Travel Lens - Suggestions

[algrove]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As susual we are all having differing opinions.

 

First ask your self what you want to accomplish. Slices of the scene or the entire scene. I take a specific set of lenses based on what I pre-imagine I want to get out of the situation. Unless you live near the destination, make the trip count. Take what you want.

 

You could even rent a lens or two for a few weeks which might help for future decisions. I think buying new/different gear just before departing on a trip does not do a lens or yourself justice. One oftern needs time with a lens to know its characteristics and best uses.

 

Personally I would take a 21 or 18 plus a 90 or 135 to compliment the 35, but I also take a 50 everywhere too. That being said I often find myself often reaching for my R 180 while traveling and it comes in handy.

 

Ask yourself how long you will be on that mountain top. Is this a photo expedition or family trip? Do you have more than one day up there? Stitching is a real good, viable option and if used you do not need a WA, just use your 35 for that. In that case take a telephoto along with your 35.

[Advertisement]

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

[otto.f]

Buying a new lens just before a trip has never failed me, IF it is not your first lens. It's a great opportunity to play and have fun on your trip. But of course we have all different opinions, experiences and above all ways of travelling.

[wda]

Unless you strongly favour narrow angle shots, I think anything longer than 90mm would seldom get used. If you like the 90, that would give you a portrait option; but a 50 or 75 would almost certainly be more useful, lighter and less bulky for travel. Try 25+75, a very useful pairing.

[Enbee]

I bid for a 90mm but changed my mind at the last minute as my heart didn't feel like it. I may go for a 180 eventually. I am like you Otto f. it gives me the opportunity to explore something on a trip. Trying to find a difference between 180mm f3.4 and 180mm f2.8. I have tried searching but haven't found much. f2.8 is much cheaper compared to f3.4.

[otto.f]

Oh the 2.8 is so heavy and has no magic

[bocaburger]

The 2.8 focuses almost a meter closer than the 3.4 and performs better at every distance except infinity, for which the 3.4 was optimized as it's original purpose was as a surveillance lens for the navy. And the original version I is a heavy beast but the e67 version II is only 60g heavier than the 3.4. If you want magic, get a top hat and a wand.

Edited November 27, 2014 by bocaburger

[NZDavid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On W/As and the 21 vs. 24: The 21 is a very useful W/A for tight spaces but requires lot of care to avoid converging verticals ("keystoning") while the 24 behaves more like a general purpose W/A. A 28 might also tempt you.

 

Difference in angle of view:

 

21 = 92º

 

24 = 84º

 

28 = 76º

[jaapv]

I must confess not having read the complete thread, but has anybody suggested using a MATE? Combine that with the 90 Macro and you have a perfect minitravel kit.

[algrove]

I bid for a 90mm but changed my mind at the last minute as my heart didn't feel like it. I may go for a 180 eventually. I am like you Otto f. it gives me the opportunity to explore something on a trip. Trying to find a difference between 180mm f3.4 and 180mm f2.8. I have tried searching but haven't found much. f2.8 is much cheaper compared to f3.4.

 

I was not clear enough on my mention of the 180/2.8. I was thinkling of the 180/2.8 APO. Yes, expensive, but well worth saving up for eventual purchase. Pairs very nicely with the APO 2x extender too.

[tom0511]

I believe that 75mm or 90mm is a very nice combo together with 35mm.

I would probably prefer 75mm either the 75/2.0 or if you want to safe some money the 75/2.5 (or 2.4) which is also a great lens.

[Herr Barnack]

For a three lens travel kit, 28mm, 50mm and 90mm is hard to beat in my experience.

[Enbee]

After all the fuss - decided to use the 80-200 f4. That seems the best for me. Thank You for all the help and suggestions.

[otto.f]

Hahaha, which nobody had guessed! Enjoy!!

[Enbee]

You are so right. There were no suggestions but one day I came across a post from this person called Jaap. I went in looking in the direction of his recommendation. and after much back on forth in my mind and on ebay - dealers - I just clicked pay today! Looking forward to the trip now.

