Vacation with 50mm only: is it possible?

[Bob Michaels]

The "one body, one lens, no backup" is also a personal thing. If you are going on vacation where the vacation aspect is primary and photography is secondary you can live with an equipment malfunction. But if photography is the main reason you are going, don't risk being somewhere remote for an extended time period with no functioning camera.

Clarification: when I travel to photograph, I leave every morning with just one body, one lens, pocket full of film and use it all day. The backup body and lens stays somewhere secure where I am staying at night. The backup almost always never gets unpacked.

 

[ampguy]

I think it will be fine. I usually go with a 28 or 35 with the M8 and both are fine, so a 40 or 50 on film should be good for most stuff.

 

[BillBingham2]

These days I'm living with a 28/1.9 quite happily. I think I could be quite happy with a 50. I started out serious photo life with a fixed 48mm and have to say I had a great time shooting trips and events and even a candid or two. Did I miss stuff, heck yes. But I got a lot of great stuff.

There is no single lens that will do everything well. You need to look at it not from what it will not do, but what it will do. A good 50 is a great lens that will allow you to do a lot of different things. Would carrying say a 25 with your 50 open up opportunities to you heck yes. But it might be worth the challenge to shoot just with a 50.

Go for it!

B2 (;->

 

[cnphoto]

I think for my next trip, i'll be taking the M3 with a 50mm F2 and the XPan with 45mm.

that should cover most things, gives me a 'wide' (panoramic) and the 50mm for lower light shooting.

My partner will probably take the LX3 and carry that around with her, so that's kind of a digital backup for me too I guess. I might put the XA in her bag too, so she shoots some film and I have a faster wide-ish lens 😉

 

[Morca007]

Of course it's possible.

For example, I recently spent a month in Argentina with two 35mm cameras, each fitted with only 50s.

 

[shyoon]

I spent 3 months traveling around Europe with nothing but a cheap Panasonic digital point and shoot which had a 24mm f2.8 equivalent lens. Obviously wasn't an ideal situation, but it sufficed. Got some decent pictures from it as well.

On future trips, I wouldn't hesitate taking only my M4 + 35mm Summicron.

 

[telemetre]

Surely it is possible. Having only used 50mm lenses, here are my observations:

Confined spaces (narrow streets, building interiors) require something wider (35 or 28 maybe, no way to calculate).

Landscapes, especially mountains, require something longer (every time I've been in the mountains I wish I had a 90-135 lens, which my later calculations support). Anything else, medium sized things (humans) in medium distances, 50mm works fine for me.

Most of these were already mentioned but just wanted to share my experience.

 

[kossi008]

I did that on my very first vacation with a camera. I was in school and could only afford an AT-1 with a 50/1.8. It really helps your composition.

Nowadays, I'm more of a 35 mm guy when it comes to a single lens. Two lenses is 28/50 and three is 21/35/75 for me.

I leave the house everyday with my Zeiss Ikon and one single lens. It's always another of the above-mentioned 5 FLs, and I find it invigorating rather than limiting... But when I go on vacation, it's most likely going to be the two- or three-lens combo...

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Derek,

An old friend, long deceased, always reckoned there was no point in taking a holiday unless he could take his camera. I'm inclined to agree. A lot depends on how serious you are about photography. There's no moral judgement there - plenty of people don't take pictures at all - but personally I can't imagine not taking a camera (or rather, I can imagine it, which is why I wouldn't do it).

As for which lens, here's another vote for 35mm: my pre-aspheric Summilux probaby accounts for 90% of my pictures. Like Bob, I always take a backup camera, and like Bob, I see no sense in duplicating focal lengths, but unlike Bob, I carry both: 35mm and 75mm.

Personally I'd normally carry a wide-angle (21mm, 18mm or 15mm) as well as those two, because it doesn't take up much space and it doesn't eat much.

But to answer your question, yes, I have travelled with one camera and one 50mm lens (Elmar on IIIa - it was many years ago) and no, I don't really think I 'missed' any pictures. You shoot with what you've got, after all.

Cheers,

R.

