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

Maigo, I like your tentative selection very much, out of the choices you present. Definitely both 50 and 21 lenses, because that's what the R4M is built for (superwides) and the GA645i will be great fun. But, as you say, film can be a hassle if the airports won't handcheck your film. It's the reason I now don't travel with film if I'm going to Europe.
 
maigo said:
Currently trying to answer this question.

Going to Portugal in a few days for 2.5 weeks for sightseeing holiday with my family.
Staying in Lisbon and further north.

Options on the table (literally) in descending order of weight/bulk:
- Nikon Df (Zeiss Distagon 21/2.8, Zeiss Distagon 35/2, Voigtlander 58/1.4)
- Fuji Xpro-2 (Fujinon 18/1.4WR, Voigtlander Ultron-M 35/1.7)
- Bessa R4M (Color-Skopar 21/4, Color-Skopar 35/2.5 PII (bought from @helen.HH ), Nikkor 5cm H-C f2 LTM)
- Fuji GA645i

At this time I’m leaning towards the Bessa plus Nikkor 5cm, and maaaaaaybe 21/4, for B&W.
Plus GA645i for color.

Or decide that film isn’t worth the hassle this time and just go Fuji.

Two cameras, each with one lens doesn’t count as two lenses, right? 🙂
Click to expand...
Sounds like a great trip. My preference is usually for a wide like 21 and a wide normal 35. The 21 captures interiors, landscapes and a sense of context. 35-50 captures people, portraits etc. But with the SL2S, I'm attempting to figure out how to thin the gear even further.

For kit decisions, it might be useful to ask yourself what you would regret leaving behind, and what would most satisfy you on the trip. Looking back at your images, which camera/lens combination gives you the most pleasure, balanced with your ability to carry it comfortably? Is film worth the hassle, or would you regret not having film images of Portugal?
 
Usually I‘d say fifty all the way! On my last trip I took my X700 with the MD 24 2,8 and it was great, I was instantly able to get used to that perspective plus it has incredible close focus performance with it‘s flosting elements.
 
santino said:
Usually I‘d say fifty all the way! On my last trip I took my X700 with the MD 24 2,8 and it was great, I was instantly able to get used to that perspective plus it has incredible close focus performance with it‘s flosting elements.
Click to expand...
24-25mm can be a great walkaround focal length. If the Zeiss Biogon 25mm f2.8 works well with the SL2S, I'll use it a lot more. It's a fantastic lens on the M9, but not so much on mirrorless cameras. My copy is very dry and scuffy, and needs servicing anyway.

One person who uses the Biogon 25 to great effect is Lars Wastfelt on flickr. Most of his images are taken with the Zeiss Ikon and Biogon 25:

www.flickr.com

Lars Wästfelt

Explore Lars Wästfelt’s 7,779 photos on Flickr!
www.flickr.com www.flickr.com
 
I've traveled with just a 28 (the Ricoh GR). And with just a 75 on 6x6. I was happy with either. I really could go with anything in between as well. Oddly, I usually take two or three lenses on travels and while I always feel I must take a wide and would usually rather leave the normal at home, I get most keepers from the normal.
 
I often travel with just a pocketable 35mm film camera; it will always have a fixed ~35mm lens.
With an interchangeable lens 35mm film camera and limited to a single lens, it would be 35mm.

Should I mention that I seem to prefer the 35mm focal length? 😉

Chris
 
Last edited:
ChrisPlatt said:
I often travel with just a pocketable 35mm film camera; it will always have a fixed ~35mm lens.
With an interchangeable lens 35mm film camera and limited to a single lens, it would be 35mm.

Should I mention that I seem to prefer the 35mm focal length? 😉

Chris
Click to expand...
Many moons ago, I went on a work trip with a Canon 400D + Sigma 10-20mm f4.5-5.6, the pocket Canon S70 (28mm equivalent) and the 35mm f2.8 Contax T3. The T3's images were so lovely that if film wasn't comparatively inconvenient and ludicrously expensive I could have shot with it for the whole trip.

T3 - In the Halls of Ba'hai by Archiver, on Flickr

T3 - The Lighthouse Rocks by Archiver, on Flickr

T3 - A Warming Position by Archiver, on Flickr

Interestingly, this was a very compact travel kit. The 400D is a miniscule DSLR, and the Sigma ultra wide zoom of that time is a similarly compact lens. The S70 was on my belt in a pouch, and the T3 in my shoulder bag. Everything fit in a smallish shoulder bag when necessary.
 
Godfrey said:
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
Click to expand...
I really want that Pentax 43 but it's expensive. I should just get the k mount version for my LX.
 
I'd probably take the Leica Q3 with the fixed 28mm f1.7 AF lens. Most of my previous travel images are 28-35mm, and cropping in post-processing or in-camera (better for composing in real time) with the 35mm frame lines would be fine for me. It's not the smallest kit, but having just one camera and lens makes it simple. Zooming to 50mm still gives usable images, but I doubt I would need that for the scenes I shoot.
 
ellisson said:
I'd probably take the Leica Q3 with the fixed 28mm f1.7 AF lens. Most of my previous travel images are 28-35mm, and cropping in post-processing or in-camera (better for composing in real time) with the 35mm frame lines would be fine for me. It's not the smallest kit, but having just one camera and lens makes it simple. Zooming to 50mm still gives usable images, but I doubt I would need that for the scenes I shoot.
Click to expand...
Not a bad idea. An ILC alternative could be a SL body with Voigtlander 28mm f1.5, which could shoot in almost every travel situation except safari or slums.
 
Rob-F said:
Although I have every focal length in M mount from 15mm to 90mm, my go-to is the 35mm, which I think of as the "natural vision" focal length. My 35mm lens just seems to frame the most essential area that I see with my own "natural vision" (my own eyesight)!
Click to expand...

I agree wholeheartedly.

35mm is normal for a human with two eyes with overlapping fields of view, and peripheral vision.

Chris
 
Jbennett68 said:
I really want that Pentax 43 but it's expensive. I should just get the k mount version for my LX.
Click to expand...

splitimageview said:
Oh yeah. The 43 is super nice, just get a cheap SLR body for it if you don't have one. Or...LX. :)
Click to expand...

When I was selling out my Pentax kit in the late '00s, I almost kept one body specifically to be able to keep and use the 43mm f/1.9 Limited lens. I decided that was a bit more trouble than I wanted to deal with ... don't really like carrying two cameras much ... so I hunted and hunted until I found a deal on the LTM mount version of the lens. They're pricey because they only made a short run of them (about 2200 pieces, IIRC) and most were sold in Japan ... and only rarely used, it seems, because most of the ones available seem to be in the box as original with all packaging and paperwork.

Mine was a user: no accessory viewfinder and no box, and I think I paid $700 for it, where most of the others were going for $500 more. It's expensive on a Pentax/Olympus/Nikon scale ... but on a Leica lens scale, it's pretty cheap. ;)

G
 
I also own a Pentax 43mm lens in Leica mount. I hesitate using it on an international travel. It is a hard to find lens at a high cost. I may use this lens anyway as I don’t collect lenses in a safe. Lenses are meant to be used.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom