in between. I only want to take one lens on a Sony a6400. If you’ve been to Scotland, what lens would you recommend? Thank you in advance..
Gene


For General Photography I have a Nikon 16 -80mm and for Olympus a Pannosonic 12-60mm. Both Lens are equivlent to 24-120mm full frame. These lenses are wide enough and long enough for a majority of situations.

Reply
Apr 29, 2022 09:37:25   #
ColonelButler Loc: Niagara-on-the-Lake ON Canada
 
I did two weeks in Scotland a few years ago with my Sony a6300 and used mostly my 18-135. Good for landscape, castles, urban scenes

Reply
 
 
Apr 29, 2022 10:19:04   #
1grumpybear
 
When I went I took 2 lens 24-70 and a 70-200. The bulk of my pictures were shot with the 24-70. Rented a car and drove around for 10 days.

Reply
Apr 29, 2022 10:23:20   #
dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho
 
I love the KISS principle. Ask yourself, what lens do I use most here in Chicago, IL. Take that lens to Scotland.

Dennis

Reply
Apr 29, 2022 10:47:53   #
User ID
 
Picture Taker wrote:
Don't know Sony but Tamron has a 28 To 300mm that I use in travels (Europe & Asia).

Enjoy your trips and your superzoom.

Reply
Apr 29, 2022 11:03:06   #
Charles 46277 Loc: Fulton County, KY
 
Longshadow wrote:
Wow, I didn't know photography life could be so complicated.


Longshadow, just imagine how complicated it would be if he wanted to do Wales and Northern Ireland as well.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 3 of 8 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.