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

Retro-Grouch said:
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.
Click to expand...

Agree entirely. For several decades I travelled with a Rolleiflex. It did everything I needed and wanted it to. And had the added advantage of while not being exactly super light with film added to the pack, it didn't take up a whole lot of room in my minimalist travel bag (one small Holdall and one backpack). In fact it was lighter and a bit smaller than the Nikon D800 I nowadays take with me.

I last took a 'flex with me in 2011 when I went to Indonesia, Sarawak and Taiwan. This was a black body T with a 16 exposure kit. I left the branded leather case at home and wrapped the TLR in a towel. A strap, a generic hand grip, a lens hood, a UV and an orange filter (I did mostly B&W on that trip) and that was it. Also film, IRRC 40 rolls of mixed color and mono, and that was it. The hard-earned $$ we all spent on film in those days, sigh. Not to forget the endless evenings of scanning we now have to do. Again, sigh.

I love the Rolleis, but as Prest_400 has written the so-called 'standard' (75mm-80mm) lenses on most TLRs may not be the ideal focal length for most travel images. These days they no longer suit me. For general purposes again as Prest_400 has wisely said, a little wider but not too wide is best. I like my Nikon 20 and 24 but they clutter up my landscapes too much, so they are my least used lenses. I go with 28 and 85. The other lenses are there for the 'if' moments, which now rarely happen for me.

For me, happily long gone are the '70s and '80s wanderings I did with multiple format kits. In 1985 I took a Nikkormat and four lenses, a Rollei, and a Linhof 6x7 with two lenses and two bags, also a Linhof tripod which sensibly stayed mostly in my case at my hotels. I've written about this before, so suffices to say I did 90% of my photography with the Nikkormat and 28/3.5 or 35/2.0 lens. The 105/2.5 and 135/3.5 Nikkors saw no use at all and to this day I wonder if I had taken leave of my senses (assuming I then had any senses) to take them along...

The Buddhists say less is more. From my own life experience I've changed that to suit me, to less is less. As it should be. Less is also best, in all ways.
 
Last edited:
When I took a trip to Peru in 1987 I took a Rollei 3.5 E and shot Kodachrome 64 which was then available. I didn't really miss my usual assortment of 6 lenses for my 35 SLR (28-200 primes) and having the camera under my parka to be brought out to use at waist level worked well at a time when theft was a big problem in tourist areas. One pocket of my parka had more K 64 in it; another had the exposed rolls.
 
Definitely a 50mm on a Leica M3. It's what I shoot most of the time, yet I burden myself with too many cameras, lenses and film formats whenever I take a trip. Mostly because I love them all, and photography in general, so much. But the Leica + 50mm I'd miss the most.

Now, WHICH 50 is another question... Probably a Summicron, or a Contax mount Zeiss Sonnar on the Amedeo adapter. The latter is my beach lens, because they are so easy to service should any sand get in. One less worry. Also, the Sonnars are so compact!


IMG_3102.JPG
 
Last edited:
I just came back from a trip to the Japan Sea side area around Ishikawa Prefecture.

I took a Fujifilm X-T5 camera with a Fujinon XF23mm f1.4 lens and a XF16-80mm f4 zoom. I used both about equally during the trip, however, if I could have only taken one lens it would be the 16-80mm zoom; it is so perfect for travel. But, a zoom lens is probably not a suitable answer to the OP’s question so I’d have to say the 23mm which is a FF Eq of 35mm.

My wife used my compact Fujifilm XF10 camera which is a FF Eq of 28mm (f2.8 macro) . It's also a great rig for travel.

Mike
 
There's a lot of variables involved with this. For most stuff an M body with a good 50, a Sonnar or the Amotal would do it. For a guaranteed get a good pic the X2D + XCD 55V, 35mm equiv is 43mm, would be great. For a no-fail anywhere, any focal length the Sony A7M III with the 24 - 240 Sony/Zeiss..

In a way this is like packing a bag for a trip. Where to? How long? In reality, any would work just fine.
 
I like 50mm and 35mm. A normal and a little wider. If I could only take one lens, it would be the 35mm. I'm not opposed to cropping. But I can't go wider if it's not in the image area to begin with.

A 40mm would be a nice compromise.



...........................
 
Yokosuka Mike said:
I just came back from a trip to the Japan Sea side area around Ishikawa Prefecture.

I took a Fujifilm X-T5 camera with a Fujinon XF23mm f1.4 lens and a XF16-80mm f4 zoom. I used both about equally during the trip, however, if I could have only taken one lens it would be the 16-80mm zoom; it is so perfect for travel. But, a zoom lens is probably not a suitable answer to the OP’s question so I’d have to say the 23mm which is a FF Eq of 35mm.

