ideal travel combo?

[tom0511]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I just curious how you guys find the SL and its lenses for travel.

Do you bring the heavy ones ? 16-35/ 24-90 ?

Which combo you feel is ok to carry?

Or do you use a lighter camera for travel ( CL ) ?

Or just M lenses?

And ideal travel set would be 16-35 + 24-90 + 50/2.0 IMO, but you dont want to carry that all day long.

So I think about 16-35 (landscape) + 75 (kids and family), but than I will be swapping lenses back and forth all the time.

 

[Viv]

For me, it will be CL and 23, asa from next week.

[Advertisement]

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

[frame-it]

when i travel to other places i usually take the SL or M5 with only one lens, the summilux 50 OR sometimes a 90mm APO Summicron;

and one infrared 850nm camera - depending on the weather at the destination country

though a few weeks back i took only my GFX with the 50 summilux and nothing else.

for me it also depends if that destination city has cool used camera shops e.g. [hong kong/Tokyo/Osaka/Bangkok etc], and if so i end up buying some vintage leica/nikkor/juipter lenses anyways

i dont use tripods and hate carrying bags

Edited September 27, 2019 by frame-it

[johnbuckley]

This is the source of enormous contemplation before a trip. I divide things this way, but am sure that as many different photographers as are on the forum, with as many combinations of gear that they have, will come up with wildly different approaches.

I'm an SL and M system photographer. Earlier this summer, on a trip to Spain and Portugal, I brought my M10 and Monochrom with 21mm, 35mm and 50mm lenses, and used a small backpack. I don't think I used the 50mm lens once.

Later in the summer, though, I went to Iceland and brought my SL with no M camera or lenses, and brought all three zooms, which I used. I carried them in a Peak Design 30L pack. It was delightful to have that firepower, but this was definitely a landscape, not street trip.

I'm now contemplating a trip to Morocco and somewhat tortured in what to bring. But I believe I will bring the M10 and a range of M lenses, and leave the SL behind.

Why? Because you really have to commit, if you are bringing the SL. It is big and heavy to pack and carry. And so for this trip, I will be an M photographer -- and yes, will miss the SL a fair bit of the time. But when traveling, you have to make tough choices.

 

 

Edited September 27, 2019 by johnbuckley

[douglas ball]

I just completed two trips recently and I felt I had the perfect set up for each. The first was a visit to the Fortress Louisbourg in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia.

This site offers almost everything from landscape, to interiors and architecture, street photography and people. I recommend this site. It was my fourth visit over the years and each time I see something new. The 16-35 was perfect and, by far,  the most used lens on this day. The last time I was there I used mainly a Canon 24 TSE lens and tripod. 

This time I had the 16-35 SL on the Lumix S1-R, and the 75SL on my SL body. With the Lumix and the relatively slow 16-35, because of the IBIS, I was able to get superb interior shots that I could not easily do before. This eliminated the need for a tripod, and allowed me to move much more quickly, as this site is known for changing weather conditions.

Both bodies have the RRS L bracket that takes the quick attach over the shoulder sling strap. I used the Think Tank 35 Classic bag, which is vertical in form. This takes the 90-280 as well as another lens on a body. The bag can have shoulder straps so it is carried like a back pac. I have used this bag on many trips and it always was satisfying to use

I carried the SL and 75 & 35 lens in a Billingham Hadly Pro.  I would carry this all day, and it was evenly balanced and comfortable. The secret is to carry the heavy body and lens on the over the shoulder sling and it becomes almost weightless. By the way I turned 84 this summer.

On a subsequent trip to the beach,  I carried only the Billingham with SL and 75SL, 35SL combination. This is a great combination IMO. 

It is nice to have options as each destination can have different requirements. I only recently acquired the 16-35 and had no idea how versatile this lens could be. 

[douglas ball]

As a follow to John Buckley and his upcoming trip to Morocco. You are probably aware that the people there do not like having their pictures take. Some don't mind but expect or demand payment. Having he same concerns as you I took the SL with 24-90 lens which was superb for the bulk of the trip. When visiting a site where numerous people were expected I carried a M with a 35. I added a small level that fit in the top socket. This allowed me to hang the camera on my chest, level it, and focus by feel. This worked fairly well but I still got called out on some attempts. 

