Two lens choice for trek? Apology in advance for asking such a question :-)

[MarkP]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I find this an interesting discussion, as really I think its something we all go through to some degree every time we go out to shoot.  I suppose its a conundrum as a result of having opted for the piety imposed by prime lenses.  Its not unusual, whenever I'm out hunting new ground for something interesting that I think 'damn I wish I had brought the...'   I suspect that on a trip such as this and armed with only a two lens kit, regardless of the focal lengths chosen, many such moments are unavoidable. For sanity's sake, I'd suggest it's best to accept that no matter how well equipped or prepared one might be there will always be misses, some gut wrenchingly so.  Therefore, my advice would be to take the two lenses you love the most, the ones you know the best, the ones you always seem more inclined to admire the results from.  In that way, what you do bring home has the best chance of making up for what you didn't.

 

 

I like your use of the word piety :-)

So true!

 

Once I'm out and about with my chosen lenses it's uncommon for me to wish I'd brought another lens.  Perhaps I just subconsciously adjust to use what I have.

 

The FLs I'm most comfortable with are 50 and 21,24 or 28.

 

Edited February 9, 2018 by MarkP

[Advertisement]

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

[pgk]

Perhaps I just subconsciously adjust to use what I have.

Here's a thought. Underwater photography basically forces a choice on me - macro or wide-angle, and yes wide-angle zooms are available but I am still shooting wide-angle. Choice is limited because changing lenses is impossible and carrying two cameras is effectively impractical. The point is, that with a macro lens in place a whale could probably go past and I wouldn't notice. Or if I've set up with wide-angle, I'd fail to spot the rarest of small creatures.

 

One's mindset alters to work within the parameters that the equipment choice imposes. Same thing on land. Carrying two lenses will tend to make you (by which I mean an experienced photographer because this comes with practice) see images which work with the lenses you are carrying. So whatever you carry you will most likely see relevant images and not ones that you can't take - or mostly anyway .

[Alistairm]

The RX100 is very capable and has a FOV of 28-100 for Gen 1 and 2 and 24-70 for later versions. Take a spare battery for it too - they're tiny!

 

I would take something wide for the M10 and then whichever your favourite rendering lens is... as you will be overlappimg with the RX100 I'd be inclined to go for a fast lens. For me I would take the WATE and then probably the 35 Lux, which is probably my most used lens on my M10.

 

Have a terrific hike. It sounds wonderful.

[MarkP]

HI Alistair,

 

RX100 IV (and spare battery) is for my wife and a backup.

 

The only problem with the WATE and 35 Summilux combo, which I have considered, is that I'm doubling up on a focal length.

 

Yes, we're really looking forward to the walk.

 

Regards,

Mark

[coupdefoudre]

I find this an interesting discussion, as really I think its something we all go through to some degree every time we go out to shoot.  I suppose its a conundrum as a result of having opted for the piety imposed by prime lenses....

 

I'll try to remember to give you attribution when I use "the piety imposed by primes" or some variation thereof!

[StevieB]

Very wide landscape photos can lack interest imo. 35mm would be my choice.

[Printmaker]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Very wide landscape photos can lack interest imo. 35mm would be my choice.

 

Exactly. I find 28 mm a tad too wide most of the time. Expanding to 21 mm is more useful when needed but for day-in day-out use it is hard to beat a 35 mm. I combine my 35 mm Summicron with a 75 mm Summicron as my basic 2 lens kit.

[bocaburger]

I also admit to owning far too many lenses, but I mentally catalog them into two distinct camps:  lightweight lenses I will carry if I'm doing a lot of walking, and heavier lenses I'm okay with if I'm shooting at a specific destination.  15mm CV v.1, 21/4 CV, 35 Cron v.4, 50 Cron tabbed, 90 "thin" TE, 135/4 Elmar (1960) fall into the first camp.  15mmCV v.3, 21/2.8, 50/1.4, 90/2, 135/4 T-E fall into the second.  I typically carry all of one camp, with the exception of choosing either 90 or 135 depending on circumstances.   If the destination is rather limited, I sometimes pare down and bias the kit appropriately.

Edited February 9, 2018 by bocaburger

[MarkP]

 

 

Very wide landscape photos can lack interest imo. 

Not my landscapes ;-)

[Tailwagger]

I'll try to remember to give you attribution when I use "the piety imposed by primes" or some variation thereof!

 

Hmmm... I'm imagining a variant of the infamous Nocti t-shirt, but face on with the front element reflecting the image of a Cathedral. The caption, or a variant thereof, we already know 

[Archiver]

Images of the Bay of Fires shows a lot of water (obviously).  This is one reason why I would hesitate to rely on stitching multiple images, as the join lines involving water would be noticeable.

 

For this reason, I'd suggest the 21/24 and the 50.  A fast 50 never goes astray as a people lens and to compress the imagery in front of you.  And the 21 will capture everything you see at a glance. 

 

A fast 35 is all very well and good, but it depends.  Have you ever come back from a day shooting 35 and wished you'd had a 21 or a 50 with you?  For everyday use a 35 is fine, but when I'm traveling I want to capture 'everything'.  On a recent trip overseas, I shot mostly with 21 and 50 in all situations from outdoor landscapes to indoor dinners.  The 35 didn't get that much use.  YMMV, obviously.

