Two lens kit travel combo

[Ko.Fe.]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 What sort of percentage of shots (mixed city, street, and landscape settings) might be missed without anything wider or longer?

 

Which added capability might be more advantageous in a two lens kit?...

 

Zero.

 

And Zero if it is M240, M10 or 35 1.4 lens.

 

In 2016 I took M4-2 with 35 2.5 and ISO 400 bw film to my most important trip to Moscow city.

I took landscapes, city, street, portraits, candid all day, in the subway, at night, in the train, in museums and so on.

And I wasn't even pushing film. I print about one hundred or so from it.

 

Some examples are here:

https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=158157 

[SunnySixteen]

Larry, I have had the best results with travel photography when I avoid the temptation to over complicate the situation. Two lenses at most. The tradition combinations of 28/50 or 35/75 are popular for a reason. Getting wider or longer and you’re getting into focal lengths that—at least for most of us—represent the tails of the distribution. Wider and longer lenses also take more skill to use effectively. Many people report that, after returning from a trip, they never took most lenses out of the bag.

 

Even at two lenses, I’ve found it’s a hassle to change lenses in the field and slow down the group or your partner while you change lenses. There’s a big difference between the theoretical mental analysis of which lenses to bring versus the reality of being out in the real world in a travel situation. Taking too many lenses complicates your mental clarify and ability to visualize your intended result. Skilled and experienced photographers can transcend that, but for most of us amateurs, our ability to create a focused vision (and hence increased chance for good results by intention instead of luck) will be greatly aided by reducing focal length indecision. My best results from travel photography were on a trip to Japan when I only took a 50mm. Sure I missed some shots, but the limited choice helped me better imagine the potential images in front of me and take action accordingly.

 

As I plan for an upcoming trip I keep coming back to this point of 'less is more', especially given the fact that I'll be on a family vacation. My last vacation I traveled with 21/35/50/90 and used the 50 most of the time. I did come away with some good photos with 21, 35 & 90 as well, but they all saw much less use than the 50. I also brought a Sony A7s mod with M adapter that didn't see the light of day the entire 3 weeks as I enjoyed shooting with my M6 too much.

 

So I am thinking for this one, it will be the M6 with 2/35 & 2/50. 

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[chris_livsey]

Interesting comments, there seems to be an assumption that taking two or three or more lenses on a trip means having them on your person all day, every day, or having multiple bodies. When I last visited Venice, which is hard to cover with one lens  IMHO, I had a 500cm Hasselblad, the lenses are hardly pocketable, I took three 40,80,150 but only took one out on the camera each day. That concentrated the mind on making the most of that day's lens knowing that tomorrow was going to be a different choice with different possibilities. Now if you're just travelling around, constantly on the move, this is less of an option. 

Just to add as well that personally if I need for whatever reason to go down to one lens and one body it is a 40mm lens, one step forward it's a 50 one back a 35 and there are so few of them the agonising choice of which 35 or which 50 is avoided, a definite plus.

Edited May 27, 2018 by chris_livsey

[Franky]

M10

 

big bag: 28 mm + 75 mm

(small bag: only one ->50 mm)

Edited May 27, 2018 by Franky

[SunnySixteen]

Interesting comments, there seems to be an assumption that taking two or three or more lenses on a trip means having them on your person all day, every day, or having multiple bodies. When I last visited Venice, which is hard to cover with one lens  IMHO, I had a 500cm Hasselblad, the lenses are hardly pocketable, I took three 40,80,150 but only took one out on the camera each day. That concentrated the mind on making the most of that day's lens knowing that tomorrow was going to be a different choice with different possibilities. Now if you're just travelling around, constantly on the move, this is less of an option. 

Just to add as well that personally if I need for whatever reason to go down to one lens and one body it is a 40mm lens, one step forward it's a 50 one back a 35 and there are so few of them the agonising choice of which 35 or which 50 is avoided, a definite plus.

 

Good point Chris, normally I do not carry multiple lenses while out for the day. On a recent backpacking trip through Canyonlands I brought a 21 and 50 and was very happy to have those options, despite the space and weight constraints of my pack. We are talking M glass, which are minuscule compared to your Hasselblad lenses.

 

Well now you've got me thinking about bringing more than 2 lenses, Venice is a stop on my itinerary. Maybe I should start a '(More than) Two lens kit travel combo' thread haha ...

[McCrab]

My favourite travel set up currently is M240 with 35mm f1.4 and M246 with 50mm f1.4 in a Domke F803 bag

 

Relatively light, with colour and mono options, and two really great lenses for landscape (35), street (35/50) and portrait (50 and maybe 35)

 

Only debate is which lens on which camera - have found 35mm on the 240 and 50mm on the 246 to be the most versatile so far

[chris_livsey]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Good point Chris, normally I do not carry multiple lenses while out for the day. On a recent backpacking trip through Canyonlands I brought a 21 and 50 and was very happy to have those options, despite the space and weight constraints of my pack. We are talking M glass, which are minuscule compared to your Hasselblad lenses.

