Going to Rome which lenses?

Given your list I would select only the Maxxum 9, the 50 macro, and the 17-35 (and only this last one because you don't list a 28mm or 35mm prime).

I'd leave the tripod and everything else at home.

I would spend 99% of the time enjoying the culture, people, and sights, and spend very little time thinking about photography - which is why the Sony would stay home, too.

If I am traveling primarily for non-photographic reasons, which for me is 99% of my travel, I bring one lens. From your list I would bring the 17-35 and nothing more.

Next week I am traveling to Europe, where photography is not the primary purpose, and am bringing only a 28mm lens and one body, nothing more.

Theo Sulphate said:

Given your list I would select only the Maxxum 9, the 50 macro, and the 17-35 (and only this last one because you don't list a 28mm or 35mm prime).

I'd leave the tripod and everything else at home.

I would spend 99% of the time enjoying the culture, people, and sights, and spend very little time thinking about photography - which is why the Sony would stay home, too.

Click to expand...

Good advice.

I would put the 17-35 G on the A99 and the 50/2.8 on the Maxxum 9 - you can switch around later if you choose. To save weight and space, I might leave off the grip on the Maxxum (do you really need it?). For longer ranges, you could shoot the A99 with the 50mm and crop later. Otherwise, I would take the 85mm lens as it is much more compact than the 100.

If you are worried about crime, pick up a Minolta 70-210 f4 "beercan" which can be used as a club if needed.

go to Rome & leave your gear at home and enjoy your stay. next time take ONE camera & ONE lens & ONE film and shoot. Third time maybe .....

50mm and leave the rest.

Just have to tell you, I have been so busy wrapping up at work and preparing for the trip that I have not got a chance until now to sit down and check this post. I have thought about it several times and hoped that I would have a few replies with some advice but never would I have imagined so many sharing their advice! All warm and thoughtful replies and I thank you. I agree with every one who said that a trip like this is to enjoy, and that I will! I will be alone with the exception of meeting a friend and his wife for dinner the first night. I will have a camera in my possession at all times read:Maxxum 9 and hope that as a result I will have months worth of work in my darkroom!

I do have many other lenses i.e. the 28 2.8, 50mm 1.7 and the beercan but I have opted out of those because they are all covered by the other lenses.
I bought the 17-35 just for this trip since I knew a really good ultra-wide zoom would be the most versatile. You know the thing I think that had me packing so many lenses is that each one has its own contribution and personality. The 85 has been my favorite for so long. So sharp! The 100 speaks for itself and "sort of" took the place of the 85 when I got it. (kinda like Buzz did to Woody) they get along great now though. How to choose?!

I know that digital is not the game here and I get that. I am a film guy too. I have been since 1980 and I have a darkroom. The A99 is my first digital camera and it actually complements the Maxxum 9 and 7 (I'm not taking the 7 body) that I primarily use for small format. The Minolta A-mount lenses work with it as if they were made for it. I don't own a Sony lens. And anyway it is good to keep up with the times and most days it will stay at the hotel but I do want to take it out one day and push some boundaries.

I do have a few roles of faster film with me but only if I need them. I love Ilford Pan F! that sloooow film hooked me many years ago! The fine grain is so fine and it goes so well with a super sharp lens! I will take the downsides that come with it. I will switch films in the evenings or rate the ISO50 up if I have to.

Many commented on the grips. the sole purpose for me to have grips on both bodies is so that I have the controls in the same position while in either portrait or landscape. I have arthritis in my hands that hurts sometimes and it helps. I am however considering leaving those behind since each weighs about the same as a lens. The 80-200, well it is a beast and it is staying home. Sure hope I don't end up on some rooftop looking out over the city at night though or I will regret that choice

And so, with your help this is what I have come down to: Both bodies, the 17-35, the 50 1.7 instead of the 50 2.8 since the 100 does macro and the 100mm. Macro is good to have since there are so many textures in those old structures. Etched words etc. and as a reward for my lens discipline I have decided to throw in the RB67! Just kidding.

