colorflow Posted August 27, 2011 Share #1 Posted August 27, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Will be going to Edingburgh, Inverness, and taking a cruise on the Lockes and the coast of the Highlands. I plan to take my M9, a late 35Lux pre-Asph (Germany), 24 Elmarit, and 50 Lux Asph. Do you think I'll need a telephoto. I have a Sony A900 with a 70-300 that I can also take. But hate to lug around the weight. Perhaps I should just add a Tele-Elmarit 90 for the M9 and forget about the SLR? Thanks for your input, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 27, 2011 Posted August 27, 2011 Hi colorflow, Take a look here Do I need an SLR for Scotland?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
andybarton Posted August 27, 2011 Share #2 Posted August 27, 2011 No. You don't. Any more than you need an SLR for San Francisco, NewYork, Italy, Japan or anywhere else. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hunta Posted August 27, 2011 Share #3 Posted August 27, 2011 Take the 24 and the 50, and leave the rest (apart from the M9!) at home. You certainly won't feel the need for another system, and I'm betting you'll prefer the freedom of minimal kit over even the 35. You'll want the 24 for sure. The scenery up there is stunning, and BIG! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kokoshawnuff Posted August 27, 2011 Share #4 Posted August 27, 2011 A longer focal length might be nice, perhaps a 90 or 135. There are plenty of great options that won't be too expensive Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
msk2193 Posted August 27, 2011 Share #5 Posted August 27, 2011 Alan, unless you're birding or on safari, leave all the heavy stuff home! I enjoy my Elmarit 90 wherever I go. You might consider it for detail shots in town, or to prevent a lot of cropping from distant scenes. Bring a flash! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 27, 2011 Share #6 Posted August 27, 2011 Will be going to Edingburgh, Inverness, and taking a cruise on the Lockes and the coast of the Highlands. I plan to take my M9, a late 35Lux pre-Asph (Germany), 24 Elmarit, and 50 Lux Asph. Do you think I'll need a telephoto... I would not do a trip like this w/o a telephoto for sure. 90 or 135, matter of tastes. If you need a fast lens, the Summicron 90/2 asph or pre-asph is a must have imho. If you want to do sharp close-ups and/or macro in a small package, the Macro-Elmar 90/4 is the way to go. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted August 28, 2011 Share #7 Posted August 28, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) If you don't take a tele lens you WILL see the Loch Ness monster! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NZDavid Posted August 28, 2011 Share #8 Posted August 28, 2011 Yeah, but if you do get a shot of Nessie it's bound to be blurred, just like Bigfoot and the Aliens. Either that or the battery will run out just as you're about to press the shutter. Tuck in the 90 Elmarit, why not. It's not that big or heavy and may come in useful. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colorflow Posted August 28, 2011 Author Share #9 Posted August 28, 2011 Thanks for all your comments. I have decided to go with the M9 and a Viso with a 560/5.6 hidden in my pant leg just for Nessie:D. Seriously I think I'll go with the 24, 35, 90. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomB_tx Posted August 28, 2011 Share #10 Posted August 28, 2011 You should be fine with those 3 lenses. When I toured Scotland by tandem bicycle in the early 80s I just took my Leica CL with 40 Summicron-C. When forced to travel light you realize how much you don't really need. You stop worrying about what you don't have very quickly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted August 28, 2011 Share #11 Posted August 28, 2011 I have done quite a bit of backpacking in the Scandinavian mountains above the tree line (same Caledonian folding – basically Scottish Highlands with reindeer instead of sheep ... ) and even when I did carry other focal lengths, I never felt the need for any other length than 50mm (or corresponding, with MF). 50mm is perfect for open landscapes. The old man in the Lundhags boots Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted August 28, 2011 Share #12 Posted August 28, 2011 I'd strongly recommend taking a longer lens (my favourite for walking is the A-T 135 f3.4). I walk a lot in the Lake District - some similarities with Scotland. My preferred walking kit is the M9 + 28, 50, 135. (The English Lake District - June 2010). If I'm really wanting to strip things down it's 28 + 135 (The English Seaside - Suffolk - without this I wouldn't have got this one: The English Seaside - Suffolk). Really stripped down? M9 + 35 summicron asph. Enjoy Scotland! Hope you get some sunny days! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broadside Posted August 28, 2011 Share #13 Posted August 28, 2011 Watch out for midges - seriously! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted August 28, 2011 Share #14 Posted August 28, 2011 The midge season is just about over now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted August 28, 2011 Share #15 Posted August 28, 2011 Scotland's no different from anywhere else where equipment is concerned. The gear you need depends on the kind(s) of photography you want to do. Last time I went to Scotland I took a DSLR with 17-35, 60 macro, 85/1.4 and 85-200 - and used them all, including the extremes of the range. With a Leica and two or three lenses I'd have had a much lighter bag but would have come back with a different set of images. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
asmith Posted August 28, 2011 Share #16 Posted August 28, 2011 I was in the Scottish highlands last week. Used just 35 and 50. Alwyn Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted August 28, 2011 Share #17 Posted August 28, 2011 The midge season is just about over now. I wish! And Alan, you'll be fine with your 24, 35 and 50. Have a great time up here - I know you will! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colorflow Posted August 28, 2011 Author Share #18 Posted August 28, 2011 Thank you all for your excellent suggestions. I was leaning towards the 24,35,90, but based on Lars' comment maybe it should be the 24,50,90. I don't have a 135 so the 90 will have to do. I would like to keep it at three lenses. The 24 Elm, 35 Lux pre-A, and the fat TE 90 would make a really light compact kit. However it would probably be a game time decision between the 35 and 50. Incidentally I just recently acquired the 35 Lux pre-A which is a late German version. I have been really pleasantly surprised by its sharpness from f1.7 on. Its flare characteristics seem to have also improved over a previous older Canadian version I owned. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted August 28, 2011 Share #19 Posted August 28, 2011 A little late, but another vote for taking the 90mm. There will be opportunities for detail shots of the shore and coastal points of interest. The 90 would be excellent in that role. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted August 28, 2011 Share #20 Posted August 28, 2011 24/35/90 sounds very good to me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.