[MarkP]

...this person called Jaap.

 

 

oh yes, and what would he know?

 

 

:D:D

Edited December 12, 2014 by MarkP

[honcho]

British computer systems allowing, this time tomorrow I should be in Colorado with an MP, 50mm Elmar-M, a CV 28mm Color-Skopar and a few rolls of film.

 

It's all the Leica for travel I need.

[ola.fiske]

I'll agree. 50 and 28 is a perfect combination. Sometimes I also bring my thin tele Elmarit, but very rarely used.

[MarkThailand]

This is like asking which child should you take with you on a family vacation.

 

I use to have my 1.4/35 ASPH not FLE as my walking around lens if I have no specific agenda. I use to take my 2.8/28 if I had a people/surroundings agenda. And, I would take my 2/50 v4 for outside/sunny days walk abouts. I took but rarely used my 2/90 lens.

 

But, after I got my 3.4/21 SEM, I started to carry it a lot and started to taking close-up people/architectural scenes.

 

In last two months, I got the 0.95/50 and the 1.4/50 ASPH lens and I am now confused as to which three lenses I would be taking to my upcoming Korea/Japan trip.

 

Probably the 1.4/35 ASPH, the 0.95/50, and the 3.4/21 SEM - but I am not sure.

 

Mark

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Rick]

My choices for travel is based on what works for me. I don't have a lens-set based mainly on trying to carry a good spaced out group of focal lengths. Or, which are optically the fastest or most corrected lenses in each focal length. My choices are based on how I want to create a scene through a particular lens, mostly based on the focal lengths I like to work with and "see" in. To a lesser degree other particular lens characteristics play a role in why I like a lens.

 

But, mostly I want lenses that allow me to approach a scene with the thought of completely controlling and manipulating the way the viewer is going to see and experience the image. I am more the active "deliberate moment" photographer working everything in my control, as apposed to the passive photographer waiting for the decisive moment to happen along through my viewfinder. Everyone has to actively decide how they are going to use every lens they bring along in their own travel kit themselves. These are my travel choices.

 

WATE - I just love to see in the wide 16mm. Not because I want more in the scene as much as I like the near-far perspective the wides create. 21mm seems more normal in comparison to me, but is mostly useful to me when 16 needs cropping. The WATE allows me to see and create the placement of the camera (perspective) and use the zoom from 16-21 to crop the picture, I see in 16mm. Just how I approach the complex ultra-wide view.

28 Summicron - All around way I like to compose and create layered scenes with interest. Also, can be used to exaggerate perspective. f4.0 is normal for me and I tend to go to f16 more than I would f2.0

50 Summilux - Just all around best 50mm lens ever made. Tend to shoot at f4.0 and the transition to OOF is sooo smooth. Will stop down, but I'm not a bokeh fan for near shots as they always tend to just look like everything is out of focus, to me. Mid range shots are nice wide open, though. Great travel night lens with 1.4 available and creating background OOF lights.

90 Macro Elmar - Recognized as having the best optics of the 90mm Leica lenses at near for portraiture, for example. Top quality for distance landscape. Insanely compact and gives macro if you need. I'd never consider carrying the 90 APO or even the other large 90mm lenses for travel. Shot mostly in daylight I don't find a need for f2.0. Best long travel 90mm lens in my opinion. Not used enough by me, though.

 

(I have the 35mm 1.4 FLE and it is a superior image quality choice, but it can be very normal and without drama and interest, for me. Harder to work into interesting perspectives, for me. Bigger and heavier than the excellent 28 Summicron the 35 FLE is too close to the 50mm and 28mm with nothing unique enough to garner a spot in the travel kit. And, I dislike the background bokeh of specular highlights.)

 

Rick

Edited December 13, 2014 by RickLeica

[Stealth3kpl]

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.

 

Mark P's lightweight/compact kit seems an ideal solution.

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m7-mp-film-m/345620-i-love-my-m7-5.html#post2843407

Pete