Jump to content

The Leica Forum uses cookies. Read the privacy statement for more info. To remove this message, please click the button to the right:    OK, understood.

Photo

SL + which Lens for Travelling?


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 elwyn

elwyn

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts
  • Locationwest sussex

Posted 13 February 2018 - 09:28

Advertisement (Gone after free registration)

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.

 


  • thighslapper and Alistairm said thank you to this

#2 thighslapper

thighslapper

    Grumpy Old Fart

  • Premium Member
  • 6,433 posts
  • LocationUK - Shakespeares County

Posted 13 February 2018 - 10:53

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. 


  • hmathias, elwyn, Alistairm and 1 other said thank you

#3 ramarren

ramarren

    Not particularly anonymous.

  • Members
  • 3,883 posts
  • LocationSilicon Valley, California

Posted 13 February 2018 - 14:35

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. 



#4 helged

helged

    enjoying light, simply

  • Premium Member
  • 1,254 posts
  • City / Ort:Norway

Posted 13 February 2018 - 15:52

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.


  • elwyn said thank you to this

#5 Donzo98

Donzo98

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 261 posts
  • LocationLong Island, NY
  • City / Ort:Merrick, NY

Posted 13 February 2018 - 16:02

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??

#6 helged

helged

    enjoying light, simply

  • Premium Member
  • 1,254 posts
  • City / Ort:Norway

Posted 13 February 2018 - 17:08

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...

#7 Jared

Jared

    Benutzer

  • Members
  • 653 posts

Posted 14 February 2018 - 03:40

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, 14 February 2018 - 03:42.

  • helged, thighslapper, elwyn and 1 other said thank you

#8 helged

helged

    enjoying light, simply

  • Premium Member
  • 1,254 posts
  • City / Ort:Norway

Posted 14 February 2018 - 08:24

+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).


  • Alistairm said thank you to this

#9 ramarren

ramarren

    Not particularly anonymous.

  • Members
  • 3,883 posts
  • LocationSilicon Valley, California

Posted 14 February 2018 - 17:04

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. 



#10 Delcredere

Delcredere

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 170 posts

Posted Today, 18:47

WATE + 0.95 Nocti + 24-90


2 user(s) are reading this topic


    Delcredere