Usefulness of 21 in Europe

[SolaresLarrave]

In my last trip to Europe I took my 35-90 combo. In the end, I never changed lenses. For my next trip, it's been decided that I'm going with my 35mm lens; everything else can stay behind.

 

[David Hughes]

OK, my daughter and I leave for 90 days in Europe and North Africa in four days. The bags are packed and include the M9 with 21f4 Skopar, 35f2.8 C Biogon and 90f2.8 Tele Elmarit M. All in all a nice small kit.

I have decided to leave the new MacBook Pro at home and just take the tablet. Have lots of SD cards. My daughter refuses to carry the X100 (claims it is too big).

So, if I want a back up, it comes down to the M2 or X100. I really like the M2 as it is one of the smoothest Leicas I have ever handled. Am tempted to take it and start the trip with ten rolls of TriX or HP5. The X100 is a fine camera but am leaning toward the M2 or just traveling with the M9.

Hi,

How about you taking the M9 and half your lens collection and your daughter takes the M2 and the other M lenses? No back-up problems then but I'll leave you to do the persuading...

The M2 being a good choice as "no batteries required" imo. It's one of the reasons I often take the Olympus Trip 35 on my travels.

Regards, David

 

[Spider67]

I would take it. In some older cities it can be tight in small streets.

I second that. When I was in the City of Rhodes or in Old Plovdiv (in Bulgaria) the 21 came in quite Handy.

Best regards
Des

 

[leica M2 fan]

In 2008 in Barcelona and Paris all I had was a 28 for my OM4 and I found not only did they astound me but that the 28 gives me what I "see". I used on a later trip a 25 and it was just as nice. Did not use 35 or 50 at all because i was traveling very light.

 

[jsrockit]

Your 21mm lens will be as important to your photography and your style in Europe or Africa just as it is in North America or any other continent. No more, no less.

I'm not so sure this is the case. It depends on what you photograph and how much room you have to photograph. I know when I was in Japan I felt I needed to go wider than the lenses I typically use in NYC due to the roads being narrow at times.

 

[pagpow]

I'm not so sure this is the case. It depends on what you photograph and how much room you have to photograph. I know when I was in Japan I felt I needed to go wider than the lenses I typically use in NYC due to the roads being narrow at times.

+1, I am not a wide angle person, but back streets and alleys in Europe have pushed me to get wider lenses, not for their ability to manipulate perspective but simply to take in some of the view in narrow thoroughfares. How wide you need is up to you, but I did find it useful to have wider than I use in the States.

 

[FrankS]

I'd take the 21 and leave the 90, but that's just me.

 

[ktmrider]

Lenses Settled But Not Backup Option

Lenses Settled But Not Backup Option

Lens mix is settled: 21/35/ and 90. All are small and sharp. Am trying to decide if I want to throw an M2 with TriX into the mix. Thinking not but still on the fence.

 

[Bob Michaels]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Michaels
Your 21mm lens will be as important to your photography and your style in Europe or Africa just as it is in North America or any other continent. No more, no less.

JWRockit replies: I'm not so sure this is the case. It depends on what you photograph and how much room you have to photograph. I know when I was in Japan I felt I needed to go wider than the lenses I typically use in NYC due to the roads being narrow at times

Bob says: Once again, I am the outlier here who views wide angles for their perspective and not their Field of View. The FOV can usually (but not always) be compensated by using the "foot zoom". I like wide angles for their perspective or the sense of actually being in the scene. That is a stylistic choice unrelated to location.

Example: my girlfriend and her cousin butchering a pig. Would it look the same if I had a normal lens and stepped back some?

Or, these guys waiting to board the train with their live baggage?

 

[ktmrider]

Update

Update

Have been in Scotland a week and on the West Highland Way five days. Have not removed the 35 C Biogon from the camera. I swear this country is grey and green as I have not seen the sun since leaving Texas.

Beautiful terrain and lovely people but hiking 14 to 19 miles a day is kicking my butt. Am in bed by 8 each evening and am looking forward to seen something of Scotland man made (castles etc).

 

[fotomeow]

if you dont take the li'l CV 21mm, you'll be kicking yourself for 90 days ......

 

[ktmrider]

Both the 21 and 90 are in the pack. Neither has been on the camera yet.

 

[ktmrider]

Thoughts Four Weeks In

Thoughts Four Weeks In

My daughter and I have been traveling a little over four weeks so I thought I would update this thread. We hiked 151 km on the West Highland Way, explored a lot more of Scotland, spent a few days in London and Lisbon and are presently about 50 km in the Camino de Santiago.

