Another Iceland lens kit question for SL2-S

[Joker Jeff]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Greetings!    SL2-S, SL2, Q3 (and Fuji XT) shooter heading to Iceland later this month and am ruminating on lenses, weight, and practicality for the trip despite having read every article on the Internet, asking ChatGPT for guidance, etc.      The trip camera body gear will most likely be the SL2-S + Q3.  

The question / dilemma is wide angle / ultra wide angle lens need and strategy.    I have the Super-Vario-Elmar-SL 1: 3.5-4.5 / 16-35 ASPH which is the usual "landscape" lens, however, I was fortunate to be able to purchase a new Super-APO-Summicron-SL 21MM F/2 ASPH  thinking I could save some weight and size (packing / carrying) by using the SL 21mm in lieu of schlepping the 16-35mm.   Is my thinking flawed considering the classic Iceland photog shots of waterfalls (all the names you can't pronounce), landscapes, etc.?    I'll be on a boat putzing around Iceland for a bit  in addition to shots from the land so another use case for wider lenses.

As for the other lenses for the trip, all sorts of options so welcome thoughts - have the APO-SL 21, 35, 50, 75, 90; 24-90, 90-280, 50 SL-Lux (my fav)  and the Q3.  

An M kit was part of the rumination but I've kicked that out of my head for now....

 

Thank you!

[ImmerDraussen]

Hi Jeff,

personally, I found super wide angle lenses not too useful in Iceland.

• the landscape is wide itself and the mountain are not so high
• the special wide angle perspective of close by subjects becomes not very obvious as the rock structure are bizarre itself
• even if Iceland is not overloaded with tourists, to get pictures without others will be impossible with short lenses

An issue is waterspray (bad weather and on boats) or dust (if the weather is good, but windy). I tried to reduce the lens changes. As you have too bodies, I would attach a zoom lens on each. 
I used a S007 with the 30-90mm lens that gives the same possibilities as the 24-90mm and a SL2-s with the Sigma 150-600mm. I had the 16-35mm with me, but rarely used it.

Andreas

 

[Advertisement]

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

[loverofthelight]

I think you need to focus on what aesthetics you want to achieve, is there any more important story behind?  What is your personal style?  Someone would do everything on wide angle, someone else would do everything on tele lenses. Some use only primes... Doesn't matter, are you going to Iceland or to Africa - what is the purpose of it, what is your personal style would be the question. Don't focus too much on the gear, you actually have everything - and I am quite sure that you don't use all the gear to its potential, because you have so much of it. And at the end of the day, it just makes you confused, because you have too much of it. 

[hoolyproductions]

I have not visited Iceland so can't offer advice on specific locations and the usefulness (or not) of an UWA zoom. I am planning a trip to my home country of Scotland right now and there are a lot of similarities (and some differences) in the landscape. For me my own shooting preferences are as important as the location. When shooting landscape I find my 24-90mm most useful - and am usually reluctant to carry an additional heavy zoom. In mountainous or wide open seascapes I also really like to have longer lens; I often find myself at 90mm with the 24-90mm and still have to crop.

I've lived without UWA for quite a while but picked up the tiny Sigma 17mm f/4 a few months ago and basically use it as a 17-24mm zoom. I've only used it a couple of times so far and am very happy with it. Of course you might have a strong preference for the 16-35mm vs a 'standard' zoom (but I would agree with the posted above: when in wide/open landscapes the background gets very small with a UWA.

I also have a 90-280mm which rarely comes along due to the extra weight, but I will make an exception for this trip. If I carry the 24-90mm on my shoulder and the 90-280mm in a lens pouch on the other shoulder I find this quite ok for medium-length hikes. If I think I want to go wide the 17mm fits in my pocket. The other reason I will take the 90-280mm on this trip is that I will mostly be travelling by car (usually it's walking, train, ferry etc and I have to carry all my stuff with my, including clothes, other gear and two heavy zooms is just not fun). 

[StefanC]

Just one short note: I was in Iceland a few years ago...I would never ever go there without a UWW-lens! 

[LeicaR10]

Joker Jeff,   First, welcome to the forum.  You will find a good many well intentioned and knowledgeable photographers who will offer their sage advice such as those above and to include myself.  Second, others have asked the same question several times in both the SL and S forums on which lenses to bring to Iceland.  I have been there a number of times and ImmerDraussen in Post #2 offers good advice.  It will get down to how much hiking and weight you are willing to carry.  Iceland is quite windy and rainy as others mentioned.  If weight isn't too much an issue, my suggestion would be simply take a SL 24-90 and 90-280.  If you are more inclined to primes, then take your SL 21, 50, 90 and call it a day.  I would also suggest taking a sturdy tripod.  If your tripod has a center post with hook, I suggest using your bag/pack for extra weight if its windy.  You can also reach out to a forum member; Stuart Richardson and ask for his thoughts, he lives there.  You might check out the other SL or S camera threads for similar topics and read those posts.  Rain or shine, Iceland is simply an amazing and beautiful country.   Have fun.  r/ Mark

Try this thread:  

 

 

 

[Hans-Dieter Gülicher]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have visited Icland three times, at last by a hight wheeled Pick-Up more inside crossing a lot of fords and going up to hills (Landmannalaugar, Eldja, Laki, Askja etc.). Definitely you will need a lense of about 28 mm because of the tremendous landscape. I will be there again and going by ship to Greenland in July/August.

