Longer lenses yield the chance to catch and even select details, as in architecture, otherwise overlooked.1 body, 17-35 and 85 or 100.
My experiece is, that a longer lens is hardly ever needed.
Curious to know what others would leave and take?
the 17-35 and the 50mm should do it.I will be 2 weeks in Europe starting next week. Rome, Athens and Zurich. leaving 11/24/20
My backpack is to heavy and I need to reduce things. I will be doing A LOT of walking and shooting.
Curious to know what others would leave and take?
Goals are Architecture, street photography (crowds, cafe/store fronts, alleys and streets)
Night time city and long-exposure
I have rolled 200' of my favorite Pan F Plus and have 15 or so rolls of various color film.
Current bag: ( Crumpler Karachi Outpost)
Bodies:
Maxxum 9 35mm w/grip
Sony A99 w/grip
Lenses:
Maxxum 100mm 2.8 Macro
Maxxum 80-200mm G APO
Maxxum 85mm 1.4
Minolta 17-35 G (its going for sure)
Maxxum 50mm 2.8 macro
Maxxum 16mm Fisheye
Tripod is a Winston Equinox & Airhed 360 head.
maybe the 80-200 APO, its heavy but then I lose 100mm reach if I need it. (longest will be the 100mm prime)
50mm macro? but what if 35mm is too short and 85mm is too long?
16mm? yes, but it is light and some of the ancient ruins really work well with a fisheye (e.g.coliseum)
Maybe I should just take the 17-35 G, the 100mm macro and the 85mm G?
I went to Manhattan and 28mm on so called 35mm camera was very normal to me.
And replying strictly to the question in the title, take just a few and less valuable ones. And it has nothing to do with "they are all criminals over where".
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?