Going to Rome which lenses?

[NosxiH]

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?

 

[mooseontheloose]

Welcome to Photrio!

When I travel in Europe I tend to favour wide and moderate lenses: mostly 28mm (or 20mm) and 50mm. I don't like zooms because they are often too heavy for the equivalent primes that I could take, and most have terrible distortion. My only tele lens is usually a 105mm, but occasionally a 70-200mm lens. To be honest, I rarely use that end of the range, it probably makes up less than 5% of my photos. As such, if I need to leave a lens behind, that's usually it. A lot of cities are pretty crowded, so if you are going for street scenes/architecture I don't see how the zoom will help you much, unless you like to focus on details or like to compress the distance. That said, with the lenses you have, probably your 17-35, 50 and 80-200 would be the best combination, which would cover the ranges you are worried about. If you find your bag is too heavy, you can always leave a lens or two back at the hotel.

 

[Frank53]

1 body, 17-35 and 85 or 100.
Should be more than enough for city trips.
Taking so many lenses, is far too much. You’ll be changing lenses all the time and that will make you miss many pictures.
You’re there to look around, not to carry stuff around and change lenses.
My experiece is, that a longer lens is hardly ever needed.
Have fun,
Frank

 

[howardpan]

I would just take the film body and leave the DSLR at home. I would take just the 50mm lens as that is my favorite focal length. I may also take 85mm for some tighter portraits. That should be more than enough for your trip.

I just came back from a two week trip carrying just a Minolta Autocord TLR. It’s a medium format with a fixed lens of 75mm.

 

[AgX]

1 body, 17-35 and 85 or 100.
My experiece is, that a longer lens is hardly ever needed.

Longer lenses yield the chance to catch and even select details, as in architecture, otherwise overlooked.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

You're hauling so much glass that you'll be spending more time deciding on and changing lenses than you will taking photos. Yes, sure, there are some select shots you'll "miss" if you don't have certain lenses along, like the 80-200. But the shots you'll miss by not having it have already been done, better, by local pros, and you can buy them on the postcard rack at the corner store on any street in Rome or Athens for a Euro or two. I'd bring the 17-35, the 50 macro and the 85. That's it. And just one camera. If you need instant snaps to prove to friends and family back home you're alive and well and at the Vatican (or wherever), use your cellphone for that. On my last trip to Rome, I, like howardpan, took a TLR (Rolleiflex 2.8E, and a Tele-Rolleiflex - 80mm and 135mm lenses on 120 film, so the 50mm and 85mm equivalents) and a Lomo Belair X6-12 with a 90mm lens (if you're not familiar with the camera, it's a 6x12cm panoramic camera - the 90mm is the equivalent of a 28, give or take, on 35mm). So three focal lengths, one film format. Juggling back and forth gets crazy.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Most of what you describe could be done with a fast 28 or 35 (and a more flexible film than Pan-F, but that's a different story). Hauling around more than that is not really going to do more than lose you images as you change lenses & make your back hurt. All too often, the less kit you haul equals better photography - and the photographs are often more reflective of your own thoughts and feelings than mere repetitions of everyone else's clichés.

 

[RattyMouse]

When in Rome all I had were 28mm and 44mm (135 equivalent) lenses. Suited me perfectly.

 

[Helinophoto]

Bring a wide-zoom (17-40 type) you lack a normal zoom (24-105 type), with those you can cover 99% of everything you will encounter.
Throw in a fast 50 for indoor St. Peter church shots and portraits.

I usually bring just those three lenses with me on my travels and I don't miss my 70-200 or my fisheye.

Also, a mini-tripod that cost $20 does the job on the go, they are flimsy, plastic and basically crap, but works just well enough with my 5d mk iii, Rolleiflex or Hassy when traveling, (especially if you don't pull the legs out too much). The point is that, since they are usually shorter than 60cm when folded, they easily go into checked baggage, weigh nothing and enable long shutter-speed shots.
https://www.jula.no/catalog/hjem-og...ort.order=desc&skip=0&take=25&_=1511097135253

 

[narsuitus]

Curious to know what others would leave and take?

For vacation travel, I have three options: lightweight, medium weight, and heavy weight. Your equipment list falls into my heavy weight option. In brackets, I have listed what I would take and what I would leave.

Current bag: ( Crumpler Karachi Outpost) [I use a 400 AW Lowepro backpack]

Bodies: [A & F: two identical bodies]
Maxxum 9 35mm w/grip
Sony A99 w/grip

Lenses:
Maxxum 100mm 2.8 Macro [E: take 105 or 55mm macro but not both]
Maxxum 80-200mm G APO [C: 80-200mm f/2.8]
Maxxum 85mm 1.4 [leave]
Minolta 17-35 G (its going for sure) [G: 20-35mm f/2.8]
Maxxum 50mm 2.8 macro [E: take 105 or 55mm macro but not both]
Maxxum 16mm Fisheye [D: normally I would leave my 16mm fisheye but you made a good argument for taking it. On the other hand, I would rather take my 14mm f/2.8 wide-angle.]

Tripod is a Winston Equinox & Airhed 360 head. [tabletop tripod]



Heavy Vacation Bag by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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?

the 17-35 and the 50mm should do it.