[hansvons]

People have different goals. If I were traveling to Iceland, I’d be most interested in how man changed the landscape. Shooting what everyone else shoots, those ubiquitous wide vistas and long-exposed water shots wouldn’t interest me. There’s a gazillion of kitsch or near-kitsch images depicting Iceland’s breathtaking nature on the web, printed for selling to medical practices, and in private collections which will never see the light.

So, my question would rather be what could I create unique in Iceland, what would be my take on it, what could I add new to the massive body of Iceland photography. 
 

I didn’t give this a deeper thought yet, but I’m sure that how man changed the landscape and how the landscape change man would be part of my discussion. As usual, I’d be ending up with two film Ms, three 35mm lenses and 40 rolls or so of Kodak 5207, Delta 100 and TriX. I might add to that my SL-S as it has IBIS and over 1600 ISO, making it ideal for low light photography. Maybe I’d get a waterproof 35mm lens for shooting in inclement weather. 

All in all that would be a light kit, allowing for flexible hikes, quick excursions here and there, and won’t slow me down or forcing me into those well-worn trails, which I assume are plentiful.

[Hans-Dieter Gülicher]

Lately I prefer my M 10-R plus APO-Summicton 35 mm (f.i. on my trip to Atacama and Antarktica last year).. But at the moment I feel a little bit undecided. Shall I take it as usual or better my S3 plus Vario 30-90 mm (realy 24-72 mm) that`s the question? Mainly I am a landskaper and to get a close up pictures I later can take a crop by PhotoShop.

[Photoworks]

14 hours ago, Joker Jeff said:

An M kit was part of the rumination but I've kicked that out of my head for now....

you are going to regret not taking everything. LOL

don't forget the pack the sherpa.

[LocalHero1953]

When I went, it was the colours that I looked for, especially where colourful buildings were placed in the landscape. I've posted this before in other threads.

I took the Elmarit-M 28 (30%), Summilux-M 35 FLE (40%) and Apo-Summicron-M 90 (30%). I never felt I was missing a lens. But then I rarely do, whatever lenses I take . That says more about how I approach photography than about Iceland - so it's not much use to you!

[Photoworks]

1 hour ago, LocalHero1953 said:

When I went, it was the colours that I looked for, especially where colourful buildings were placed in the landscape. I've posted this before in other threads.

I took the Elmarit-M 28 (30%), Summilux-M 35 FLE (40%) and Apo-Summicron-M 90 (30%). I never felt I was missing a lens. But then I rarely do, whatever lenses I take . That says more about how I approach photography than about Iceland - so it's not much use to you!

Nice images, I can't imagine you need anything more.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Visited Iceland for the first time in December (winter). Took lenses from 12-200mm. (Sony kit for size and weight). My least used lens was the 12-24 but my most used lens was the 20-70. I missed having something longer. Really did. Would loved some more compression at times. And I did a lot of stitching. Landscapes are wide and thin.

For my Summer trip in August, I'm taking 2x SL3's, 14-24, 24-90 and a 100-400. Maybe a small 50 and a 20-60 for Reykjavik wandering.

Gordon

[Joker Jeff]

All - thank you for the practical and sage advice.    The sum of the thread - think about shooting style and what is of interest while looking for unique / different shots knowing there are endless pics of Iceland waterfalls, puffins, etc.   Remember it's wet, rainy, and don't empty the gear locker for the trip!

Think I'm leaning towards the SL 21mm, 24-90mm, 90-280 + Q3 for the daily street stuff.   I'm have the Peak Design travel tripod - too light?   I'm trying to stay away from bringing the 3 legged thing tripod - love it but heavy.

@ImmerDraussen - like the "always outside" name - thanks for the reach guidance!

@loverofthelight @hansvons  I'm adding your guidance to my personal notes - very sage advice and my thinking when I'm out and about shooting street.  It's the travel trips that are the stressful ones from a photographer with too much gear.

@Sc-Fotoblog.com - noted and think I'm looking at the SL 21mm vs the 16-35 for some weight savings

@LeicaR10 - thank you and while I'm avid reader of this forum including the article you included, this is my first post.   Very much appreciate the guidance - guess it goes hand in hand with the Leica shooter mentality!     

