Vacation with 50mm only: is it possible?

[David Hughes]

Although I had no choice and had to take the 50mm that came with the camera for years I was very glad when I could afford a wide and then a portrait lens.

Sometimes the detail is important and you need the 85/90mm for it (and for portraits) and sometimes the wider view is needed and then the 28/35m is useful.

A two lens outfit is best for travel, perhaps, if you are only interested in faces and places but I still prefer a zoom for its versatility. OTOH, going back to places I like and visit a lot a prime works nicely, say an Olympus XA or Konica A4...

Regards, David

 

[Ccoppola82]

I don’t know how I happened upon this thread from 2010. Likely reading while tired and didn’t realize it was almost a decade old. Sorry about that! Still, interesting.

 

[taemo]

back in 2010 I commented Yes to 50mm

in 2018 I would take a 50 / 21 combo
or if just one a 35... 😛. 🙂

Funny enough we are leaving for Hawaii in 7 days, I'm thinking of keeping my gear simple and only bring my 50mm and 21mm.
Thinking of swapping the 50mm with a 40mm if wanting something smaller and wider.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

I wish there was a good W-Nikkor in the 50mm focal length for the Nikonos.

Phil Forrest

 

[ColSebastianMoran]

I remember the days when 50 was the default, and that was my lens in many instances.

Now... If only one lens, it would be 35 equivalent. I think it let's me get the whole scene more of the time. Small groups. Scenery. A building.

The 50 pushes me tighter, sometimes that works, but if only one lens, 35.

Next addition for me is a short tele for portraits. 35 and 80 equivalents, this is my always-ready camera bag these days.

 

[Ronald M]

Years ago someone presented a trip to China. Afterwards he was asked what lenses and he scoffed a 50.

In college a presentation was made from Switzerland. Contaflex and 50 and slide film. They were gorgeous.

When contests were made in Leica Photography (1960`s) , tabulations were made
and far and away 50 was the most used lens.

Walther Benser`s book from 1965 had 90% 50, a sprinkling of 35 and 90.

I am ,moving back to 50 from a bag full of glass.

 

[Finglas]

Around the time this thread originally started in 2010 - I spent over 5 months in Costa Rica and Panama. I had travelled for previous 15 years always with 2 lens (usually a zoom and one prime).

In 2010 I got rid of all the zooms and never missed them.

The trip in 2010 was one camera one lens, A Nikon FE and the 50mm f1.8 series E lens that I had since 1982. Film was Sensia slide film and also 100asa Reala.
All colour - so I agree, 1 camera and 1x 50mm lens it works very well.


Another thread recently wondered if RFF was still relevant? Bringing back an old thread like this and breathing fresh life into it, proves RFF has staying power.


John

 

[Dave Jenkins]

[FONT=&quot]“Forcing yourself to use restricted means is the sort of restraint that liberates invention. It obliges you to make a kind of progress that you can’t even imagine in advance.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] -- Picasso[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]“The enemy of art is the absence of limitations.”
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]-- Orson Welles[/FONT]

 

[splitimageview]

On a recent trip I took 18, 50, and 135 equivalents.

The 50 was used for a couple of shots, the others for thousands.

I didn’t take the 50 on another trip the following month and didn’t miss it.

If I had to take only one lens tho, it would be the 50.

 

[kxl]

back in 2010 I commented Yes to 50mm

in 2018 I would take a 50 / 21 combo
or if just one a 35... 😛. 🙂

Same here - back in 2010, a CV 35/1.2 on an Epson Rd1s

In 2018, a 23mm on a Fuji XT2.

 

[Bolo Kukus]

The uber-retro bearded bespectacled young gentleman with the Kodak Retina definitely has the right idea!!

Not so many decades ago, everyone except dedicated Rolleiflex owners and those few zillionaires who could afford Leica kits, traveled that way.Even in the '90s, I often saw older tourists with Retinas, Continas, Voigtlander Vitos and ancient Zeiss folders, happily shooting away, often with B&W film. My grandfather went to Europe in 1939 with a Nettar folder and photographed everything he saw with its f/6.3 lens, a yellow-green filter and (the original ortho) Verichrome film. I inherited his several hundred negatives from that journey, the only one he made out of Canada, and they print well to this day, even if the skies tend to be washed out.

The Kodak Retina post reminded me that I have, somewhere at home, a 1954 iic with the perfectly usable f/2.8 (not as zippy as the f/2, but that's how it is) Xenon, a 35 and an 85, and the Flash Gordon era universal viewfinder Kodak made for this wonderful camera. I must send it off to that fellow in New Zealand who restores and services Retinas, and put it to good use. In time one of my stepgrandkids may want to go on shooting with it, so I want it to be in the best possible nick.