My wife used my compact Fujifilm XF10 camera which is a FF Eq of 28mm (f2.8 macro) . It's also a great rig for travel.

Mike
Click to expand...

Good one. When you get to my age you may well opt for the 18-55. It's - at least I think - as good as the 16-80 or even better if some of the reviews are to be believed (no knifings please, I'm entirely neutral about this), and weight-is it's lighter for me whether in my pack or when using.

My second best Fuji is the 18/2.0 (no knifings please, I'm entirely opinionated about this), which nobody I know really cares for, but it suits me. Sharpening all the images I take with it can be a tad RSI-inducing, but, well.
 
Last edited:
DownUnder said:
Agree entirely. For several decades I travelled with a Rolleiflex. It did everything I needed and wanted it to. And had the added advantage of while not being exactly super light with film added to the pack, it didn't take up a whole lot of room in my minimalist travel bag (one small Holdall and one backpack). In fact it was lighter and a bit smaller than the Nikon D800 I nowadays take with me.

I last took a 'flex with me in 2011 when I went to Indonesia, Sarawak and Taiwan. This was a black body T with a 16 exposure kit. I left the branded leather case at home and wrapped the TLR in a towel. A strap, a generic hand grip, a lens hood, a UV and an orange filter (I did mostly B&W back then) and that was it. Also film, IRRC 40 rolls of mixed color and mono, and that was it. The hard-earned $$ we all spent on film in those days, sigh. Not to forget the endless evenings of scanning we now have to do. Again, sigh.

I love the Rolleis, but as Prest_400 has written the so-called 'standard' (75mm-80mm) lenses on most TLRs may not be the ideal focal length for most travel images. These days they no longer suit me. For general purposes again as Prest_400 has wisely said, a little wider but not too wide is best. I like my Nikon 20 and 24 but they clutter up my landscapes too much, so they are my least used lenses. I go with 28 and 85. The other lenses are there for the 'if' moments, which now rarely happen for me.

For me, happily long gone are the '70s and '80s wanderings I did with multiple format kits. In 1985 I took a Nikkormat and four lenses, a Rollei, and a Linhof 6x7 with two lenses and two bags, also a Linhof tripod which sensibly stayed mostly in my case at my hotels. I've written about this before, so suffices to say I did 90% of my photography with the Nikkormat and 28/3.5 or 35/2.0 lens. The 105/2.5 and 135/3.5 Nikkors saw no use at all and to this day I wonder if I had taken leave of my senses (assuming I then had any senses) to take them along...

The Buddhists say less is more. From my own life experience I've changed that to suit me, to less is less. As it should be. Less is also best, in all ways.
Click to expand...
That is a serious butt-load of cameras to schlepp around! Which gets us to "one lens, one camera". Last time I travelled by plane, back to the East Coast for a vacation (Provincetown, MA), I restricted myself to just the Rollei and a very compact, light-weight carbon fiber travel tripod. A meter, Rolleifix, and cable release rounded things out. It was a revelation! First of all, I arrived relaxed and not exhausted (not much beyond flip-flops and a bathing suit in my luggage); dragging tons of junk through an airport is exhausting for anyone at any age, and at age 72... Second, I did not feel in any way limited by the choice of camera. A very valuable skill I've learned is to "see" in terms of the camera you have in hand, so the frustration of not being able to "get the shot" essentially disappears. The limitation becomes freedom. I highly recommend that everyone try it!
 
Thank you everyone for your replies! It's a tricky thing, because as @boojum mentioned, 'how long? where to?'. My usual overseas trips are to places like Hong Kong, and even in my daily wanderings, I find myself wanting 21, 35 or 50 depending on the situation. Hence, taking those focal lengths for a M body and similar for a m43 body, so I could have the 21 on the M9 and the 25 (50mm equivalent) on the E-M5 or GX85, or vice versa.

Larger kits with more lenses means more hassle and weight, but more flexibility. @Prest_400 mentioned the versatility of a 1 inch sensor compact, and I completely agree. It's available when you don't want to take out a large camera.

@Yokosuka Mike Once upon a time, I did a multiple day overseas trip with a Canon 30D with 16-55 f2.8, the tiny Fuji F30 and the venerable Contax T3. I ended up coming back with a Zeiss Ikon ZM + Biogon 28, but that's another story. But the 30D handled all the high quality things with great versatility, and the F30 did all the subtle things. If I were to go in that direction with the SL2S, I'd have to get the Sigma 28-70 as it is smaller and lighter than the 24-70. As much as I used to walk around with a 5D Mark II + 24-105, I don't want to do that any more.