 

[wiedo]

I did go to Japan with only several Yashica Electro's (45mm) (and a iPhone). It was good for almost all situations for me (except inside shots sometimes). It didn't feel as limited, because you just know your limits and you will get very creative experimenting inside those limits.

You can see the results on my website: http://wiedo.nl

 

[alan davus]

I travelled for 7 years in the '70's with one camera and one 50mm lens. Looking at the Kodachromes after 30 odd years, did I miss out on anything by not not carrying more? Nup!!. If I was setting out today would I do any thing different ? Probably debate with myself whether to take a 35 instead of the 50 then take the 50.

 

[pvdhaar]

I recently went skiiing with only a 25 and a 50. The 50 proved to be the most practical in the mountains and also saw the most use. What's more, after I got the prints back, I found that the pictures that came out best were all taken with the 50..

I'm seriously thinking about taking the 50 only with me during my summer holidays. Although I suspect that eventually I'll cave in and take both along; have the 50 on the camera, and the 25 in the bag for when I really can't fit the subject in the frame...

 

[raid]

Right now as I am visiting Cairo, I am mainly using a 5cm 1.5 but have with me a 25mm 4 lens that I sometimes use for a different perspective. It is a very good set of lenses to have. It covers fast and slow lenses, standard and wide perspectives. Both lenses are sharp and relatively light, when compared with SLR lenses. The 50mm lens allows me to get closer to people's faces without distortion. The 25mm lens allows me to include entire scenes and "life" around me when I take walks in narrow raods.

 

[FrankS]

Well of course it is possible. Whether or not it is desireable or not depends completely on the individual's style of shooting, expectations, etc.

For me personally, I would not go on vacation (which implies travelling a distance to a location that I normally do not get to) without 2 bodies. Two bodies gives you backup in case one fails, and flexibility to use different film (either B+W with colour, or fast/slow B+W) or the flexibility to use 2 different focal lengths without the need to switch lenses on a single body. With 2 bodies then, I naturally carry at least 2 different focal lengths, usually 3: 20/28/50, 21/35/50, or 28/50/100 depending on which camera system I choose to take. (Nikon, Leica, or Olympus)

Of course this is a personal choice, but this is what works for me. Find what works for you. If it is something different, then fine, no problem. I wouldn't try to force my choices onto others.

 

[peter_n]

I've never done it, but it's entirely possible. I'd make sure the lens was fast so f1.4, and has a closest focus of 0.7M.

 

[Steve M.]

It's not only possible I would recommend it. I used to travel w/ an SLR and a medium range zoom, but one time took just a small Konica C 35 camera w/ a 38mm lens and those were the best travel photos ever. Think about it. When you're traveling, most of your shots are going to be of landscape or buildings. A zoom isn't the right lens for that. If you and the squeeze are in a bar, public square, or restaurant and want a photo of yourselves, the 50mm or wider is the lens you need.

When we travel now I just take a little digital P&S because of the obvious problem w/ travel photos. What looked new and exciting when you were there look old and uninteresting at home. We seldom if ever look at our travel photos, and I suspect most people don't. I prefer to remember being there I guess. It's more vivid.

 

[back alley]

i would not want to.

i rarely head out with only one lens locally, if i'm heading out to to do some shooting.

i do carry only one lens as a daily carry camera, and that lens changes depending on mood.

 

[muser53]

😉 Ask the Ghost of HCB.

 

[Vics]

In 2008 My wife and I took a long trip around France, and I had nothing but a Leica M3 and a 50mm collapsable 'cron. The good news is it's a very light way to travel and that it really frees you to concentrate on the picture. Best way to go!
Vic

 

[batterytypehah!]

I suppose you don't mean the question quite literally. Of course it's possible, it's what millions of families did for decades.

But then they usually couldn't afford more than one fixed-lens camera. That certainly has changed. Today, I'm with FrankS above. Two bodies minimum, for backup, film flexibility, minimizing lens changes. It's part of why I shoot RF. A modest two body kit is still less to carry than most SLRs with a zoom. At a minimum, I would throw in something like an Oly XA or Minox 35 to have a wider choice, at negligible extra bulk.