Jump to content

Travel Lens - Suggestions


Enbee

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello - I have an M-P 240 and 35mm/f2 (novice with photography). I will be traveling to Machu Picchu at the end of the next month. I am considering adding another lens to my kit. I am not sure which one to buy. I have seen some recommendations for purchasing 180mm/f3.4 and 21mm/f3.4. I know one is wa and other is tele - but I am unable to think which one would I need and be more useful not just for this trip but for future as well. I was thinking that tele may be helpful for some wildlife photography or portrait photography. Honestly - I don't even know if I should spend money for an additional lens or should I just stick with what I have. Any thoughts and suggestions will be much appreciated.

Edited by Enbee
Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be a good decision to stick with one lens (and you have the perfect focal length in your 35) and really get to know it and experiment with it. I went to Cuba with just the 35 and rarely found myself wishing for another focal length. If I couldn't see a picture with my 35 I would simply enjoy the scene rather than frantically change lenses to capture it. You'll get many different answers I'm sure. For me, if I were to have just one more lens to travel with the 35, it would be a 50 (or a 75 but I don't own one) for portraits and to use it as a short tele. Some feel that those two focal lengths are too close together and suggest a few steps forward negates the need to change from the 35 to the 50. However, if you don't want a near death experience falling off the bridge or getting knocked down by the lorry, or don't want to walk 50 miles to get a closer view of the mountain (now with a completely different perspective) just change the lens to the 50. So that's my choice. Either just the 35, or the 35 and a 50. Many feel a 90 or more can be paired with the 35, but my photography is street related and I rarely want to use the 90. Some will suggest a 24 or 21 for views. If I'm taking more than one lens I go with 21/35/50. It really depends on what you feel your interest in photography is. A 21 is difficult to use effectively (for me at least) but I take it knowing I can crop if need be. It's not often used. Peru, to me, was all about mountains and people. I'd go with a 35 and 50 combo.

Pete

Nb if you can stretch to 2 new lenses, consider a 28/50 combo. Good Luck

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's really personal.

I have following combo 24mm, 35mm, 75mm and 135mm.

Plan on adding one of these 15mm CV or 18mm or WATE, however wider than 24mm is not my thing at the moment so the purchase is still pending.

I would go with some tele lens rather than wide angle as a second lens. 35mm and 75mm were my only lenses for some time, and I was able to cover 90% of my shots with that combo.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would envy you if you would be so brave to go with just the 35. I'm so neurotic I wouldn't dare.

If I would be summoned to stay under 1500grams however, I'd take my 15mm VC and my Tele-Elmar 135 (and leave my 24, 50, 75, 90 at home)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This is so personal ;)

Until recently, if I took one lens to travel it would be 35. But I normally took two, and they were usually 28 and 75 (the 28 Elmarit ASPH is so small, and the 75 POV matches what my eyes focus and concentrate on). Now I have the Apo Summicron 50 and it is permanently fixed to my camera: I have barely touched a 50 in 20 years and I'm learning it all over again:confused:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The M Leica has been my prefered travel kit for 45+ years, but although I'll probably get flamed for this, I've been to Machu Pichu and took my 5D with a 20mm Nikkor, 28-135 and 70-300 Image Stabilizer lenses. "Foot zooming" is not always practical since I don't have a pair of wings :D, and Image Stabilizer let me dispense with carrying a tripod.

 

That said if I were determined to take my Leica M240 I would bring my 21/4 CV, 35/2 IV and 70-210/4 Vario. The latter I picked up recently for around $200, it's sharp as hell and nice to use handheld being a 1-touch design. I would have to deliberate whether I wanted to burden myself with a tripod or rely on higher ISO to combat camera shake.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Consider not taking more than 2 lenses & make them somewhat different so that there are obvious times for one over the other. Take either a wide (21) or telephoto (90+) with a 35. If you take your 35 aim to use that most of the time. We're off to Copenhagen tomorrow to spend a long weekend with friends. Will take a 50mm Apo & Zeiss ZM 2,8/25mm. Plan to shot mostly with the 50mm but the lakes & harbour will look better with a 25.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I strongly recommend taking the 35mm as your only lens. The desire to build a travel lens kit is very tempting. But in my personal experience, taking a single lens is like lifting a weight off your shoulders. Your mind is not constantly playing the "which lens" game. You are not distracted from your companions and the environment due to the task of constantly changing lenses. You simply enjoy your trip, learn to let your mind's eye visualize your pictures, and have a good time.