One of my former neighbors in Tasmania at age 78 went on a once in a lifetime, round-the-world trip earlier this year, with a Canonet 28 I found in a charity shop and had serviced for her - it needed only the original seals replaced and some minor tweaking to the exposure system, nothing else, so not expensive. I bought her 40 rolls of Fuji color negative film from Vanbar's in Mebourne, and off she went. She was away three months in all and she used 22 rolls, all perfectly exposed. As older photographers tend to do, she made every image matter, and some of her landscapes of Japan, the American Southwest and the Calabria region of Italy, all of which she loved, are among her best. Well worth framing and putting up on her walls, which she plans to do.

Surely in our stressed-out overtechnoeverything age, the minimalist way is best. Whether film or digital, the less gear we carry, more likely the better the actual journey will be. Which should be the true purpose of travel anyway.

 

[maigo]

Spring 2018 I went with my family (wife, 3yr, 8yr) to Malaysia, Singapore and Japan for five weeks.
I took my R4M with CV15/4.5, CV25/4, CV35/1.7-M, Canon 50/1.4 and GA645.

I forgot the 15 finder (brought the 25!), and used the 15 and 50 for a total of 6 shots. The 25 for about one roll worth of shots and the 35 for about 10 rolls.
I ran about 8 rolls through the GA645.

The shots I took were mostly street scenes and scenery around landmarks. If I were to travel without young children then I would use the 50 more often because I could watch a scene for longer time and move in closer to make pictures of people.

Michael.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[o-Tom-atic]

I used a 40mm for my trip in Europe. Wider than an 50mm. But for travel, landscapes and architecture I still prefer the 35mm. For portraits and general photography the 50mm is the one I use.

 

[Contarama]

Vacation I'm taking my whole kit and then end up using only one or two lenses most of the time. If I'm going anywhere I'm taking everything. My kit is very refined and compact for what all it can do.

Bottom line though...I pledge allegiance to the fast fifty

 

[robert blu]

...She was away three months in all and she used 22 rolls, all perfectly exposed. As older photographers tend to do, she made every image matter, and some of her landscapes of Japan, the American Southwest and the Calabria region of Italy, all of which she loved, are among her best. Well worth framing and putting up on her walls, which she plans to do.

Surely in our stressed-out overtechnoeverything age, the minimalist way is best. Whether film or digital, the less gear we carry, more likely the better the actual journey will be. Which should be the true purpose of travel anyway.

Great story, thanks for sharing.
And yes, +1 for the minimalist approach.
If 50 or 35 or...it only depends on individual shooting styles.
robert

 

[Russell W. Barnes]

For years I went around with a 40mm 'pancake' f2.8 'wide' standard lens on the front of my Pentax MX and nothing else. I managed fine, and the slimness of the lens was a real travel bonus. I still only use three prime lenses between my Pentax MX & ME super and I can't be on with zooms.

One lens means you have to appreciate more what you are about to photograph because you need to move about looking at it to frame it correctly and are not standing there fumbling about in your pockets or bag for that 28mm or 85mm or whatever whilst the light on your potential subject changes for the worse.

 

[Roger Hicks]

... One lens means you have to appreciate more what you are about to photograph because you need to move about looking at it to frame it correctly and are not standing there fumbling about in your pockets or bag for that 28mm or 85mm or whatever whilst the light on your potential subject changes for the worse.

Exactly. You're always going to miss some shots for one reason or another, and I'd rather not miss them changing lenses.

The point about looking, moving and thinking is important too.

For decades my standard lens was a 35 Summilux. Now, my 50 C-Sonnar sees as much use. But I rarely switch between them when I'm out shooting. In fact I rarely even carry both of them when I'm out shooting.

Cheers,

R.

 

[olifaunt]

If 50 mm is your natural field of vision, I would say go for it.

I used to us a 28 mm but my compositions sucked, and the common advice of zooming with your feet really doesn't work for the most part because it destroys perspective in compositions that have any depth; i.e., moving closer or further only works if everything in the intended image is at the same distance. It also makes you lose the decisive moment in candids. I was apprehensive about moving to 40 mm but soon realized that it captures exactly my field of attention. In other words, as soon as I see something I bring the camera to my eye right there and click. The composition will be as I saw it. No moving closer or further necessary. Now I only use 40 mm. If I were you I would test 50 mm at home to see if it does that for you before traveling.

 

[Rob-F]

To go with just a 50 might be possible for someone, but not for me! For a three day trip to Missouri's springs and mills, I just took: one 24mm; one 28mm; a 35mm Summaron; a 35mm Summicron; a 40mm Voigtlander; a 50mm collapsible Summicron; a 50mm Planar; and a 75mm Summicron. I used them all! Should have taken the 21mm also.

 

[Russell W. Barnes]

It also makes you lose the decisive moment in candids. .

But does changing lenses not make you lose the decisive moment too? One lens removes any doubt about which lens to use and so you go for it.

This notion has made me more aware of possibilities since I started using the Mess-Baldix folding rangefinder. A bit like the freedom encountered when walking around naked.

So I'm told...