For Scotland, the 35 pretty much lived on the M9. I think I used the 90 once for deer and the 21 for landscape on the Isle of Skye. In London and Lisbon, the 35 again dominated. Now we are on the Camino and not a lot of photography (weather and light has sucked).

In Scotland, we had a baggage service haul our bags while we hiked. Here on the Camino, we are carrying our backpacks with gear for three months in Europe and I am hating the M9 wishing it was my X100. The M9 is small for a full frame but light it is not. Am sure I will enjoy it again once we reach the end of the Camino in three days and we head toward Grenada and then Istanbul at the end of the month.

And I am very grateful I chose to repace the 35f1.2 Nokton with the Zeiss 35f2.8 C Biogon!!!

And I was going to pick up a Billingham bag in London but the prices are identical at B and H.

 

[ktmrider]

Notes from the Trip

Notes from the Trip

Well, my trip is winding down leaving Italy in ten days for home. Am still learning to use the M9 but that is my limitation, not the camera. The 35f2.8 C Biogon has been responsible for 90 per cent of the photos with the 21 and 90 splitting the remaining ten per cent equally. I would also have had no problem using my 50 instead of the 35.

Have not had a chance to view the images yet. I guess I will be doing more learning in LR on the new Apple Mac Pro which showed up a week before I left the US in August.

I spent time in each city walking around with just the 21 on the camera. It forced me into a new way of looking so I am glad I brought it. Next trip I will throw the M2 and some TriX into the mix. And I wish I had brought a small shoulder bag as it is much easier to operate from then a knapsack. I left it at home in the interest of traveling light.

And I also could have been happy just with my X100. There were a few times hiking in Scotland and Spain that I cursed thhe M9's weight. And traveling with such an expensive camera caused a bit of paranoia. But all things considered, the M9 will be along on my next trip (motorcycling in either Vietnam or Philipinnes about February).

 

[SolaresLarrave]

I know the feeling... But in my case, the cursing came from walking about with a Nikon D700 and a 24-70 lens. My M4-2 was so much lighter in comparison... BTW, this was in the old streets of Toledo, Spain.

Glad that the 35mm lens is working out for you! 🙂

 

[kubilai]

You are not a photographer if you ignore the powerfulness of a well handled wide angle.

 

[Canyongazer]

"I am the outlier here who views wide angles for their perspective and not their Field of View.... I like wide angles for their perspective or the sense of actually being in the scene. That is a stylistic choice...."

Bob, that's because you understand how different focal lengths work re: the foreground/background relationship.

 

[michaelwj]

Well, my trip is winding down leaving Italy in ten days for home. Am still learning to use the M9 but that is my limitation, not the camera. The 35f2.8 C Biogon has been responsible for 90 per cent of the photos with the 21 and 90 splitting the remaining ten per cent equally. I would also have had no problem using my 50 instead of the 35.

Have not had a chance to view the images yet. I guess I will be doing more learning in LR on the new Apple Mac Pro which showed up a week before I left the US in August.

I spent time in each city walking around with just the 21 on the camera. It forced me into a new way of looking so I am glad I brought it. Next trip I will throw the M2 and some TriX into the mix. And I wish I had brought a small shoulder bag as it is much easier to operate from then a knapsack. I left it at home in the interest of traveling light.

And I also could have been happy just with my X100. There were a few times hiking in Scotland and Spain that I cursed thhe M9's weight. And traveling with such an expensive camera caused a bit of paranoia. But all things considered, the M9 will be along on my next trip (motorcycling in either Vietnam or Philipinnes about February).

I'd just like to thank you for the updates on what worked and what didn't. All too often the "what to take on holiday" threads have no follow up.

I find it interesting that you feel a 50 would have replaced the 35, even though they are quite different. I have a feeling that this is a bit of "make what you have work"? I traveled Italy with a 50, but would have made a 35 work if that's what I had. That you would have been okay with just the X100 follows this train of thought maybe?

Enjoy your next trip!
Michael

 

[ktmrider]

Feedback

Feedback

Michael, on 35 vs 50 I enjoy both and yes I feel I can make either one work although neither focal length is always optimum. Since the 35 was used for about 90 percent of the photos, the X100 would have been a good substitute. I have been using Leica M bodies since 1975 but use other cameras as well and continue to do so.

 

[benji77]

I look forward to your images ktmrider! I wish I could travel with the 'less is more' mantra, but it is....difficult!