So, Looking for Travel Kit for Europe

[ktmrider2]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well, I am off for a three month trip through Europe and North Africa in mid August. My daughter and I will be hiking 100 miles in the Scottish Highlands and another 100 on the Camino de Santiago, then a month in Morocco and finishing in Malta and Italy.

 

Since we are hiking, weight is a factor so I plan on taking an M body with either 21/35/90 or 21/50/90 and if I could only take one lens it would be the 50, two lenses 35/90. I use both the 35 and 50 equally so don't seem to prefer one over the other. I wonder which lens would be better in the cities: 35 or 50? I wonder if the gap between 21 and 50 is too large? I might replace the 21 with a 28 so a chance to buy a 28 (thinking Zeiss 28f2.8). And the M might be an M2 or M9 as I see advantages to both film and digital.

 

Comments?

[Advertisement]

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

[molto1]

I think the 21/35/90 is a good combination for that trip.

I had the same for hiking in the Cinque Terre in Italy and I had

everything I need.

 

molto1

[Rick in CO]

I use a 50 for most of my travel photos and find the Zeiss 25mm (or Leica 24) to be a good compromise between a 21 & 28. The field of view of the 25 is just a bit larger than the entire M9 viewfinder, so I just crop my shot tight (no extra finder). Wouldn't work with an M2 however, without the extra finder. My basic kit is 25/50/85 for the M9 with a sling-type strap, the SF-20D flash w/diffuser and a few filters (Pola, ND).

[TomB_tx]

Last time I toured Scotland by tandem bike size and weight were also important. I took a Leica CL with 40. At that time I hadn't added the 90-C yet, but that camera with both lenses is ideal for such trips. Of course back then we could pick up more film anywhere.

[rramesh]

One lens - 50

Two lenses - 28 and 50 or 21 and 50

Three lenses - 21 or 28, 50, 90

[algrove]

Depends on how you see a scene. Some of us like the 50 and some like the 35. In cities I prefer the 35, but always have the 50 nearby.

 

21,35,50,90 with two bodies would be perfect. As you must know the 1.4 lenses weigh more so if low light situations will not be the primary objective then I'd take f2 to 3.4 lenses.

[Nick_S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Since we are hiking, weight is a factor so I plan on taking an M body with either 21/35/90 or 21/50/90 and if I could only take one lens it would be the 50, two lenses 35/90.

If you are carrying the gear long distances then I would go with a single camera body and 21/35/90 combination which covers most bases, each lens with a distinctive look and purpose.

 

To par things down further I might reluctantly drop the 21mm lens (but since my CV 21mm/F4.0 Color Skopar weighs only 136g + 43g for the small metal viewfinder, I would try and find a small space anyway). Travelling along the Pyrenees in Spain last year I found the 90mm lens to be great for isolating hill-top villages, and the 35mm lens doubles as a moderate wide or standard lens depending on the composition.

 

Nick

[Peter H]

My favourite 3 lenses for the highlands are :

 

24 (very wide considering how often the background is a very long way off).

 

35, because 35 is the best all-purpose lens for when you don't quite know what to expect. I also recommend it should be a modern Summilux if possible. It's light for such a fast lens, is sharp enough for any landscape, and will enable you to shoot in virtually all conditions, and early and late in the day, and in all those dark places that you'll find hiding away. But any 35 is better than no 35.

 

90, because a lot of what you want to photograph won't be that near.

 

 

 

But you could also have a very successful photographic trip with just a 50 if you really want to go light. It might even be the best combination of all because it will probably get you more engaged with your surroundings because it will remove the whole focal-length decision process and put the emphasis even more firmly on exploration, composition and your movement in the landscape.

[dugby]

SIMPLE SOLUTION

 

You take one lens on the M

 

And get your daughter to carry the other two.

[Guest Ansel_Adams]

I say take them all, they are so light after all. Only by using your equipment will you know what its capable of.

[A miller]

One lens - 35

 

Two lenses - 28 and 50 (for proper photos of people)

 

Three lenses - 21 (landscape and architecture), 35 (all purpose) and 50 (portraits)

 

I wouldn't take anything longer than 50.

