Travel Lens - Suggestions

[Stein K S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi

As many others comment as well, I would not hesitate going anywhere with a 35 only. I deeply agree on this saying about "having the right or wrong lens on the camera" in a previous post! The 35 is in my opinion never wrong... and the single lens approach is so easy & nice.

 

If I where to bring one more lens to your destination, I would be tempted by a 75... even if I do not own one (keep a 90 which most often for my use is too narrow). My 28s would still be third choice...

 

Regards, Stein Kjetil

[Advertisement]

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

[semi-ambivalent]

Enbee,

 

I would agree with 01af here about a 21 paired with a 35. I'd bet the images most people have seen of Machu Picchu were taken with a wide angle, with the actual site being pretty compact. I have the 21SEM and it's a great lens; small, light, superlative image quality and cheap (by Leica standards ). There are 21s by others that might suite your $ requirements better but you'll not go wrong with the SEM. At the other end? I Use a 90 Elmarit-M because that's what I have. Beautiful, small, not particularly light. Others can address the 75 option.

 

Finally, your eye can learn any lens, but there is no lens/camera combination that is as bad as no camera at all. Digital P&Ses can cheap and fabulous. Maybe buy one used and throw it in your rucksack, just in case.

 

Happy travels!

s-a

[Duane Pandorf]

I travel for work on a 7 on 7 off schedule and can end up anywhere. I always carry my M-E with 35/75 combo. It's liberating not wondering what lens to have on the camera. I was recently in Paris and Venice. The 75 never came out of the bag.

[bocaburger]

What's the reason for spending on a camera with an interchangeable lens mount if you only use one lens? Carrying one lens would be about as liberating as welding my stickshift in one gear.

[jdlaing]

What's the reason for spending on a camera with an interchangeable lens mount if you only use one lens? Carrying one lens would be about as liberating as welding my stickshift in one gear.

 

Because you can change a lens doesn't mean you have to.

[bocaburger]

Because you can change a lens doesn't mean you have to.

 

Straw man argument, as I never advocated compulsory lens-changing.

[jdlaing]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Straw man argument, as I never advocated compulsory lens-changing.

 

You did two posts ago.

[pop]

What's the reason for spending on a camera with an interchangeable lens mount if you only use one lens? Carrying one lens would be about as liberating as welding my stickshift in one gear.

Those who do that presumably think it nice that you can choose among so many lenses for their camera.

 

It used to be that when buying a Dell computer, you could order that model with this hard drive, so and so many bars of RAM and so on while with HP you had to select the model with the least unacceptable parts list from a selection of predefined configurations. Many people I know never changed a single component in their PCs after their initial purchase.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Personally I've always been a fan of the three lens kit when traveling. For me that's a 28, 50 and 90. For you that might be a 21, 35 and 75. Then I'll add lenses I think might be specialty lenses.

 

I've never been a fan of a single lens kit. But that's just me.

 

Gordon

[otto.f]

For Machu Pichu I would prefer a wide-angle actually, alongside a 35. Personally I hate a separate viewfinder on my M, but with the Elmarit 24 I don't really need that.

[jankap]

Those who do that presumably think it nice that you can choose among so many lenses for their camera.

 

It used to be that when buying a Dell computer, you could order that model with this hard drive, so and so many bars of RAM and so on while with HP you had to select the model with the least unacceptable parts list from a selection of predefined configurations. Many people I know never changed a single component in their PCs after their initial purchase.

 

Therefore buy Macs!

I have had Plus, SE/30, Cube, Macbook, etc. The only (not so necessary) upgrade I had for the 7100.

Jan

[bocaburger]

You did two posts ago.

 

No, evidently you misunderstood it. In fact, I've shot extensively with a Rolleiflex, a Fuji GW690, and numerous fixed-lens 35mm rangefinders. I never, ever advocated changing lenses "just because you can". In fact, changing lenses on the fly is a good way to miss shots, drop lenses, and get dust in the camera. So I only change lenses when I feel the shot requires a different one. But I choose an interchangeable lens system camera because it does give me that option.

