ktmrider
Well-known
Hey guys, the point of the thread is about traveling with limited space and weight due to 200 miles of hiking. If I was home, I would not only have access to five lenses for the M but a couple SLR's and a medium format kit. When I travel around the US, it is usually by car and thus I am not limited by the amount of gear I can haul.
If I really wanted to go super light, I would take the X100 and leave everything else at home. So I can't take the kitchen sink but I can take more then the X100. Am trying to figure out the best compromise without killing myself by taking the kitchen sink. I used to carry a couple Nikon F's with 24/85 and 200 hiking in the mountains of Colorado and Alaska. That was when I was 24 and a captain in the Marines. Now, I am 62 and not quite as gung ho as I used to be (perhaps more sense comes with age.)
I know everyone shoots differently and everyone varies in the amount and type of equipment they are willing to travel with. People have already advised me to leave the M9 at home because it is too heavy or expensive. Well, I did not buy it to have it sit on my desk. I use the 21 somewhat but am not sure I use it enough to justify carrying it on a 3 month trip, hence the question.
We will be in cities in Spain, Portugal, Italy, Malta and Morocco. Old European cities seem to have narrow and restricted streets to me thus the 35 not the 50. Is the 35 wide enough or will I miss a shorter focal length? If I want a 28 or 24, then I would have to take the R6.2 as I have nothing in the M kit between 21 and 35 and really don't see myself buying another focal length.
For years, my standard kit with any M was a 35 and 90 combo. I just returned from motorcycling for a month in Laos and my kit was M9 with 21/50/90 and probably used the 50 for most of the shooting. Honestly, it comes down to a flip of the coin between which I like better, the 35 or 50 so I am not worried about which of those to take. And the 90 does not get used much but is always used on every trip. Can't say the same thing for the 21.
If I really wanted to go super light, I would take the X100 and leave everything else at home. So I can't take the kitchen sink but I can take more then the X100. Am trying to figure out the best compromise without killing myself by taking the kitchen sink. I used to carry a couple Nikon F's with 24/85 and 200 hiking in the mountains of Colorado and Alaska. That was when I was 24 and a captain in the Marines. Now, I am 62 and not quite as gung ho as I used to be (perhaps more sense comes with age.)
I know everyone shoots differently and everyone varies in the amount and type of equipment they are willing to travel with. People have already advised me to leave the M9 at home because it is too heavy or expensive. Well, I did not buy it to have it sit on my desk. I use the 21 somewhat but am not sure I use it enough to justify carrying it on a 3 month trip, hence the question.
We will be in cities in Spain, Portugal, Italy, Malta and Morocco. Old European cities seem to have narrow and restricted streets to me thus the 35 not the 50. Is the 35 wide enough or will I miss a shorter focal length? If I want a 28 or 24, then I would have to take the R6.2 as I have nothing in the M kit between 21 and 35 and really don't see myself buying another focal length.
For years, my standard kit with any M was a 35 and 90 combo. I just returned from motorcycling for a month in Laos and my kit was M9 with 21/50/90 and probably used the 50 for most of the shooting. Honestly, it comes down to a flip of the coin between which I like better, the 35 or 50 so I am not worried about which of those to take. And the 90 does not get used much but is always used on every trip. Can't say the same thing for the 21.
segedi
RFicianado
I'm visiting France at the end of summer and plan to pack the 35mm MS Optical Super Perar and a CV 15mm, both are fairly tiny. Last time I was in Europe, I never went wider than a 50mm, but that's my preference. I could take only 35 or only 50mm and be happy. I'd be more inclined to do 21 and 50 in your shoes, but that's me.
It might help to slap on a 21mm and find some cramped quarters, I don't know El Paso very well, but take it into a supermarket and shoot the aisles if that's as narrow as it gets. See if it's useful in general. Get a feel for the focal length and how it works for you before deciding.
But I think your 35/90mm minimum kit is what you'll end up taking as it seems to fit you and your needs best.
It might help to slap on a 21mm and find some cramped quarters, I don't know El Paso very well, but take it into a supermarket and shoot the aisles if that's as narrow as it gets. See if it's useful in general. Get a feel for the focal length and how it works for you before deciding.
But I think your 35/90mm minimum kit is what you'll end up taking as it seems to fit you and your needs best.
mfogiel
Veteran
For street shooting in old cities, I find 28mm to be just right, but given that M9 has some nice resolution, take the 21mm and you can crop later. I normally go out with a 28/50 set of lenses.
Addy101
Well-known
It depends.... not only is a ultra wide useful in tight spaces, it also gives a distinctive look, I like that look, you may not.
When you write cities in Spain, Portugal and Morocco I think old Moorish cities, when you write Italian cities I think renaissance cities and Malta, well, medieval. A 21mm would surely be useful. It probably would be the lens I use the most in those circumstances. And I wouldn't use a 35, but 50mm, but that's just me.
Anyway, bring your 21mm, there for sure will be circumstances where it would be useful. Consider leaving the 90mm at home.
When you write cities in Spain, Portugal and Morocco I think old Moorish cities, when you write Italian cities I think renaissance cities and Malta, well, medieval. A 21mm would surely be useful. It probably would be the lens I use the most in those circumstances. And I wouldn't use a 35, but 50mm, but that's just me.