So 2 camera bodies, 3 lenses, 40+ rolls of film and the jury is still out on the tripod. Heck I just got it! and slow film with available evening light sort of begs for a good stable tripod but strong cases posted here in favor of a cheap, lightweight tripod have me thinking.

Finally, I promise when I return that I will scan and post some of the results for your kindness and help!
Michael

cliveh said:

50mm and leave the rest.

Click to expand...

exactly !!

cliveh said:

50mm and leave the rest.

Click to expand...

The 50mm is not wide enough quite often for Rome.

Dear Michael, I refrained from jumping on the tipsters' bandwagon as there were already too many, and possibly some that never were in Rome; however I think that you selected the proper gear to carry with you.

Although Rome is wonderful, it is at the same time an overpopulated town with awful cars, noisy scooters, useless road signs and poles everywhere, ready to ruin your pictures. When in town, you will very rarely have the chance to take a decent picture of a building from bottom to top, unless you'll be content with "souvenir snapshots" overfilled with disturbing objects. So, although I dislike zooms, a wideangle zoom is a wise choice in this case.

When in areas where awful cars etc. etc. are not allowed (Terme di Caracalla, San Giovanni Fuori le Mura...) at the same time you will have plenty of space to move around and act as a "human zoom"; that's where your 50mm prime will do its job best.

Being Rome overcrowded, awful cars blah blah blah, it is also overpolluted. Unless you'll have the luck to go there in one of those rare magic days with moderate wind and crystal clean air, you'll find a constant grey haze, and you will rarely find any use for a telelens longer than 100mm (unless you happen to like grey over grey pictures with no contrast, that is). In many cases, the 100mm will also be useful to picture architecture details, in the (frequent) cases in which taking a picture of the whole building will make no sense, or for some "street sketches". Should you have a 2X tele converter, you might carry it with you, just in case.

Frankly, I don't understand those who suggest to carry only the 50mm and leave everything at home. I can go to Rome all days should I want to do so, and as a matter of fact I had great fun in taking picures with a "fixie" Minox 35GT once, and with a "fixie" Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta another time, but definitely I would not suggest the same to someone for whom a trip to Rome could be the trip of a lifetime.

Enjoy your stay! Notwithstanding cars scooters noise etc., and its reprehensible decadence, there is no doubt that you will fall in love with Rome!

This is the first time that here at Apug I read about air pollution in context of lens choice. I did not consider that myself so far.

That's because I live in an area with no winds, where pollution tends to sum up with humidity and seasonal fog, so I am particularly sensitive to the issue. Although my 35mm setup goes up to 300mm, I have very rarely used the 200mm for landscapes, and I have possibly taken no more than 2 or 3 landscapes with the 300mm. These negatives are usually flat, and give uninspiring grey prints even with high contrast papers.

Under these conditions, should I have to leave part of my gear at home, it is reasonable to leave the longer telephoto lenses.

When I was in Rome in August 2009, there was no pollution to speak of, but we had a couple of sunny days and possibly some wind that may explain that, at least my classic tourist-snaps from the top of St. Peter are smog-free, maybe we were lucky

I have gone trough the photo's I took when I went to Rome and even though I am normally a longer-lens kind of guy, I see that the main part of all the shots I've done, are done with my 17-40 on that trip. Most of the shots are at or below 24mm. (mostly of architecture etc)

Since I only had 2-3 days there (and that the girlfriend at the time came down with an inflammation of the kidney on our way there), we did the very typical tourist-route indeed.
- St. Peter
- Colosseum
- Some walking about in the inner-city (but unfortunately also some time spent in the hospital).

The only times I used a longer focal-length, since I did bring my 70-200 back then, was when taking photos of people (Swiss-guard and others), and the statues and ruins along Via del fori imperiali (the road from Altare della Patria to the Colosseum) and a few details here and there, and of those, most of them are around 100-125mm.

If you want to get a good panorama of the inner-parts of the Colosseum, 17mm will just cover the whole thing.
To get a good pano of Piazza San Pietro (the area in-front of the St. Peter church), 24mm and below will at least give you some of that. (but I also used 50mm and longer to get a cool effect of all the pillars and all the doves there).