Edited November 23, 2014 by bocaburger

[NZDavid]

Leica 2.8/24 Elmarit-Asph is a brilliant travel lens together with your 35. Accessory finder does not bother me. Absolutely recommended for cities, interiors, and wide scenics.

[jloden]

This is a tough question. For one thing, it's intensely personal how you choose to shoot and also strongly influenced by *what* you like to shoot.

 

That aside, I am also personally divided on this topic. I've done trips where I carried only an RX1 or X100S (i.e. a 35mm fixed lens) and I enjoyed it very much. Conversely, on other trips I've felt under-equipped unless I had everything from ultrawide to telephoto in my bag.

 

The benefit of sticking with one 35mm lens to me is that it's a versatile focal length and if there's nothing else in the bag, I don't have to worry about my lens choice. In some ways it's liberating to limit yourself. Either it works as a 35mm shot or it doesn't... and if it doesn't, I have to be content with just experiencing it in person

 

On the other hand, I've been on trips where my absolute favorite shots were only possible because I brought an ultra wide angle, or a long telephoto. If I know I'm going somewhere with great wildlife, then I know I'm going to be a little bummed if I have just a wide angle 35mm lens instead of a 600mm equivalent tele. Conversely, I've been places where even at 18mm or 21mm I was stitching together frames to capture the full scene I wanted.

 

Ultimately I think I'd just ask yourself what you want to shoot while you're there and if there's a compelling reason to add to your gear. If you are comfortable with what you have, or if you're too new to photography to know what you want... then I'd say keep shooting with your 35mm. It really has a way of sorting itself out with experience and building a body of work.

[otto.f]

Yes that's true, you can always stitch. But if you start stitching you can better stitch 4 captures from a 35 than 2 from a 21, when it comes to detail

[MarkP]

For me:

single general purpose travel lens - 35mm

two general purpose travel lenses - 50 & 28mm

 

However, if I was taking a 35, then my second would be a 21.

 

It really depends on how you see the world. Plenty of photographers here would take a 75 or 90 to accompany a 35 as that's how they see the world. That you've already suggested going wider suggests that is the way you see, so I agree with a 3.4/21 SEM as your second lens.

Edited November 23, 2014 by MarkP

[billo101]

21SEM!!!

[Torgian]

Whenever I travel on a day trip, I first decide what I want to accomplish. More landscape or street photography?

 

The former, I take my 35mm. The latter, the 50mm.

 

These are the two lenses I have been using the past year, but I will only take both if I am going someplace for more than a couple days.

 

My suggestion? Stick with the 35 and use the extra cash for food,beer, and travel until you get back.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Enbee]

I like the option of using the extra cash . Again many thanks for thoughtful suggestions. I tried the 90 and 135 yesterday and absolutely loved the 90 but that was on the street. It did what my 35 couldn't do. Was light enough for my camera. But then again - I haven't been able to try the 21 SEM or 28 yet. I will try the 21 this week and if I get hold of R180 - that's something I am really interested in trying. I am enjoying the process. In terms of less - I agree it's better. Yesterday, while getting out of my car - I carried too may things and I accidentally dropped my camera. Luckily - it was in it's bag. EVF was attached to it - I believe EVF took the impact and has been slightly damaged but in working condition. I want to get the EVF checked this week. But that I believe is one thing I do not want to do - clutter myself with too many things. I love the 35 mm so far. If I decide to get another lens, I may just stick with the M lens - rather than using an R and an adapter.

[bocaburger]

if I get hold of R180 - that's something I am really interested in trying. I may just stick with the M lens - rather than using an R and an adapter.

 

You might want to consider looking for the 180/4 Elmar-R. It's a lot smaller and lighter than the f/2.8, and the M240's ISO capabilities should handle it well. That said, the M240's sensor resolution is good enough that unless you're going to print mural-sized, a 90 shot can be cropped to a 180 fov without worry in most cases. Likewise a 135mm shot to 270 fov (those 135's are some really sharp lenses btw, and very well-priced compared to the 90s).