Winslowe

If you're using ISO 12 film for vacation pictures, you must be carrying a tripod too.

asiafish Loc: Bakersfield, CA

I use ISO 32 film frequently and never bring a tripod on vacation or anywhere else except when planning to do long-exposure photography. ISO 12 would be great. When I shoot street I often get my ISO as far down as possible so I can use very wide apertures and not hit my fastest shutter exposure and thus overexposure. I often combine a 4 stop ND with an orange filter (2 stops) when shooting Tri-X in daylight, giving an effective ISO of 6, which is the ONLY way get a shutter speed of 1/1000th or slower at f/0.95 (processed for ISO 400). With an f/1.4 lens I use a 3 stop ND for effective ISO of 12. Even at ISO 12, I still often overexpose at 1/1000th of a second which is the fast speed my Leica M5 will give me.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

So - you are not really disagreeing with my post - I believe that 3x zoom is the max for lenses where IQ is a major consideration at a sensible price -
stretching that rule a bit with one or two top quality lenses. Kit lenses seem to be getting longer range - e.g. Panasonic with a 14-140. Talking Panasonic - when they launched MFT with the G1, it had a 14-45 lens which at some point was voted "best kit lens". With the G2 and later models they changed to a 14-42. As the G1s became obsolete for most photographers, their kit 14-45s were snapped up by Panasonic and Olympus fans to replace their 14-42s. I am not alone in finding the 14-45 to be better and sharper. Is this an example of cost ceilings at the expense of IQ ?

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

I included that film in the picture because it’s what I’m using now. I exposed Velvia-50 at ISO 64 on the trip. It’s easy to handhold a rangefinder at slow shutter speeds, no need for a tripod even with the 90mm lens.

asiafish Loc: Bakersfield, CA

The difference between 14-45 and 14-42 as affects image quality, size, weight or cost is next to nothing. The 14-45 being better just means a better optical design was employed. Now, stretch that to 14-90 and even with the best technology and massive size and weight increases and you will still have a massive drop in image quality.

asiafish Loc: Bakersfield, CA

And even a slow film in good light with the camera set to its fastest shutter speed won't allow a fast lens to shot wide open without ND filters.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

So - with so many photographers preferring the 14-45, and accepting that, therefore, it produces better IQ, if cost was not a reason for the change to 14-42, can you suggest what the likely reason(s) might have been?
From what you say regarding 14-90, where does that leave Panasonic's 14-140 kit lens?

asiafish Loc: Bakersfield, CA

Its got to be cost then. Or maybe the 14-45 isn't actually better. I used to shoot Minolta, and they had "new" versions of existing lenses that were optically identical, but cheaper build that cause many photographers to prefer the older versions. Sometimes it isn't even optical or build-quality, but haptics. When Minolta updated their Maxxum lenses to a new styling I just didn't like the way the looked and tried to find leftovers of the old versions. Some don't like the way newer stuff feels (plastic v metal, etc.).

I don't shoot M4/3, or even zoom lenses for that matter, so can't say anything about those two specific lenses except for what is true of all lenses. Best guess though is cost cutting.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

OK - thanks for the conversation.

btbg

There are several people here who have correctly stated that everyone shoots differently.

The answer to your question is that the right lens to take is the lens that you will actually use. Different people naturally choose different lenses for the same situation.

I used to work with a photographer at our newspaper that never shot anything except an 18-55.

In exactly the same situation I almost always went to an old 80-200 f2.8. When traveling my wife takes an old Nikon bridge camera. I on the other hand take a Nikon D5, Nikon D500, a Fuji waterproof camera, a 10-20 zoom, a 24-70 f2.8, an 80-200 f2.8, a Sigma sport 150-600 a 1.4 converter for the Sigma lens, a set of extension tubes, and a set of graduate neutral density filters as well as polarizing filters.

I also take a tripod that extends to 7' and a monopod that goes almost as high. I leave the 150-600 on the D500 most of the time on trips so that it is ready for wildlife and generally have the 24-70 on the D5. That gives me an effective focal range equivalent to 24 mm to 900 mm, while my wife has a focal range of about 28-800mm, as well as a tablet and a laptop with three external hard drives.

If I'm traveling by car I also take my drone, which has about a 24mm lens.

My philosophy is that if you don't take it you can't use it. My wife's philosophy is if it is heavy enough to be inconvenient than you will end up leaving it in the hotel anyway and it's a nuisance to get all the equipment through airport security etc...

Neither point of view is right or wrong. It's your choice how you want to shoot and what equipment will do that best for what you want to get out of photography.

Since I make my living shooting and my wife doesn't, the different choice that we make for traveling actually makes a lot of sense. You just need to decide whether extra gear is worth the inconvenience and weight. If not then go with what you are actually going to use.

One way to help make a decision is to look at the data on the shots you have already taken and see what focal length most of them are being taken at. Then look at photos on line that you like and see which ones you like the style of and about what focal lengths they were taken with. Then choose the lenses that fit the style of photography that you want to pursue.

mcveed Loc: Kelowna, British Columbia (between trips)

I have not read this thread. I will cut to the logical chase. It depends on what you plan to take pictures of.

le boecere

Curious. Why do you take the 28mm f/2, when you have that focal length covered by that high-end zoom?

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

Logic is a foreign word on this forum!!

asiafish Loc: Bakersfield, CA

Actually the right question is why take a zoom when you've got such lovely primes?

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

The man said "If I want highest quality". Much as we like to think so - zooms do not match primes for IQ. My lenses are zooms, but......