Anyway, bring your 21mm, there for sure will be circumstances where it would be useful. Consider leaving the 90mm at home.
__--
Well-known
This echoes my all time favorite thread title, found some years ago on the photo.net Leica forum, "Going to Cracow, what film should I take?" 'Nuff said?
MITCH ALLAND/Potomac, MD
Do You Know What is Really Real?
Download link for PDF file of 16-shot portfolio
jbielikowski
Jan Bielikowski
Oh c'moan "going to Europe"="narrow streets of old cities" its obvious.
Take it, definitely.
Take it, definitely.
Highway 61
Revisited
Mitch, for going to Cracow back in the time of Pope John-Paul II, you had to take holy film.
Pete B
Well-known
I went to Cuba with just a 35. I missed having a 50 occasionally. I didn't miss anything wider particularly. Even trekking in the Canadian Rockies I rarely reached for the 21. My 21 is the SEM so is larger and heavier than your Voigt. I'd be tempted to take it, but I wouldn't expect to reach for it. In Paris, Rome and Venice, I rarely used my 24.
Pete
Pete
Austerby
Well-known
It will be useful, not just for narrow streets but for architecture, views from vantage points, interiors etc etc. I find a 21mm invaluable in many places, not just Europe.
Addy101
Well-known
Why would you say "even"? I find that often a longer lens is better suited for that kind environment. This, however, is about European and North African cities, where, IMHO, a 21mm is very useful.
Highway 61
Revisited
The world is divided into ten categories : people who understand binary language, and people who don't.
Pete B
Well-known
In my mind I was thinking trying to fit vast vistas and high peaks into the frame, for example Peyto Lake from the top of the pass. I didn't feel I needed to use the 21mm.
It's obvious that some photographers are very at home with 24/21mm. I confess that I'm not one of those people. I don't know how to use the 21 to it's full advantage. All too often I end up with too much sky, too much foreground, or too much detail crammed in. I look at the work of the Turkish photographer Ara Guler, who I believe used a 21mm super angulon, and it all looks so easy. I've yet to master it.
Pete
02Pilot
Malcontent
I can only offer my own limited experience, but my standard kit is 35/50/90 and I found it worked reasonably well in tight European city back streets as well as more open areas. I know many people feel the 35 and 50 are close enough to be an either/or choice, but I'm not one of those. I'm comfortable with the kit I normally use, and I was able to make it work effectively in those conditions; there were times I wished for something else (wider or longer), but if you don't have it in the bag you don't spend much time worrying about it. If you work well with a 35/90 or 50/90 combo, why not just go with that and keep it simple?
Merlijn53
Established
That's what I've been thinking all the time reading this thread
Everybody has his own answer on this kind of questions, just do what you feel is right and you can't go wrong.
(Btw, I live in Europe, visited a lot of cities and always carry a 21 or even wider)
Frank
waileong
Well-known
If it's so super small, just bring it. You can carry it in a pocket, what's the big deal?
Highway 61
Revisited
Keep in mind that most European countries have now adopted the metric system. Will a 21mm lens frame the same way as it does on those pesky Anglo-Saxon soils ?
Sparrow
Veteran
Keep in mind that most European countries have now adopted the metric system. Will a 21mm lens frame the same way as it does on those pesky Anglo-Saxon soils ?
... there is often a larger circle of confusion here in the UK ... and I'm not even sure they work in Europe
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Given all you've said, and all that everyone else has said, the only person who is going to be able to decide this is you.
Adding the 21mm to what you carry will amount to a 2x2 inch cylindrical package and ~6 oz weight. If you feel that it isn't worth carrying that just in case you might want it, done.
If I were contemplating a trip like yours, I would. I'd leave something else behind...
G
shortstop
Well-known
I'm italian so I know how streets are here. Some large or medium sized and others narrow. 28 is enough in narrow streets. So, to me the lighter combo woul be 28/50. But you don't have 28. The lightest solution would be only the 35, fast if possible, for interiors. How many photos lost without a 28 or wider? Few, very few. How many in the indecision of taking with one or another focal lenght? Surely more. If your mind concentrates in only one field of view, will take more and more good shots (at least this is my opinion). 50 mm (apparently too near to 35) would be useful in many portraits(it is not a medium tele, but nice anyway for portraits and smaller than a 90) and has the advantage that is more universal than 90 so can be leaved on your M9. If M Leicas would have a 40 mm frame and would exist a 40 1,4 leica lens I think this would be the lightest and most balanced solution in Europe too. But this is another matter...
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Such a lens does exist. It just doesn't come from Leica. It's the 40/1.4 Cosina Voigtlander. It's ideally suited, almost a perfect match, for the slightly undersized 35mm frameline of the M6/M7/MP. I have used this lens on my M7 in Europe, and found it more useful there than the 50.
Shortstop and I are on tHe same page in finding the 28mm (and I would include 24 or 25mm in this) as being adequate for the narrow streets. But since the OP apparently does not have a 28, but does have a 21, he should bring it. It won't go to waste!