Luckily the great majority of the days were spent away from cities and hill towns where the SL and VE 24-90 excelled, and especially from the back of a camel, where changing lenses is not recommended. Actually, this was one of the few times I used GPS in the SL. This was very helpful upon return, in determining exactly where we had been in the desert. 

Again, sling with SL and heavy lens, not a problem. 

[johnbuckley]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Douglas - thanks especially for the tip on the level. Yes, I've heard and read about the issues with street photography in Marrakech in particular. I'm planning on shooting with the M and either the 28 or 35 Summicrons, because I've gotten fairly good at shooting from the hip with them. But I've never thought about using a small level on top, which is brilliant.

I'd like to bring the SL for when we're outside of cities, but think it's probably wiser, on this trip, to commit to the M system.

[tom0511]

In earlier times I travelled a lot with M only (21-35-50 and sometimes 75 or 90).

If I didnt have kids and if I didnt want to rely more often on AF I would use this most of the time.

Lately I have used the SL more often also for travel. Because of AF, specially when using focal length longer than 50mm.

 In the beginning it was great (because I only had the 24-90). But now having more SL lenses its harder to choose.

The 24-90 is very flexible, but the 16-35 offers more "dynamic" views/perpectives IMO. But with the 16-35 one needs to bring at least one more lens.

 

[hhn360]

For the SL, my travel kit are the SL 35mm f2 (general purpose), 75mm or 90mm f2 (portraiture), and 24mm Canon tilt-shift which I use with the Novoflex adapter for architecture/landscape.  The primes are relatively compact to carry around and if I'm doing architectural/landscape photography on the trip, I would rather use a tilt-shift lens than the 16-35.  

[rfunnell]

When travelling I like to have both the Q2 and SL with 35SL APO .

No lens changes and relatively light to carry .

Some days may just carry the Q2  when you want to be discrete and light and other days just the SL & 35 SL APO  or both.

Have travelled with many M lenses before and I have always found it hard to choose what to take or use  not to mention keeping them all safe.

[jplomley]

SL + 75 SL APO and M10 with 35 Lux FLE and 21SEM. Perfect kit IMHO (until the 21 SL APO comes out)

 

[Mr.Q]

24-90 and a 50/1.4 M will cover 99% of my photographic needs.

Maybe throw in a WATE, CV 15 or 21 if something wider is needed. The 16-35 is way too heavy to haul around for it's limited use (for me)

[panoreserve]

2x SL, Apo SL35 & Apo SL90 (& Apo SL 21 in 2020). 

That's all😉.

[tom0511]

vor 9 Stunden schrieb jplomley:

SL + 75 SL APO and M10 with 35 Lux FLE and 21SEM. Perfect kit IMHO (until the 21 SL APO comes out)

 

This is an attractive set IMO, since for wideangle I usually dont need AF, but for 50mm and up AF is usefull. Your suggestion means not having to swap lenses all the time because one has 2 bodies.

[budjames]

15 hours ago, hhn360 said:

For the SL, my travel kit are the SL 35mm f2 (general purpose), 75mm or 90mm f2 (portraiture), and 24mm Canon tilt-shift which I use with the Novoflex adapter for architecture/landscape.  The primes are relatively compact to carry around and if I'm doing architectural/landscape photography on the trip, I would rather use a tilt-shift lens than the 16-35.  

I just acquired a lightly used SL to compliment my M kit. I used to shoot Canon pro DSLRs but sold everything off except for the Canon 17mm Tilt Shift lens. I was hoping to be able to use the lens again someday although the last time was over 5 years ago when I still had my Canon bodies.

I see that you use the Novaflex adapter with your Canon T/S lens. How has this worked out? I am considering this adapter but was off put by the high price just to use with my only Canon lens.

Regards,
Bud James

Please check out my fine art and travel photography at www.budjames.photography or on Instagram at www.instagram.com/budjamesphoto.

[Chaemono]

vor 43 Minuten schrieb budjames:

I just acquired a lightly used SL to compliment my M kit. I used to shoot Canon pro DSLRs but sold everything off except for the Canon 17mm Tilt Shift lens. I was hoping to be able to use the lens again someday although the last time was over 5 years ago when I still had my Canon bodies.