[erl]

My last trip to Spain, Portugal and Morocco saw me use the Voigtlander 15mm Ver. 111 for about 80% of my shooting! (2 - 3 thousand images).

I would not have credited that to be the case before I went. My point, if possible take as many lenses as you can realistically carry. There are always surprises.

Qualification:  For me the point of travel is to shoot, so I do load myself up with an arsenal of lenses. Restricting myself only on a daily shoot basis.

[MarkP]

 

 

My last trip to Spain, Portugal and Morocco saw me use the Voigtlander 15mm Ver. 111 for about 80% of my shooting! (2 - 3 thousand images).

I would not have credited that to be the case before I went. My point, if possible take as many lenses as you can realistically carry. There are always surprises.

Qualification:  For me the point of travel is to shoot, so I do load myself up with an arsenal of lenses. Restricting myself only on a daily shoot basis.

 

 

Images of the Bay of Fires shows a lot of water (obviously).  This is one reason why I would hesitate to rely on stitching multiple images, as the join lines involving water would be noticeable.

 

Thanks, good point.

 

 

 

For this reason, I'd suggest the 21/24 and the 50.  A fast 50 never goes astray as a people lens and to compress the imagery in front of you.  And the 21 will capture everything you see at a glance. 

 

Exactly why I've considered 50/21 or 50/24 as the most likely combination.

 

 

 

A fast 35 is all very well and good, but it depends.  Have you ever come back from a day shooting 35 and wished you'd had a 21 or a 50 with you?  For everyday use a 35 is fine, but when I'm traveling I want to capture 'everything'.  On a recent trip overseas, I shot mostly with 21 and 50 in all situations from outdoor landscapes to indoor dinners.  The 35 didn't get that much use.  YMMV, obviously.

 

Yes! Exactly why I'm thinking of the above combos. If I only want take one lens out and don't know what to expect then a 35 is safest, but for two lenses I work on either side of 35.

 

 

 

My last trip to Spain, Portugal and Morocco saw me use the Voigtlander 15mm Ver. 111 for about 80% of my shooting! (2 - 3 thousand images).

I would not have credited that to be the case before I went. My point, if possible take as many lenses as you can realistically carry. There are always surprises.

Qualification:  For me the point of travel is to shoot, so I do load myself up with an arsenal of lenses. Restricting myself only on a daily shoot basis.

 

So I recently bought the CV 15 v3 before I went to King Island. It did get a lot of use but I think that 21 or 24 may be more versatile. Furthermore, 15mm is a very new FL for me and I really need the EVF for it. I don't plan on taking an EVF to conserve battery power and keep things simple when on the walk. 

[M11 for me]

15mm for 80% of the shots is amazing. But its really to think about.

[erl]

15mm for 80% of the shots is amazing. But its really to think about.

I know what you are saying, and I agree. Much of my time in those three countries was spent in narrow alleyways and streets, church and castle interiors, souks (markets) and such like. One of my favourite lenses, the 75mm cron got very little use.

 

The ponit, I suppose, is know your destination in advance is you need to prune your gear list. I simply do do that on a daily walk basis, and hope!

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello Mark,

 

There seems to be a pattern developing here & it appears to me that what the pattern is showing is that; people, for the most part, look at the World in their own individual way. And that pretty much determines which lens (Angle of view.) most approximates how they look at the World on a day to day basis.

 

Which might lead a person to conclude that the best lens to take as a basic lens is most likely the same basic lens that you would use yourself for most of the photographing that you already do. For many people that may be an angle of view that might be as wide as a 28mm lens & might be as narrow as a 90mm lens:  The lens that you put on your camera for more or less pretty much of everything.

 

Then, after determining your personal choice, a question that you might ask is: If a person was to take 1 lens to supplement their day to day lens (Without specifying what that day to day lens is.):

Which 1 lens would they take to THAT specific location in order to maximize photo opportunities give that your priorities are: "A" & "B" & "C".

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

Edited February 13, 2018 by Michael Geschlecht

[james.liam]

I know what you are saying, and I agree. Much of my time in those three countries was spent in narrow alleyways and streets, church and castle interiors, souks (markets) and such like. 

 

15mm still seems a bit too wide; took the 21SEM through Jerusalem's old city and the back alleys of Nicosia. The FOV was just right and complemented by the corner-to-corner pinpoint sharpness. 

[Jeff S]

HI Alistair,

 

RX100 IV (and spare battery) is for my wife and a backup.

 

The only problem with the WATE and 35 Summilux combo, which I have considered, is that I'm doubling up on a focal length.

 

Yes, we're really looking forward to the walk.

 

Regards,

Mark

The MATE and 35 would double up focal lengths, not the WATE.

 

Jeff

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[erl]

15mm still seems a bit too wide; took the 21SEM through Jerusalem's old city and the back alleys of Nicosia. The FOV was just right and complemented by the corner-to-corner pinpoint sharpness. 

Horses for courses I guess. I also had the 24mm with me and never used it.

Totally happy with the 15mm image quality. It easily matched my Leica lenses quality, IMO.

[MarkP]

The MATE and 35 would double up focal lengths, not the WATE.

Jeff

TYPO

SHOULD HAVE BEEN MATE