Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Check out Travel Photography - Tips and More section of our forum.
Main Photography Discussion
How Much Focal Range On A Lens Is Necessary On A Vacation?
Page <<first <prev 3 of 6 next> last>>
May 6, 2017 09:20:30   #
StevenG Loc: Long Island, NY
 
mas24 wrote:
A friend who owns a Sony a6000 with two lenses, the 16-50mm and the 55-210mm, took a trip to England a couple of years ago and said they was sufficient enough, because he didn't want to lug around a lot of camera gear. One lady on this forum, who owns a Nikon full frame camera, stated that when she travels abroad, her Nikon 20mm prime wide angle lens never leaves her camera body. And she traveled several countries. If you're doing wildlife, a lens such as a 100-400mm or 200-500mm is necessary. A wide angle lens would be necessary for landscapes. Is it necessary to take most or all of your lenses on a trip. What focal ranges do you prefer going on any trip. Or is just one only zoom lens sufficient? Home or abroad.
A friend who owns a Sony a6000 with two lenses, th... (show quote)


I think the key here is that you are going on a vacation, not a photo expedition. IMO the goal is to enjoy yourself, and while doing so take the best travel pics you can. I travel with a crop sensor dslr and an 18-270 lens. Period! I usually travel on some type of tour--bus or river boat. It is necessary to keep up with the group, with little time to change lenses. Obviously if you are traveling alone you have all the time and flexibility you need. Nonetheless, you must decide how much gear you want to lug around. It gets heavy and cumbersome. My 18-270 has always been adequate. The two exceptions, which cover about 10-15% of my photos are indoors in churches, etc. where a faster lens would be nice and landscapes where I would like a wider lens. However, I manage in both instances, and this works for me. Someone mentioned the quality of long zooms is not great, and I agree. However, I have printed 13x19s with very satisfactory quality.

Reply
May 6, 2017 09:50:04   #
ole sarg Loc: south florida
 
You have more than enough. But, if you want to spend and be bothered with more weight the hassle of changing lenses then by all means shop and buy away!



mas24 wrote:
A friend who owns a Sony a6000 with two lenses, the 16-50mm and the 55-210mm, took a trip to England a couple of years ago and said they was sufficient enough, because he didn't want to lug around a lot of camera gear. One lady on this forum, who owns a Nikon full frame camera, stated that when she travels abroad, her Nikon 20mm prime wide angle lens never leaves her camera body. And she traveled several countries. If you're doing wildlife, a lens such as a 100-400mm or 200-500mm is necessary. A wide angle lens would be necessary for landscapes. Is it necessary to take most or all of your lenses on a trip. What focal ranges do you prefer going on any trip. Or is just one only zoom lens sufficient? Home or abroad.
A friend who owns a Sony a6000 with two lenses, th... (show quote)

Reply
May 6, 2017 10:04:06   #
camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.
 
Interesting question, at least it is for me because the tendency I had in the past was to overload myself with gear. That happened several years ago when I was younger. I realized in time that I did not have to take so much gear to come back with acceptable photographs.
Steve McCurry seldom uses more than three lenses when he travels and he is a photojournalist. As of lately I am using my mirrorless camera with a couple of lenses and I have done very well but we are all different and we use different cameras and lenses.
Nobody needs tons of gear when traveling. Usually one camera and a couple of lenses is more than enough, specially zoom lenses.

Reply
 
 
May 6, 2017 10:12:14   #
asiafish Loc: Bakersfield, CA
 
There is a very good reason most 35mm film SLRs came with a 50mm lens and that most compacts had something like a 40mm, which is that nothing else is really NEEDED for family pictures, of which vacation and travel pictures are a subset of.

Less is more. Go small, but make sure at least one (or your only) lens is fast, unless you go to sleep at sunset.

I spent two weeks in Seoul last year with nothing but a 50mm lens, and late last year spend a week in Seoul and a week in Phuket with extended family in vacation and while I brought a bag full of lenses, my 50mm was used for about 80%, my 35mm for 19.9% and my 24mm for one image, that didnt even make it into the photo book at the end.

Reply
May 6, 2017 10:42:50   #
mas24 Loc: Southern CA
 
asiafish wrote:
There is a very good reason most 35mm film SLRs came with a 50mm lens and that most compacts had something like a 40mm, which is that nothing else is really NEEDED for family pictures, of which vacation and travel pictures are a subset of.

Less is more. Go small, but make sure at least one (or your only) lens is fast, unless you go to sleep at sunset.

