elwyn Posted February 13, 2018 Share #1 Posted February 13, 2018 Advertisement (gone after 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. 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 13, 2018 Posted February 13, 2018 Hi elwyn, Take a look here SL + which Lens for Travelling?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
thighslapper Posted February 13, 2018 Share #2 Posted February 13, 2018 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. 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted February 13, 2018 Share #3 Posted February 13, 2018 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. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
helged Posted February 13, 2018 Share #4 Posted February 13, 2018 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. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donzo98 Posted February 13, 2018 Share #5 Posted February 13, 2018 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?? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
helged Posted February 13, 2018 Share #6 Posted February 13, 2018 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... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jared Posted February 14, 2018 Share #7 Posted February 14, 2018 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) 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 February 14, 2018 by Jared 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
helged Posted February 14, 2018 Share #8 Posted February 14, 2018 +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). 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted February 14, 2018 Share #9 Posted February 14, 2018 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. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delcredere Posted February 20, 2018 Share #10 Posted February 20, 2018 WATE + 0.95 Nocti + 24-90 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinzX Posted February 20, 2018 Share #11 Posted February 20, 2018 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted February 20, 2018 Share #12 Posted February 20, 2018 For me 24-90 and 35/1.4 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
amoebahydra Posted February 22, 2018 Share #13 Posted February 22, 2018 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 ! Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/281774-sl-which-lens-for-travelling/?do=findComment&comment=3466432'>More sharing options...
panoreserve Posted February 22, 2018 Share #14 Posted February 22, 2018 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). Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
antigallican Posted February 22, 2018 Share #15 Posted February 22, 2018 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?’ 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vladik Posted March 8, 2018 Share #16 Posted March 8, 2018 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill W Posted March 8, 2018 Share #17 Posted March 8, 2018 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. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hillavoider Posted March 8, 2018 Share #18 Posted March 8, 2018 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 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oudjunk Posted March 9, 2018 Share #19 Posted March 9, 2018 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lanetomlane Posted March 10, 2018 Share #20 Posted March 10, 2018 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. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.