 

Digital and film sound cool.

[horosu]

Get just the M with the 35 and you'll be set

[keithlaban.co.uk]

Lens choice and use largely depends on subject. A recent trip shooting tiny church interiors in the Exo Mani in Greece meant my Super-Elmar-M 21 mm f/3.4 ASPH was almost permanently bolted to my camera which was almost permanently bolted to my tripod. Other trips and other subjects will dictate which lenses I take or use.

I haven’t a clue what it is you will be shooting and so haven’t a clue what I’d recommend you take. But here’s the thing, I suspect you do.

[Guest]

...

 

Tri-Elmar 4.0 - 28 - 35 - 50 mm for nearly whole the day and Summilux 1.4 - 75 mm for available light, portraits and details.

[ktmrider2]

Honestly, I was looking for someone to say that the gap between 21 and 50 was too wide and that I needed a 28 mm lens. As I said earlier, I enjoy both the 35 and 50 almost equally so it may be a toss up as to which lens I take on the trip. Don't own a 28 in M mount but do own one of the R variety. And if I am honest, I have owned 28 M mount lenses in the past, and the focal length never really grabbed me.

 

My 35 is the 35f1.2 Nokton while the 50 is the latest version of the Summicron. Hiking with the 35f1.2 is definitely a bit more work then carrying the Summicron. However, the Summicron is chrome so it is not as light as the black version.

 

I like both focal lengths and both versions of the focal lengths I own. If I could loose a few pounds before August, weight of the camera equipment would not be much of a factor.

 

So, shooting in cities the 35 would probably be more useful if the streets are narrow but it is hard to beat a 50.

[JohnJWhite]

I spend a week or two in the Alps every year. I bring the 28-35-50 Tri-Elmar, a 21 and a 90.

[Herr Barnack]

My lens selection for this trip would be as follows: 21mm, 28mm or 35mm (which ever you have) and a 50mm.

 

For a two lens kit, I'd go with a 28 or 35 and a 50. But: The 21mm will not add that much weight and bulk, providedd it is not the 21 Summilux.

 

Better to carry a few extra ounces than to end up kicking yourself for leaving the 21mm at home IMHO.

[jaapv]

Actually I guess my choice for a trip through Europe would be exactly the same as for a trip through America.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Berth]

Backpacking trip? I guess there's the issue of fresh underwear to consider. Let's see 21mm Summilux and dirty shorts, or....

[bocaburger]

My main reason for getting into Leica in the first place many eons ago was for travel. Not so much the weight, but the compact size that allowed me to carry a small bag that sits close to my center of gravity.

 

Although I own several of the heavier lenses (21/2.8, 28 Elmarit IV, 50/1.4 II, 90/2 e55, 135/4 e39), for travel I choose from the CV 15mm, 21/4, 35/2 Summicron IV, 50 Summicron tabbed version, and 90 "thin" Tele-Elmarit. To save space I use the same lens shade (35-50 vented) on the latter 3. All these lenses take e39 filters, so there is no reduncancy there either. I use the coupling rear caps to save bag space.

 

As to the choice of focal lengths, it depends on the locale I'm visiting. European villages have narrower streets than American towns in general, so wider lenses tend to prevail. Remember, you can always crop to gain a longer effective focal length, but you can't go wider if you can't back up to take the shot.

 

For the trip you plan, I would probably go with 21-35-90, and probably end up using the 35 for 90% of the shooting. But it's highly dependent on personal shooting style, and that has to be the major consideration.

 

All that said, something like a V Lux 4 or it's Panasonic twin FZ200 with (effectively) 24-600 constant f/2.8 lens and image stabilization would probably be an ideal kit, assuming your intent was not to make mural-sized prints. My wife has the FZ200 and it's a very nice camera. Not that it prevented me from recently getting an M240

 

A lot depends on your outlook, that is, would you say photography is incidental to traveling, or is it your main reason for the trip.