 

[Paul Howell]

Although I have a 9 and Sony 900 when traveling I carry a 600si and Sony 700, both are lighter than the pro body counterparts and if lost or ripped off can replace for less then a few hundred. For lens I like the 50 1.7 for speed, 28 2.8 for wide. When in good light or on the Sony set to ISO 800 to 1600 I also like a 28 to 100 zoom. I also take a 100 to 300 4.5 to 5.6 Konica Minolta, not as well built as the Minolta 75 t0 300 it is somewhat lighter, not as sharp as the 80 to 200 2.8 but has the additional reach if needed. As the 700 is a cropped sensor I also take the 17 to 55 as well.

I would take the 17 to 35, 50 and 100 or 85, leaning towards the 100. Unless you are going to shooting sports don't know why you need the grips, just take a few spear batteries.

 

[OlyMan]

Fit the 17-35 to the Sony A99. Fit the 50mm F2.8 to the Maxxum 9. Fisheye can stay at home because the 17-35 has you covered should you need it on the '9. To cover your telephoto needs, decide between the 100 f/2.8 and 85mm f/1.4 because IMO you don't need both it's just ungainly weight. You're supposed to be taking a holiday not wrecking your back.

 

[jspillane]

I've gotten to the point of bringing less and less for travel, and I never regret bringing less... I'm down to a digital compact (LX100) and a Rolleiflex for analog.

Personally, I'd go with both bodies [if you want film and digital, which i certainly understand], the 85 1.4 and the 17-35. Moderate wide angle and moderate telephoto will cover most needs, plus the 85 1.4 will be good for nights without a tripod.

 

[MattKing]

A 2X tele-converter added to the 85 f/1.4 would give you a usable long option for the times one is required.

 

[removed account4]

in you HAVE to .. bring the digi body and the film body,
and 3 lenses a wide, a normal and a long
but often times the gear is so much of a distraction
you end up futzing around trying to decide what to use
and you miss out on what you were there for ..
last time i went to france/germany i had 1 lens ( a 50 ) and 1 body
it worked out great .. i spent more time photographing and less time
trying to figure out what to use... and it weighs less too..

 

[etn]

If your bag is too heavy, take just one body (obviously the film one!) and a 50mm lens. You'll realize that the 50 is very polyvalent! Good exercise in style, in fact

 

[Trask]

I spent five years all told living in Paris recently, and rarely went out without a camera — did a lot of walking and shooting. OK, I’m now 66, but even when younger I had to pay attention to weight, as over the hours of pounding payment everything just seems to get heavier. I’d usually take a Nikon F with a 35mm or 50mm lens, as the streets in Paris are generally narrow, apart from the wide boulevards — perhaps Rome, Athens and Zurich are the same. If I took a rangefinder, again a 35mm, with maybe a 21mm and a 90mm in the bag, given the lighter weight of these lenses. I only shot b/w, so one body was sufficient; if you think you want to shoot color and b/w at the same time, then you’ll need a second body. Occasionally I’d take a Hasselblad with 80mm lens, but no other lenses. I think the advice you’ve received from others above to take one body and 2 or max 3 normal/wide lenses is on target. Enjoy your trip, that’s key!

 

[bunip]

Hi, I live in Parma, Italy, and 2-3 times a year spend few holidays in central Italy with my family just because I love shooting in those cities and coutryside. Always bring a lot of gear, like 5x7, 4x5, a mamiya press with 50, 100 and 65, rolleiflex, nikon bodies and lenses, few old folding 6x6 and 6x9. BUT everything remains in the car or in the hotel; every day I choose one or two film cameras with one lens each and enjoy that format and camera all day. Often my D600 is replaced by my Iphone that I use also as lightmeter and to shoot light info for each film shot. The more I travel the less I use. In 35mm when I visit large cities like Venice, Bologna, Florene etc I carry my 28-70 AFD on the body and the 20 2,8 in my pocket; I use the 75-300 or the 180 only if I shoot portraits (children or wife) in the city, as you can compose with some monument's part in the background without any distracting people. AND be careful not to bring around a big photo bag or backpack in Rome; it's like saying to Roms: "come here and take away everything from my pockets". I only bring a camera that eventually (underground trains or buses and buisy roads) you can wear under your jacket.
Have a nice journey,
paolo

 

[Sirius Glass]

In Europe in general a normal lens and a wide angel lens [28mm] is all you need. How ever Rome has some large open spaces so a short telephoto lens may be useful.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

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".

 

[Sirius Glass]

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".

+1 It is about weight and convenience.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

28,50,105. My last trip to Europe I brought a Nikon F, just given a major overhaul and untested with film; also a Nagaoka 4x5, six inch Dagor ca. 1908; first version Gossen LunaSix. I thought I had the trio mentioned above, upon arriving I found that I had packed a monstrous 20mm Nikkor UD, a 35 f:2, a 50 and the 105. Rome has some worthwhile

 

[bunip]

I'd bring the 17-35 and 100. You'll use 17mm 95% as "Goals are Architecture, street photography (crowds, cafe/store fronts, alleys and streets) Night time city and long-exposure"
And maybe a 50

 

[summicron1]

when i went to rome I took a Leica CL with a 15, 40 and 90 mm lenses and hardly ever used the 90. I also did a LOT of street photography with the Olympus XA I took, which has a 35mm lens.

The 15 is great inside churches, especially. Try to take little else ... hauling junk around gets old fast. By the end of most trips I'm down to the XA and maybe one lens on the CL.