How Much Focal Range On A Lens Is Necessary On A Vacation?
May 6, 2017 13:31:04 #
RWR
Loc: La Mesa, CA
asiafish wrote:
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.
Visited Paris 5 years ago, my Voightländer Bessa R with 50 f/1.5 Nokton Aspherical and 90 f/3.5 APO Lanthar was ideal.
May 6, 2017 13:39:27 #
RWR wrote:
Visited Paris 5 years ago, my Voightländer Bessa R with 50 f/1.5 Nokton Aspherical and 90 f/3.5 APO Lanthar was ideal.
Sounds like the perfect kit.
May 6, 2017 14:14:14 #
I have a crop sensor Canon and travel occasionally to Europe. As it happens, we are on a trip right now - Paris, Marseille, Dublin, Derry. I brought along an 18-135 and a 12-28mm. i have not felt the need for anything longer. The 12-28 sure is nice to have along.
May 6, 2017 14:31:43 #
mas24 wrote:
A friend who owns a Sony a6000 with two lenses, th... (show quote)
As they say, "It all depends". I took a Sony a6000 with an 18-200 lens all around southern Europe and the Mediterranean two years ago. Came back with a lot of publishable photographs. Last year I had a jaunt in Death Valley to photograph the super-bloom wildflowers. I did that also with the a6000. Again the SEL18200LE was my walk-around lens. I actually just sold a 20x30 canvas print of the Artists Pallet.
May 6, 2017 14:33:57 #
abwaterbury
Loc: Jerusalem, Israel
One thing that I found is that even though most landscapes were good with a 17-40 ff Canon or 16-70 ASP-C Sony, there were times I really wanted to compress the distance of things in the distance to see an interesting composition, so I really wanted a telephoto, but those are heavy and I wanted to travel light, so I have a old Sony NEX-5T with a 55-210 lens, which surprisingly is a very good combination (the lens is not so good on a6000 or a6300 because they have better sensors and need better glass, but on the NEX-5T it is surprisingly good), and it is pretty small, so I hope to take that on the next trip, with G-d's help. Moral of the story, you might want some compression in your compositions.
May 6, 2017 16:21:40 #
May 6, 2017 16:33:27 #
Backpacked thru the mountains with a medium format film camera and an 80mm lens, equivalent to a 50mm, and it wasn't wide enough to get what I really wanted to shoot. Walk thru the woods with a crop camera and a 70-200 might not be long enough. I have several cameras and lenses, and if I had just to choose just one lens and camera body I think I would take my 24-70 2.8 or 50 1.8 on a full frame camera.
May 6, 2017 16:44:07 #
RWR wrote:
It’s not a Leica, but it’ll do.
It's a rangefinder, that's all that matters.
May 6, 2017 16:54:53 #
Most of the time I travel, I take two lenses with me, a 20mm and a 28~300.
--Bob
--Bob
mas24 wrote:
A friend who owns a Sony a6000 with two lenses, th... (show quote)
May 6, 2017 17:06:58 #
RWR
Loc: La Mesa, CA
asiafish wrote:
It's a rangefinder, that's all that matters.
Yep, and if I want to do macro or telephoto, I can always take my Visoflex and 1 or 2 other lenses along.
May 6, 2017 17:19:45 #
mas24
Loc: Southern CA
rmalarz wrote:
Most of the time I travel, I take two lenses with me, a 20mm and a 28~300.
--Bob
--Bob
Another 20mm prime lens. It was mentioned in my topic. I'm amazed that at least two people on this forum, who call the FX 28-300mm lens, an awful one. Oh well!
May 6, 2017 17:38:09 #
I agree with most of what's been said. There was a time when all I had was a Nikkormat and an 85mm 1.8 lens, and many of the pictures from Wyoming and Colorado looked pretty good to me, so i wouldn't sweat the gear too much, unless you're hunting large wild carnivores.
May 6, 2017 17:47:52 #
mas24 wrote:
Another 20mm prime lens. It was mentioned in my topic. I'm amazed that at least two people on this forum, who call the FX 28-300mm lens, an awful one. Oh well!
It might be the best 28-200 on earth, but will still absolutely suck compared to the cheapest and worst prime of a given focal length.
May 6, 2017 20:00:06 #
Everyone is differnet. Some really good advice based on preferences. In the end, what are you shooting? ...then take what you need to shoot that...
I wind up taking it all in large pro camera bag (including a FF body and a crop for extra reach) that I can carry on the plane. On any given day/eve, I will bring what I need...
Once my back gives out or sanity restores itself in my thinking, I will likely scale back to the 24-70 and the 70-200 on a FF body....
I wind up taking it all in large pro camera bag (including a FF body and a crop for extra reach) that I can carry on the plane. On any given day/eve, I will bring what I need...
Once my back gives out or sanity restores itself in my thinking, I will likely scale back to the 24-70 and the 70-200 on a FF body....
May 6, 2017 21:28:52 #
Well if you are with family enjoy the trip, I bring my 24 to 120 (Nikon). Most of the shots are going to be just travel snapshots. Lugging 3 lenses, a tripod, and backpack just makes vacations no fun. On the other hand if it's a photo trip will cover 16 mm up to 200mm. I am not a wildlife shooter, hen I was in Iceland 2 others rented 500 mm lenses, by the time they had them set up and ready to use on the gimbal heads they rented. The rest of us were done and ready to move on. That trip taught me a lot. I now shot f4 lenses. They are lighter, and most landscapes are shot at f 11 to f16.
So go enjoy the vacation pack light
So go enjoy the vacation pack light
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.