I'm surprised how many people are happy to travel with a 50! I love the 50mm focal length, but find it too restrictive for travel, as I want to capture as much as my eyes are seeing, if that makes sense. 21-28 suits me well in that regard, but I just love the look of 35mm as a day to day focal length.
 
My last trip was with my Leica & a 28/3.5, 50/1.5 & 90/3.5.

I expect the next time will be with my Pentax K3 and I'll take my DA 15/4, FA 35/2 & DA 70/2.4 for a 22/50/105 FF equivalent. That would be very close to what I loved on Nikon so I expect it would be very fun to me. Knowing me, it would probably be 20%/70%/10% with each of them but I'd really not want to be without any of them.
 
Retro-Grouch said:
That is a serious butt-load of cameras to schlepp around! Which gets us to "one lens, one camera". Last time I travelled by plane, back to the East Coast for a vacation (Provincetown, MA), I restricted myself to just the Rollei and a very compact, light-weight carbon fiber travel tripod. A meter, Rolleifix, and cable release rounded things out. It was a revelation! First of all, I arrived relaxed and not exhausted (not much beyond flip-flops and a bathing suit in my luggage); dragging tons of junk through an airport is exhausting for anyone at any age, and at age 72... Second, I did not feel in any way limited by the choice of camera. A very valuable skill I've learned is to "see" in terms of the camera you have in hand, so the frustration of not being able to "get the shot" essentially disappears. The limitation becomes freedom. I highly recommend that everyone try it!
Click to expand...

This is the essence of my travel experience. It's been awhile, but in my traveling and living-abroad days, I packed a compact, fixed-lens RF (at different times: 2x Olympus 35 RC, Vivitar 35 ES, and Canonet 17 QL GIII), all with a focal length of approximately 40mm. Like Retro-Grouch says above, I just thought and visualized in terms of what I had. That may be one of the benefits of a camera with a fixed focal length. If interchangeable lenses aren't an option, I don't think about other focal lengths or wish I had brought other lenses. What I have is what I use, and it just works without second thoughts. (That is perhaps a bit wordy for a simple concept.)

- Murray
 
It would be a 40mm lens since it is the most versatile focal length for general purpose (for me). The question would be, risking film at the security gates of airports or bringing a digital camera and no joy of developing film later. Recently, I am thinking about bringing a small developing tank etc. with me and buying chemicals locally if possible instead of thinking about what lenses I possibly would miss during my trip.
 
Retro-Grouch said:
That is a serious butt-load of cameras to schlepp around! Which gets us to "one lens, one camera". Last time I travelled by plane, back to the East Coast for a vacation (Provincetown, MA), I restricted myself to just the Rollei and a very compact, light-weight carbon fiber travel tripod. A meter, Rolleifix, and cable release rounded things out. It was a revelation! First of all, I arrived relaxed and not exhausted (not much beyond flip-flops and a bathing suit in my luggage); dragging tons of junk through an airport is exhausting for anyone at any age, and at age 72... Second, I did not feel in any way limited by the choice of camera. A very valuable skill I've learned is to "see" in terms of the camera you have in hand, so the frustration of not being able to "get the shot" essentially disappears. The limitation becomes freedom. I highly recommend that everyone try it!
Click to expand...

Tell me about it, I know, I know. In those long ago days I had more muscle than brains.

My first love is still film, but now I find a digital Nikon and one or two lenses, suffices for all I want to do photographically. Usually the 28/2.8 D is fairly stuck on my D800, with an 85/1.8 D in the backpack, little used but it's there when I want to do close-ups of bees' tonsils or market shots in Indonesia without peering down the sellers' noses.

I do miss the GODs when a Rolleiflex, a few bits and pieces, some film and that was it, did it all for me. Now the cost of film makes it prohibitive for me to cart a TLR around Asia. Age, has wearied me and while the D800 is no feather weight, it's a helluva lot better than a Linhof, two film backs and three lenses plus a TLR plus a Nikkormat kit. Young and foolish indeed, but I still think, why did I ever...
 
Last edited:
Retro-Grouch said:
A very valuable skill I've learned is to "see" in terms of the camera you have in hand,
Click to expand...
An important aspect. I do this automatically, and never feel limitations because I only look for subjects doable with the given equipment.

When travelling it´s nice to have flexibility, so I choose a zoom lens on my Fujifilm X-E3, 16-80 or 18-135. For the 135 film camera joining in it would be 50mm. On Travels b/w-film is complementary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom