If you could travel with just one focal length or lens, what would it be?

[Archiver]

Since getting the Distagon 35 for my M9, it's been my most used lens.

Before that, my usual travel kit was 21, 35 and 50 with my M9, a micro four thirds body with a couple of primes like 17mm and 25mm, and a pocket camera with a zoom lens. But since getting my SL2S with its greater weight, I'm thinking about thinning the kit just a touch. SL2S with the Summicron 35 SL and the Panasonic GX85 with PL 9mm and Oly 25/1.8 to give extra wide angle and a short/normal.

But what if I was to go even further and travel with just the SL2S + 35 SL, and a pocket zoom camera like the Panasonic LX10 to shore up any need for wider or closer?

Has anyone traveled with just one lens, like a 24mm, 35mm or 50? How did you deal with varying subject matter that might have been better suited to longer or shorter focal lengths? I know everyone has different photographic wants and needs, I'm just gathering data points and hoping to generate some discussion because I love talking about gear, hahaha.

 

[JohnGellings]

I could certainly get away with a 50mm generally. I don't photograph in churches or castles on islands, so... and the focus of my projects are close to home. Travel is just extra.

 

[mtnbkr]

I typically don't travel with a bunch of lenses because worrying about which lens to use takes away from the enjoyment of the experience. I typically just pick one and live with it for the trip. On a week-long tour of the US SW a few years ago, I just had a 50/1.4 on my Canon. If I had a choice of 24/35/50, I'd probably go with 35 or 50. 24 is just too wide for my taste as a general purpose lens.

 

[Rick Waldroup]

It would probably be a 40mm. I am currently downsizing my gear to almost nothing. I recently purchased a Ricoh GRIIIx. I pondered long and hard about getting the 28 or 40 GR and eventually went with the 40. Right now, when I leave the house, this is the camera I take with me. I like the angle of view of the 40mm lens. However, It does take a bit of time getting used to carrying a camera with only one lens. I was very young the last time I had a camera with only one lens.

 

[Ray Vonn 2023]

My main camera is a rangefinder, so for me it's 50mm as I find that to be the best RF focal length. You could say I've chosen a focal length to fit the camera rather than me which isn't good, right? I find it a worthwhile sacrifice.

 

[wlewisiii]

50mm. It's what I learned with and what I am "always coming home" to.

 

[Timmyjoe]

I've travelled with a 35mm solo, and find the older I get, the more I like to get in closer with my subjects. And I always have my two feet zoom, to get closer or move back.

Best,
-Tim

 

[JohnWolf]

I've travelled with a 35mm solo, and find the older I get, the more I like to get in closer with my subjects. And I always have my two feet zoom, to get closer or move back.

Best,
-Tim

I’m the opposite as I’ve gotten older, so I’d take a few steps back with a fifty.

 

[skopar steve]

I used to be a fifty guy, but for a while now I seem to keep my 35mm cron on my rangefinder. With my slr's it's either the 28mm or a 50mm. When shooting digital its always with a 24-80 range kit zoom. I have 5 prime lenses for my Fuji XE3 that have never been used. Its always the 18-55 zoom. My Nikon D780 always sports the 24-120.

 

[Ororaro]

I always travel with 35 + 15. But if i have to choose only one it would have to be a combination of both, thus 50mm

 

[agentlossing]

A 40mm seems pretty good to me. 35mm is also good - it's better as a wide angle, but the 40mm is slightly better at being a normal. So, it really does depend on where you're going. If it's somewhere you want to take shots of vistas and get lots of context in, a 28mm or 35mm would be best. If you want to emphasize distant things, and/or exclude distracting detail, something closer to a 50mm would be better.

I like 40mm because it splits the difference - and I think I could be happy carrying just the FA 43mm Limited lens on my Pentax K-1.

 

[sojournerphoto]

Just a 50

I’ve been playing with the K3m and an FM recently. Picked up a Leica with a 50 this week and it’s like coming home.

 

[Godfrey]

Travel and number/focal lengths of lenses ... it depends on the nature of the trip. If I'm going somewhere with the primary thrust of making photographs, my usual kit is three or even four lenses.

But if I'm going somewhere for other reasons, I don't like to burden myself with so much gear. Given Leica M10-R or M10 Monochrom body as a baseline, I've found the SMC-Pentax-L 43mm f/1.9 Special to be a near perfect "do everything reasonably well" single lens choice. (If in that situation I'm willing to carry just one more lens, I choose between an ultrawide (21 or 15 mm) or a medium tele (75 or 90 mm). )

Other cameras and other options abound.

G

 

[JohnWolf]

I asked ChatGPT about foot zooming from 35mm to 50mm and equivalent FOV. Here’s the reply:

“To achieve the same field of view with a 50mm lens as with a 35mm lens at 10 feet, you would need to be approximately 14.29 feet away. Thus, you'd need to move 4.29 feet farther back (from 10 feet to 14.29 feet) to match the field of view.”

So about a step and a half back, if computed correctly. I could live with a 35 and step closer, but I prefer the 50 framelines.

 

[caila77]

A 40mm

 

[Retro-Grouch]

It seems this thread is all about 35mm cameras, so, to be contrary (me?), I'll put in my two cents for my Rolleiflex 3.5. It's become my exclusive travel camera, and by default its 75mm lens has become my exclusive travel lens. You could think of it as a 50mm in 35mm format, but it's not at all the same thing, really.

 

[MarkWalberg]

On my last camping trips - Colorado and then Big Bend - about 90% or more of my pictures were taken through the Canon rangefinder 25 mm f3.5 lens. So, that's what I would take if just one. Great lens by the way.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Fifty One Point Six.

 

[Richard G]

Two European trips in my twenties I only had a 50. I have no recollection of thinking I needed or even wanted anything else. Last European trip I took a 50 and a 28. I’d take both again next time. Only one, I presume I’d take the 50, but I will be regretting the missing 28 occasionally. I used that 28 a lot in the old city part of Nice. The Elmarit M is pretty small. With the Monochrom M, next time I could take the black Canadian 50 Summicron again and the tinier Summaron M 28. I’d need ISO 3200 at f5.6 at 2pm in the dark alleys of old cities.

Florence in 1986 with the M4-2 and 50 Summicron I bought there was an amazing exploration of photographic composition which I think worked so well because of the 50mm field of view. I only added the 35 Summicron eight years later because of children. Initially I was drowning in all this extra space I’d captured. I remember the first photo of my daughter in which I ‘got’ the 35mm focal length. Thereafter the M6 and 35 were seldom parted.

So now I think about it: 35.

 

[Prest_400]

40mm, but for some reason I ended with that focal length.
My "main" film camera is a GW690 which has a 39-40mm equivalence. In 6x6 the 75-80mm does feel different due to the aspect ratio. I traveled to Asia with just these two options, which was relatively travel friendly for film medium format, and a RX100.
Worked well but interestingly, I did occasionally wanted a wide-ultrawide 21-24mm when it came to the Asian scenery; no options to step back that much.

A pocket camera (1" compact) is very good and useful, EDC and very available. Concealeable for street and more sketchy areas. My friend has a Lumix G9, which is sized like a FF, and it stayed behind on some excursions or walks. My RX100 bit the dust (more like the sea spray) and do miss it for such travel EDC with great quality.