@Hans-Dieter Gülicher - thank you. Options will be available with teh 21, 24-90, and the Q3 which is a bit wider than 28mm

@Photoworks - no regrets is what I tell myself every night I look at my packing list!    I did get side-tracked with going down the "just get an M11-P and some M lenses" path to really cut weight and to be able to bring even more stuff but not sensible....yet

@LocalHero1953 - very nice photo zine of Iceland!   

@FlashGordonPhotography - always look for your response so thank you for replying.    Pondered bringing my to SL bodies but hard for me to not travel with my Q3 (or Q2, Q in the past) on every trip.    

Jeff

 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

2 minutes ago, Joker Jeff said:

 

@FlashGordonPhotography - always look for your response so thank you for replying.    Pondered bringing my to SL bodies but hard for me to not travel with my Q3 (or Q2, Q in the past) on every trip.    

Jeff

 

K took her Q3 and Q2 mono as well as a small Canon kit to 200mm. 70% of her picks are from the Q3/Q2M. 20% at 200mm and the rest for the last 10%. 28mm is a very usable focal length in Iceland. 28mm's not my preferred focal length and I'd take my Q's when I have a small bag of primes. Next year I have another (hopefully) trip to Varanassi and I'd have an SL3 with 50mm on one shoulder and a Q3 on the other. Or Hasselblad equivalents.

But if you see at 28mm then absolutely.

Gordon

[BLeventhal]

What Garden said...

I've been to Iceland twice and I used an ultra wide for many of my most dramatic shots. If you are going to Jokulsarlon (Diamond Beach) or Kirkjufell, you will be mad at your inability to get wide enough. 

I am currently building a Leica kit for landscape while remaining a Nikon shooter for wildlife. I'm not willing to buy the APO glass. At this point I have an SL2-S, Super-Vario-Elmar 14-24, Vario-Elmar 24-70, and will be adding a second body (Either an SL2 or 2nd 2-S) and a tele-zoom down the line. Unfortunately, the 90-280 is more than I'm willing to spend... I'll either buy the 100-400 or jump to the Sigma L 70-200 f2.8, a lens that seems to punch well above its price point.

One more thing... bring a 2nd SL-series body, you'll be mad at yourself if your only one goes down or you need to change lenses in a windy rainstorm.... Linked is my Iceland gallery, you can see that I used ultrawides in many of these images: https://bruce-leventhal.squarespace.com/southern-iceland

cheers,

bruce

Edited May 4 by BLeventhal

[hansvons]

16 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

When I went, it was the colours that I looked for, especially where colourful buildings were placed in the landscape. I've posted this before in other threads.

 

Exactly how I‘d do it. In the best sense sparing photography without fuss or quibble. 

[JohnSantaF4]

On 5/4/2024 at 2:00 AM, BLeventhal said:

What Garden said...

I've been to Iceland twice and I used an ultra wide for many of my most dramatic shots. If you are going to Jokulsarlon (Diamond Beach) or Kirkjufell, you will be mad at your inability to get wide enough. 

I am currently building a Leica kit for landscape while remaining a Nikon shooter for wildlife. I'm not willing to buy the APO glass. At this point I have an SL2-S, Super-Vario-Elmar 14-24, Vario-Elmar 24-70, and will be adding a second body (Either an SL2 or 2nd 2-S) and a tele-zoom down the line. Unfortunately, the 90-280 is more than I'm willing to spend... I'll either buy the 100-400 or jump to the Sigma L 70-200 f2.8, a lens that seems to punch well above its price point.

One more thing... bring a 2nd SL-series body, you'll be mad at yourself if your only one goes down or you need to change lenses in a windy rainstorm.... Linked is my Iceland gallery, you can see that I used ultrawides in many of these images: https://bruce-leventhal.squarespace.com/southern-iceland

cheers,

bruce

Your southern Iceland portfolio is superb, especially the b&w images. Congrats.

[BLeventhal]

4 hours ago, JohnSantaF4 said:

Your southern Iceland portfolio is superb, especially the b&w images. Congrats.

Thank you very much. 

The discussion here has inspired me to go back to Iceland... I booked a 4-day (short) winter workshop to photograph the Aurora, Ice Caves, and Diamond beach. All of my Iceland photography has been in the summer, and I want to add the winter to my portfolio. As I am currently building a Leica kit in parallel with my existing Nikon stuff, I will probably be bring the Leica stuff. At this point, I have the SL2-s, SL 24-70 f2.8, and SL 14-24 f2.8. My trip is in November, by then I hope to have a second body... May go with a Typ 601, as it has a great rendering for greens and produces beautiful black and whites. As for the telephoto... well, I'm leaning towards the new Sigma 70-200 f2.8 sport, as that lens looks to be amazing... While I'm considering the Leica 100-400, I have the same focal length in my Nikon kit... my goal is to differentiate the kits for different purposes.

bruce

Edited May 8 by BLeventhal

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[JohnSantaF4]

Makes sense. I’ve been in summer but not winter. Sounds awesome.