Jump to content
elwyn

SL + which Lens for Travelling?

Recommended Posts

A quick note, which some may find useful?

I've just got back from a 6 week tour of a lot of different types of places around Australia with my SL - visting family in Perth for two weeks and then travelling around from Adelaide to Cairns.

From my modest selection of lenses, I took my M28 Lux, M75 Cron APO, and the SL 24-90.

I thought the 28 would be useful for cities, the 75 for family portraits and the 24-90 for anything else.

I can report that the 24-90 was on my SL for 95% of the time, and delivered some really great photos.

The only other Lens I used was the 28, when doing early/late walkabouts around Melbourne at the beginning of my tour - great photos, good in low light, and more discrete in some "lively" places in the bustly evening city centre. 

All other times, although heavy (compared to the Leica M lenses), carrying the SL+24-90 wasnt a real problem in spite of many hours of walking.

I did appreciate its weather sealing, when photographing windsurfers with lots of sea spray around, and not having to change lenses in dusty conditions. 

So, my reccomedation would be to not to be affraid of the 24-90's weigh penalty as its benefits outweigh the dissadvantage - and with outstanding photo quality.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes ..... a fair few of us have been making this point for 2 years since the SL appeared. 

 

Like most things ...... it's on when you DO it, that you discover the reality. The 24-90 and a sub 24mm for occasional very w/a shot is all you really need for 99% of the time. 

 

I've been on several landscape trips (and holidays) with a heap of gear and ended up only using the 24-90 and WATE. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I carry as little as possible when I travel.

 

I've gone places with the SL, but the weight of the SL24-90 lens on the camera, all the time, puts me off carrying it around freely. I'd rather go with the SL body, a 'Lux-R 50, 'Cron-R 90, and the WATE if I'm traveling with the SL. I don't care how much better or more flexible the big zoom it: it's too much for me to consider as a carry about. The above three lenses fit nicely in a smallish bag like the A&A GCAM1100; any two of them fit in a Billingham L2 shoulder bag. 

 

 

When I need the flexibility of the zooms AND I need mobility for the system... That's why I bought a Trifecta 10 camera backpack. The SL, SL24-90, SL90-280, and Super-Elmar-R 15mm all fit in that comfortably and it wears well, distributing the weight across my shoulders and back such that I can walk without pain for a long time. But I'd never go street shooting or traveling with that large and awkward a kit for casual picture taking. 

 

Most of the time when I travel now, I carry the M + two lenses. Fits in a much smaller bag, weighs a lot less. Personal needs and limitations, I guess. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SL+24-90 for me. It took me quite some time and use to realise that the SL-24-90 combo isn't that large and/or heavy. Previously I have travelled and hiked - a lot - with a digital M + 21SEM + 50APO (or Lux) + 90 macro-elmar. I strongly believed that this was the ideal, minimalistic set-up. But now I pick SL+24-90. When hiking, I put the SL+24-90 in a "f-stop Navin" bag. Very easy and convenient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SL+24-90 for me. It took me quite some time and use to realise that the SL-24-90 combo isn't that large and/or heavy. Previously I have travelled and hiked - a lot - with a digital M + 21SEM + 50APO (or Lux) + 90 macro-elmar. I strongly believed that this was the ideal, minimalistic set-up. But now I pick SL+24-90. When hiking, I put the SL+24-90 in a "f-stop Navin" bag. Very easy and convenient.

Does the 90-280 fit in the Navin when expanded??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the 90-280 fit in the Navin when expanded??

The Navin holds the SL+24-90, nothing more. And certainly not the 90-280...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've made a few trips with my SL over the past couple years--even one trip to Patagonia that was exclusively for the photography. From now on?  If I'm brining the SL?  It will be the 24-90, the WATE, and the 35mm FLE.  That covers the ultra wide landscape shots, the general use, and the times when I don't want to lug a large lens and/or need better low light capabilities.  No other lenses are really required for the vast majority of travel requirements.  Heck, I don't think any of my other lenses would even make it out of the bag if I brought them.  Well, maybe the 50 APO.  Nah, even though I love that lens there's almost nothing I can do with it that I can't do with the 24-90.  And this is coming from a person who doesn't even like zooms!  I get lazy with zooms, and my images suffer.