I spent two weeks in Seoul last year with nothing but a 50mm lens, and late last year spend a week in Seoul and a week in Phuket with extended family in vacation and while I brought a bag full of lenses, my 50mm was used for about 80%, my 35mm for 19.9% and my 24mm for one image, that didnt even make it into the photo book at the end.
There is a very good reason most 35mm film SLRs ca... (show quote)


The 50mm on the film SLRs was also a lens that your eyes would see.

Reply
May 6, 2017 10:53:37   #
gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast
 
Some folks are only happy with a box full of lenses. When we went to the parks in Utah I stuck my Sigma 10-20 on my D7000 and fired away without looking back. Most everything you can drive to or walk to if you need to zoom. Other folks go with a longer lens and vertical panoramas stitched together when needed.

Reply
May 6, 2017 11:20:25   #
jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ
 
mas24 wrote:
A friend who owns a Sony a6000 with two lenses, the 16-50mm and the 55-210mm, took a trip to England a couple of years ago and said they was sufficient enough, because he didn't want to lug around a lot of camera gear. One lady on this forum, who owns a Nikon full frame camera, stated that when she travels abroad, her Nikon 20mm prime wide angle lens never leaves her camera body. And she traveled several countries. If you're doing wildlife, a lens such as a 100-400mm or 200-500mm is necessary. A wide angle lens would be necessary for landscapes. Is it necessary to take most or all of your lenses on a trip. What focal ranges do you prefer going on any trip. Or is just one only zoom lens sufficient? Home or abroad.
A friend who owns a Sony a6000 with two lenses, th... (show quote)


If you are going to a place for wildlife, then yes, you need a long lens. If not then you don't. I'd say if you were just going site seeing in a place like the UK or Iceland then all you need is focal lengths from wide angle to 200mm max.

Reply
Check out Infrared Photography section of our forum.
May 6, 2017 11:27:11   #
asiafish Loc: Bakersfield, CA
 
jeep_daddy wrote:
If you are going to a place for wildlife, then yes, you need a long lens. If not then you don't. I'd say if you were just going site seeing in a place like the UK or Iceland then all you need is focal lengths from wide angle to 200mm max.


Not even that. 28 (or 24) and 50 and life is good.

Reply
May 6, 2017 11:31:22   #
BebuLamar
 
I carry a 24-85mm lens on a FF camera.

Reply
May 6, 2017 11:37:32   #
ELNikkor
 
a standard fast prime, a kit lens-range zoom, and a 70-300 would be all you need for 99% of photos in 99% of vacations. These would be lightweight, take up little space, and not a serious burden if lost/stolen/broken along the way.

Reply
May 6, 2017 11:44:32   #
Spirit Vision Photography Loc: Behind a Camera.
 
I have often gone on vacation and even done professional wedding shoots with just my 24-135 lens. Too much gear impedes creativity and production.

Reply
Check out Close Up Photography section of our forum.
May 6, 2017 12:18:20   #
asiafish Loc: Bakersfield, CA
 
ELNikkor wrote:
a standard fast prime, a kit lens-range zoom, and a 70-300 would be all you need for 99% of photos in 99% of vacations. These would be lightweight, take up little space, and not a serious burden if lost/stolen/broken along the way.


70-300 taking little space and not being a serious burden? No way in hell I'd carry one on a vacation.

Reply
May 6, 2017 12:30:03   #
RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA
 
asiafish wrote:
70-300 taking little space and not being a serious burden? No way in hell I'd carry one on a vacation.

Bet you wouldn’t carry a 55 f/1.4 Zeiss Otus either!

Reply
May 6, 2017 13:00:53   #
asiafish Loc: Bakersfield, CA
 
RWR wrote:
Bet you wouldn’t carry a 55 f/1.4 Zeiss Otus either!


Nope, but a 50/2 Summicron or 50/1.4 Summilux is quite light, as are the Canon and Nikon equivalents. Even the super-speed primes aren't that heavy. I carried and used the Canon 50/1.2L for most of my recent trip to Korea and Thailand, and took my Leica 50/0.95 Noctilux to the UK last month. Much smaller and lighter than an Otus or even a 70-300, unless you are talking about a cheap and very slow "kit" type, which is lighter, but of poor quality.

Reply
May 6, 2017 13:07:41   #
cambriaman Loc: Central CA Coast
 
I am off to a local car show now with my D800e and a 24-120 mm Nikkor.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 3 of 6 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.
Check out Drone Video and Photography Forum section of our forum.
Main Photography Discussion
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.