I see that you use the Novaflex adapter with your Canon T/S lens. How has this worked out? I am considering this adapter but was off put by the high price just to use with my only Canon lens.

Regards,
Bud James

Please check out my fine art and travel photography at www.budjames.photography or on Instagram at www.instagram.com/budjamesphoto.

Novoflex Canon EF to Leica L-mount works perfectly to set the aperture on the 55 Otus with the Canon mount, for example, but AF with the Sigma Art 50/1.4 doesn’t work on the SL. Also, like all adapters it will affect bokeh ever so slightly. It’s not visible unless one knows what the bokeh looks like on its native mount.

See here 55 Otus on the SL: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-GGCRrg/

See here 55 Otus on its ‘native’ Canon mount: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-9J3jzS/

[graeme_clarke]

Well, for me it really does depend on the subject. On a trip to S Africa last November to photograph "mega herbivores", for landscapes and for natural history I use an SL + 24-90, 90-280 and a 100mm R 2.8 macro. Also in the backpack  I have a couple of spare batteries, Lee filters, cable release, as well as carrying a tripod.   On a recent trip to Copenhagen and similar where I'm not wanting to carry a backpack and tripod all day I use a Cl and 18-56 - I also have a couple of spare batteries and 2 close-up lenses (+1 and +2) in the bag just in case some "macro" subject pops up!  Both cameras give me cracking images..

Graeme

[LocalHero1953]

I tried the SL once for travel - never again. Too heavy, too bulky to be discreet. I used it with the 24-90, but I would have felt the same I'd had a smaller SL lens. 

For travel it is now always the CL with the 18-56, and either the 11-23 or 60TL in my bag each day. If I'm feeling particularly nervous (I've had just one total camera failure in 40 years), I will take the TL2 on the trip, and use it at night. Before I had the CL it was always the M240.

I don't like taking photos surreptitiously in cultures where it is often unacceptable. I prefer to make it clear I have a camera and read the signs as to whether I can take a shot or not. As I did here (Nizwa souk, Oman, M240)

 

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!

[tom0511]

I spent all day long to check out some equipment (SL/CL/M and various lenses). In order to choose what to take I agree with you guys: it depends

what do we plan to shoot on the trip, how much are we willing to carry, what expectations do we have.

As a non-pro travelling means the chance to shoot beautiiful subjects (and memories), which I usually can not shoot.

So it is hard for me to have those SL-lenses with super-dooper IQ and leave them at home because of weight. On the other side there is a big attraction of travelling light and reduction.

I am packing right now for a vacation trip to Mallorca, hiking, beach, villages. So I decided to have the 16-35 and 75 as main lenses for hiking and villages, and bring the Pana 24-105 for the beach (with the kids) On those days the other 2 lenses will stay in the hotel room.

Just hard to decide between 16-35 +75 or M21 + Midrangezoom.

I might add the Q2 for the evening or those days when I dont want to carry the "big" camera.

So here we go, this time I was not brave enough to travel lite.

I was close to bring the M10 with a couple of lenses instead, but I feel to be spoiled by the new SL-lenses so much that I have started prefering their rendering over the M-lenses (except the 50 M-APO), and also for ultra wide angle the EVF of SL over M-Visoflex, +AF for the 75. Comes at a high "weight-price" though.

 

 

Edited September 28, 2019 by tom0511

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[budjames]

22 hours ago, Chaemono said:

Novoflex Canon EF to Leica L-mount works perfectly to set the aperture on the 55 Otus with the Canon mount, for example, but AF with the Sigma Art 50/1.4 doesn’t work on the SL. Also, like all adapters it will affect bokeh ever so slightly. It’s not visible unless one knows what the bokeh looks like on its native mount.

See here 55 Otus on the SL: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-GGCRrg/

See here 55 Otus on its ‘native’ Canon mount: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-9J3jzS/

What body is the "native Canon mount" images shot with?

Regards,
Bud James

Please check out my fine art and travel photography at www.budjames.photography or on Instagram at www.instagram.com/budjamesphoto.