Anyway, I am going to break with convention and tell you to consider your *D* option as well, because inside St. Peter church itself, I was working with ISO's around 1000-1600, I don't have a shot with lesser ISO from there. (but I did use F4 lenses, so if you have faster ones, you just might be able to drop down to ISO 400, maybe).

It all depends on your shooting-style, typical number of snaps etc and if you are a mainly film-guy or, like me 50/50 to 70/30 in favor of *D* when I travel.
These days, even if I do bring a *D* setup with me, I make sure to stuff a Leica with a 50mm and a few rolls in the bag too.

- Very few of my shots in Rome were between 50 and 100mm though, I see most were below 40mm and the rest around 100-125mm

I would never bring a battery-grip with any bodies I have, unless I plan to use portrait mode (IE. photo-shoots), since the camera-bulk and weight does increase a lot with them, usually. (I understand you to have a condition that may influence your way to holding the camera, so that is surely up to you).

And don't forget to eat....a lot.....they know food )))

WilmarcoImaging said:

If I am traveling primarily for non-photographic reasons, which for me is 99% of my travel, I bring one lens. From your list I would bring the 17-35 and nothing more.

Next week I am traveling to Europe, where photography is not the primary purpose, and am bringing only a 28mm lens and one body, nothing more.

Click to expand...

I agree with your approach but to me, the 35m lens makes a better only-lens the 28mm.

When I travel (Rome included) I take two Hasselblad bodies and backs each withe the same film (Ilford Delta 400). One body with the 50mm FLE and one with the 150mm plus I take the 2x. I carry that plus other stuff in a camera backpack and a carbon fiber tripod all of which is carry-on. I take an empty daypack in checked luggage. Once I get to where we are staying I will take the two cameras, a light meter and a few rolls of film in the daypack for walking around. That way one meter reading for both cameras and no fumbling around to change lenses. When we are driving around the countryside I have the 2x, tripod and some filters in the car for landscapes. Keeping it simple = more meaningful images. I don't want to confuse what is in one camera with another or what speed film b&w or color etc.
Enjoy your trip.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

Wallendo said:

I would put the 17-35 G on the A99 and the 50/2.8 on the Maxxum 9 - you can switch around later if you choose. To save weight and space, I might leave off the grip on the Maxxum (do you really need it?). For longer ranges, you could shoot the A99 with the 50mm and crop later. Otherwise, I would take the 85mm lens as it is much more compact than the 100.

If you are worried about crime, pick up a Minolta 70-210 f4 "beercan" which can be used as a club if needed.

Click to expand...

Sirius Glass said:

The 50mm is not wide enough quite often for Rome.

Click to expand...

Marco Gilardetti said:

Dear Michael, I refrained from jumping on the tipsters' bandwagon as there were already too many, and possibly some that never were in Rome; however I think that you selected the proper gear to carry with you.

Although Rome is wonderful, it is at the same time an overpopulated town with awful cars, noisy scooters, useless road signs and poles everywhere, ready to ruin your pictures. When in town, you will very rarely have the chance to take a decent picture of a building from bottom to top, unless you'll be content with "souvenir snapshots" overfilled with disturbing objects. So, although I dislike zooms, a wideangle zoom is a wise choice in this case.

...

Enjoy your stay! Notwithstanding cars scooters noise etc., and its reprehensible decadence, there is no doubt that you will fall in love with Rome!

Click to expand...

RalphLambrecht said:

I agree with your approach but to me, the 35m lens makes a better only-lens the 28mm.

Click to expand...

I have spend a lot of time in Rome. Yes in Rome and many other cities vehicles, road signs and poles get in the way. That is why I recommend a 28mm lens to get them out of the frame. 35mm is just not wide enough for the job and 21mm is too wide to be practical for much beyond the interiors of palaces and museums.

Upon reflection, as OP uses PAN F, unless development in Diafine, I would take the fastest lens available. the 85 1.8, 50 1.7, OP reports that he has wide range of Minolta glass, if a 28 or 35 2.0 I would take any of those. When I travel I carry a few rolls of Tmax 100 and lot of Tmax 400.