 

Well now you've got me thinking about bringing more than 2 lenses, Venice is a stop on my itinerary. Maybe I should start a '(More than) Two lens kit travel combo' thread haha ...

 

I was younger and fitter then 

As an aside, we took a Gondola trip as a party and were among the last to board, the Gondolier saw the Blad and made me go right to the front pushing past all others, for the best shots he said, most embarrassing but great shots he was right and he had a Blad. himself at home he said.

[timse]

I am asking myself the same question at the moment. I only ever take one lens on a shoot (28, 35 or 50) and never ever miss not having a second lens with me. But when I travel I think I "need" to take more (28 and 50 or 35 and 50) but end up never mounting one of them. I am leaning towards 28 Summicron + 50 Summicron. The 2/28 is relatively big and heavy compared to my 35/2.8 Biogon or 35mm/3.5 Summaron. So do I throw in the very tiny 35/3.5 or the 2.8/35 and travel with three lenses? This seems overkill... so maybe just keep it real and only bring the 2.8/35.... 

[Narsuitus]

Normally, I like to carry a normal/wide/tele three-lens kit.

 

Early this week, for some reason, I decided to take just a normal/wide two-lens kit to a group photo assignment.

 

To my surprise, after I got there, the group president asked me to also take a portrait of one of the members of the group.

[Abram]

Now getting tempted by the simplicity of only taking the 35/1.4. What sort of percentage of shots (mixed city, street, and landscape settings) might be missed without anything wider or longer? Which added capability might be more advantageous in a two lens kit? It seems to me that the moderately wide 35mm lens would be a more versatile focal length than 50mm in such situations if carrying only one lens. Other opinions?

Covering all bases with a three lens 25/35/75 kit is still tempting, but is it more likely to aid my results, or muddle my efforts on a daily basis, compared to the less fiddly one (35, 50) or two (21/35, 25/50, 35/75, ?/?) lens options?

Thank you all for joining in my thought experiments.

Larry

 

I'm going to be doing some traveling this year and I will only have the 35 FLE with me, the only variable will be wether it's a film trip or digital trip. For domestic trips I usually don't mind traveling with film. I'm going to spain and morocco this year and I'm just going to bring the M10 with 35 FLE to keep things simple. 

 

Granted it's easy to choose since my other two lenses are a 21 Super Angulon and 50mm DR Summicron lol!

[ljsegil]

Does anybody find a 135mm lens very useful for travel with a film rangefinder (obviously no Live View to assist with focusing)? I have found it a useful F.L. with an SLR, but that is rather a different beast.

 

If the 135mm focal length is not preferred, do users find that 75mm is a long enough lens for their travel kits, or might 85 or 90mm be preferred?

 

On the other end of lens life, is 35mm wide enough, or would wider (21mm or 25mm) be an important addition to a kit?

 

Obviously, I’m still struggling with the makeup of a rational kit for travel; finding an appropriate balance between versatility vs simplicity. Perhaps 21/35/75/135 for the versatile range of choices; 35/75 for simplicity and less choices, while sacrificing focal length range but maintaining an option for different FOVs and perspective possibilities with two lenses; or gutting it out with only a single fast 35/1.4 (or 50/1.4) and never having to make a lens choice, only where to move to get the shot with the lens on the camera.

 

As a lesser consideration, my 35/1.4, 75/2 and 135/3.4 mm lenses share a common filter size of 49mm, my 21/2.8, 25/2.8, 50/1.5, and 90/2.8 mm lenses use 46mm filters, and another alternative pair, 35/2 and 50/1.4 mm lenses use 43mm filters. Of course I could use step up rings, but dislike this option as one loses the lens hood unless a screw on hood is employed, making the whole operation more time consuming , a problem when traveling on the move with an impatient spouse.. The filter issue diminishes in import if I choose to shoot primarily in color as I will certainly do at least in part. All of the listed lenses are optically excellent, certainly adequate for my use on the planned trip.

 

Thanks for listening. I appreciate the wisdom of the forum members.

 

Larry

[pantoufle]

No wisdom, just personal preference, dependent on what your preferred motives are, people, street, portrait, landscape, cityscape, architecture, macro, ... you name it. 

My choices are exactly what you named as first options:

- 21/35/75/135 

- 35/75

But, to be honest, 21/50 would also work in many cases ....

Has proven to be o.k. for me. Always perfect? Nothing and nobody is perfect!

Rolf 

[Exodies]

A tiny 28mm hoodless Summaron in your bag because you won’t know it’s there. 50 or 35 on the camera because you can always make A picture even if it’s not THE picture with either of those lenses. Only change lenses if you get bored waiting for your spouse to finish looking at whatever has taken her fancy.

[Ronazle]

A tiny 28mm hoodless Summaron in your bag because you won’t know it’s there. 50 or 35 on the camera because you can always make A picture even if it’s not THE picture with either of those lenses. Only change lenses if you get bored waiting for your spouse to finish looking at whatever has taken her fancy.