 

Sure, there will be pictures you can't get because one lens can never cover every situation. And of course there are people who bring multiple lenses and have a fine time. But I have found the one lens approach to be well worth it.

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

A wonderful teacher I have worked with said "if you have more than one lens with you, you always have the wrong lens on the camera. If you only have one lens with you, you always have the right lens."

 

That's a much better way to say what I was trying to say.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would recommend a small tele to travel with.

 

You mentioned two priorities, portraits and wildlife...

Portraits can still be accomplished with a 35mm. Especially environmental portraits. Since you will be traveling to such an exotic place, more environment with the portraits would be very desirable. Much better than a solitary portrait without any contextual clues of where they are.

 

 

Otherwise, be confident and brave enough to travel with just the 35mm.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Like many other responders above, I was/am an advocate of travelling with just a 35mm.

 

I just did Western China / Himalayas with only a 35FLE. It was great for freeing myself of thinking which lens to use, and enjoying the scenery.

 

But I did wish on the odd occassion that I had a light-weight tele. I have since found that the low cost Voigtlander Color-Heliar 75mm f/2.5 which takes quite superb images can be left rolling around the bottom of my luggage, until those odd times that i know I can pull it out for the day.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would envy you if you would be so brave to go with just the 35. I'm so neurotic I wouldn't dare.

If I would be summoned to stay under 1500grams however, I'd take my 15mm VC and my Tele-Elmar 135 (and leave my 24, 50, 75, 90 at home)

 

+0.7

I travel with a 50mm and an 18mm. In my luggage I have an almost never used 200mm and a monopod.

Jan

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you everyone. As expected a wide variety of very thoughtful suggestions. I may just keep the 35 if by any chance over the next few days I dream of having that extra thing will invest in a tele. Else will try to be brave. Well let you know of my decision.Thank you again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I traveled through Israel with 35 and 55mm lenses. Found myself using the 35 about 95% of the time. I also has a small high quality pocket camera, Sony RX100M2, that has a zoom lens that would reach out for that far away shot.

 

Today I am shooting with a 50 mm APO and am selling my long range FF zoom lenses. With one lens you learn how to position yourself for the picture and not rely on the zooms to do it for you. It takes more thought and effort but to me that is what photography is all about.

 

On future travels I will carry the 50mm Leica and the Sony. You can't get much lighter and compact than that and still get all the shots you want.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you everyone. As expected a wide variety of very thoughtful suggestions. I may just keep the 35 if by any chance over the next few days I dream of having that extra thing will invest in a tele. Else will try to be brave. Well let you know of my decision.Thank you again.

 

A Tele-Elmar 135 should not be an investment for about 400€. Since you have the M240, the APO 180/3.4 R maybe more interesting, it has real character and it's a joy to play with. About 650€

Edited by otto.f
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Super-Elmar-M 21 mm Asph is an excellent choice to go with an existing 35 mm ... an Apo-Telyt-R 180 mm, not so much. The latter is too long for portraiture or general use and still way too short for wildlife. If you want to complement your gear with a telephoto lens then do yourself a favour and get a 75 mm or 90 mm M lens.

 

An adapted longer telephoto like 180 mm sure is useful at times, but definitely not the first choice for a light-weight M travel kit. It's something you'd buy after you've got everything else.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The 35mm will capture the landscapes and buildings just fine. A 28mm which is wider and more costly might add some distortion to the corners depending upon the lens that you purchase. If you want to take photos of people a 50mm would be your best bet both in cost and eventual use. Just my opinion & how I photograph.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...