Edited by Jared

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1 for the WATE + 24-90 combo.

 

Sometimes I would like to bring with me a longer, rather than wider, companion to the 24-90. I have ended up with two lenses, the Nikon 300mm f4E PF (fresnel optics) and the Voigtländer 180mm f4 APO-Lanthar. 

 

Recently, with the introduction of the CL, I could equally well bring with me the CL for longer reach, I guess. I have to ponder a little on that one. One concern is that the small CL-body, combined with a longer lens without stabilisation, requires short shutter speed to eliminate camera movement (when a tripod is not part of the package).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I want to carry a "minimal" SL kit, mostly targeted to wide to short tele use, and don't mind the size and weight of the 24-90, that can suffice.

 

If I also want a longer lens option for occasional use, I add the Elmar-R 180mm f/4. This nets a 2x focal length gain over the 24-90 at full frame resolution and a 270mm eFOV when the SL is set to APS-C format. It's a small, light lens that makes lovely photographs. Certainly not the equal of the Bazooka on many counts, but for occasional use I don't mind. It's light enough and small enough that it is not adding substantially to the minimum bag'o'gear I need to carry.

 

The Bazooka (SL90-280) is a very large lens to carry—worth it when I need/want it, but I bought the Think Tank Trifecta 10 to carry it because it is simply too heavy and large to carry in a one-shoulder bag without pain for very long. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would take the 24/90 with me - plus a very wide angle lens. At the moment I have none - but the 18 mm SEM I owned before with my Ms was a very good lens. Much cheaper and smaller is the Voigtländer Super Heliar III - which is said to be a very good lens too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a photo trip, I use the two SL zooms for general use, 16-18-21 for wider shot, Noctilux-M 0.95 for existance light and its bokeh.  All nicely packed in a small backpack (Lowre.Pro Mini-Trekker) ..........................the SL50 is too big as well as heavy to fit in the backback !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two SL's + 24/90 + 35,1.4FLE: best IQ, flexibility, compactness, security (due to the second identical body as a ideal backup).

The 90/280, which I also have and love, is simply too large and heavy for all day use when travelling (though for this purpose I can highly recommand the Peak Design Backpack 20L which fits both SL's and the two zooms).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This issue is exactly why I bought a Q. Carrying an SL plus 24-90 wears me down. I can do it for a day but several days? If it had to be the SL I’d have my 35mm Summaron and my 90mm 2.8. A photog friend laughed when I did this recently ‘where are you getting those little lenses from?’

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love my SL with SL 24-90 and M lenses via M to L Leica adapter, but this setup is use for more ‘serious’ photography.

For walkabout and touristy travel I take my Fujifilm X-Pro2 with native 2/35 and an 18-55 Fujinon.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I spent two weeks exploring Scotland and took my SL and 24-90. I also had my M10 and 50 APO plus 28 cron. I did not carry all of this around all of the time. For the most part I used the SL with 24-90. I walked around with one or the other at various times. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I take the 24-90 for just about everything as its awesome and if there is a night out or long walk throw on a tiny zeiss f2 35mm biogon which is actually beautiful to use and when on the SL as light as my old M9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always go to take photos with one lens because i like to candid people. now i got the SL with Leica 75mm summarit f2.5 M. that's good for portrait, candid, street, and landscape ( cityscape as well ). this lens produces sharp image and good bokeh. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In January I did a trip to New Zealand; took the SL plus both zoom lenses and the WATE ...... covered all the focal lengths I needed, plus it wasn't much of a hassle as everything went into a Billingham rucksack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×