I agree and to reiterate previous posts: the principal attraction/justification of the 28mm Summaron is its size. It is about the only reasonable performance (more or less), "shirt pocket" lens out there. If a 35 or 50mm lens can't under ambient circumstances cover the shot, the Summaron becomes invaluable. Regards, Ron

Edited June 3, 2018 by Ronazle

[jmahto]

Does anybody find a 135mm lens very useful for travel with a film rangefinder (obviously no Live View to assist with focusing)? I have found it a useful F.L. with an SLR, but that is rather a different beast.

 

If the 135mm focal length is not preferred, do users find that 75mm is a long enough lens for their travel kits, or might 85 or 90mm be preferred?

 

......

 

Larry

Responding to highlighted question only...

 

It depends on what you mean by "film photography". If you are scanning the film to get digital copy then cropping (of say 90mm) is easily possible and you may not need 135. But if you don't then 135 is 135 and you will need to know what is your usecase. In my case, this length is mainly used to photograph my kid (and family) from a distance without disturbing them (lets say on a beach setting). Depending on the landscape, this is a nice FL to isolate the scenery for landscape pictures as well.

 

As for me, I mainly shoot digital and 90mm is max for travel. I have also started shooting film (SLR not RF yet) with objective to scan but in that case I prefer a "normal" lens (35-50).

Edited June 4, 2018 by jmahto

[Archiver]

Wow, this thread is still going.

 

At the end of 2017, I went overseas with my usual combination of 21/2.8, 35/1.4 and 50/2 on the M9.  I also took my Olympus E-M5 original with Olympus 17/1.8, 25/1.8 and 45/1.8.  This was so I could use one lens on one camera and another focal length on the other.  At the end of the trip, my most used focal lengths were 21 and 50, with 50 either on the M9 or 25mm on the E-M5.  I did use the 17/1.8 on the Olympus a fair bit for snapshots, but mainly for convenience rather than a desire to use that focal length.  I would have preferred a much wider focal length on the Olympus, but I don't have a compact and fast 24mm eq. yet.

 

As for the M9, almost everything was taken with the 21/2.8 and 50/2.  I could get away with a 28mm Elmarit but I like the ability to capture context with 21mm. For non-critical travel and everyday I like 28 and 50.  For travel, it's still 21, 35 and 50.

[chris_livsey]

^^

If "standard zoom" SLR shooters are honest they shoot the 24-70 at 24 or 70 90% of the time. The middle ground as above is "snapshot" territory the interesting shots are long and short, otherwise you could use a 'phone. 

The exception is not the question, single lens, then 28/35/40/ even at a pinch 50 if that's your "best" lens and crop, or walk a bit back and forwards 

Edited June 18, 2018 by chris_livsey

[Merumeni]

 

^^

If "standard zoom" SLR shooters are honest they shoot the 24-70 at 24 or 70 90% of the time. The middle ground as above is "snapshot" territory the interesting shots are long and short, otherwise you could use a 'phone. 

The exception is not the question, single lens, then 28/35/40/ even at a pinch 50 if that's your "best" lens and crop, or walk a bit back and forwards 

 

 

This is a very good point, and this is also where pocket cameras become convenient.

Couple of years ago I did the Shikoku trail in Japan. Sent my DSLR home and kept just a pocket camera. Majority of the shots were taken with a 28 equivalent.

 

But since this is a Leica blog I do not wonder too much about the tons of FLEs and APOs some people like to travel with. Or what people will call travel at all.

I crossed the Alps (Munich, Germany to Venice, Italy) with just a M9 (Leica not Beretta) and the C-Biogon 35. It did the job.

On several hikes through Spain (east to west, south to north) I used just the M9 and a 50 Cron. And even only a V3: it did the job.

 

On film cameras one of the Leica lens carriers proofed to be helpful: it adds a good grip and a safe way for fast changing lenses.

 

I also came to love a Rolleiflex. That actually is a 1 camera 1 lens decision.

 

But! But! But! Before going on a travel / hike or tour to the loo I have the hardest time deciding what to take: film or digital? Film speed? Black and white vs color?

35 or 50 and 90? Filter size? And I love the tiny 15mm and in the past it delivered some nice shots. Why not compromise on … . The hardest part comes minutes before

leaving when I try NOT to sneak in the little 15/21/25/28/35/40/50/75/85/90/135 that might become useful at some point.

[Hello]

35mm Cron ASPH is the most important and most used for me. I'm not sure what I'd pick for my second. My current line-up is the 35mm, 90mm LTM to M f4, 50mm 2.5 Summarit-M, 7Artisans 50mm 1.1, and Zeiss 25mm 2.8, so for now, one of those and I'd probably lean towards the 25mm. Though if I could get the 18mm 3.8, that would probably be it. The 7Artisans is appealing for its speed too though but 50mm is my least used focal length.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[SunnySixteen]

I've just returned from a 2 week road trip through Europe and in my last minute packing frenzy decided on bringing an M6 with 2/35 v4, 2/50 v4, and 2.8/90 Tele Elmarit thin. I shot around 25 rolls and used the 50mm 90% of the time. Honestly I could have left the 35 at home and not missed it, but I've grown to like the 50 over the 35 lately ...