Road trip with slide film- camera choice? 35mm Lens ?

[GarageBoy]

So I plan on a 10 day road trip (NY to the West Coast) where I'll be burning off my reserves of E100VS-
I was thinking either my Nikon F3 with my 28 F2 and 50 F1.8- or just my F100 1.8- Trying to minimize bulk
Will the 35mm be versatile enough of a focal length? I can see AF being useful for me, plus I can rely on Matrix Metering
How useful would a tele be? (the only one I have is a 105 2.5)

 

[DWThomas]

(I admit I've been spoiled by zooms but . . . ) Assuming we're talking mostly time spent in "the Great Outdoors" I would lean toward the 35 and 50 -- I tend to think of expansive panoramas (but that's me). My experience (none recent) with telephoto primes is that no matter what one I have with me, I always find myself wishing it were a different focal length. And if you get into cities, museums, etc. the 100 might be a bit long in working distance. But you are making the trip!

My 1.3 (after tax) cents

 

[BradS]

My absolute favorite travel combination is the fabulous Nikon 28mm f/2.8 AI-s mounted on whatever Nikon manual focus body I happen to favor at the time. Oddly, I always carry the 50mm f/1.8 but almost never use it when travelling. I should just leave it home and take instead the 28mm and the 105mm....hmmmm. I'll also note that often enough, the 28mm is just not quite wide enough....and I wish for the 20mm.

So, yeah, I think go with the wide lens and a manual focus body (I'm kinda assuming that you'll mainly be photographing in urban areas)...I guess take the 50mm too incase you find a nice country road that needs to photographed.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

If I will need to "burn it all" I'll take 28mm. If I will need to have it as "all for all" I'll take 50.
100mm will give me one roll at ten days trip. This is how useful tele is for me.

 

[BradS]

another thought....if travelling by car, why not take it all? Two bodies and three (or four?) lenses doesn't seem all that extravagant to me - especially considering it is a cross country roar trip!

 

[DWThomas]

another thought....if travelling by car, why not take it all? Two bodies and three (or four?) lenses doesn't seem all that extravagant to me - especially considering it is a cross country roar trip!

This raises a good point -- of course, maybe GarageBoy is traveling by bicycle! (He'd have to be a TdF winner for his proposed schedule!)

I will say I usually make sure to have a second camera of some sort with me on any extended trip, just in case something goes wrong. I took my Canon A-1 with 35-70 f/3.5-4.5 (cheap but small, light, and decent images) and the 50mm f/1.4 to Italy in 2002, with a Canon Elph Jr APS for a "backup." The latter was fixed focal length, but f/2.8 and gave a darn good account of itself when called upon. I took many, many many "vacation snapshots" with the Elph but used the A-1 for interior shots, night shots, and in general divided up the usage so if either screwed up I would have some pictures when I got back.

 

[Colin Corneau]

The 105/2.5 is such a compact lens it'd be a shame not to bring it for any longer shots - portraits, scenics, whatever.

Honestly, one decent bag and you can bring 3 lens and 1 or 2 cameras with no problems. Keep a body and your favorite lens handy, and the rest in the bag if you need it.

Don't overthink it - just have fun and make pictures.

 

[Rick A]

My cousin bicycled around SE Asia a few years ago, he carried a Nikon F-5, F-6, half dozen lenses, along with thirty rolls of whatever slide film he likes. These days he tours South America with all that gear, but not by bike.

 

[ME Super]

If I will need to "burn it all" I'll take 28mm. If I will need to have it as "all for all" I'll take 50.
100mm will give me one roll at ten days trip. This is how useful tele is for me.

If you're shooting a 100 speed film with a 28mm lens, just put it in Aperture priority (assuming you have that mode), set the aperture at f/8 and focus at around 13 feet, and everything from 5 feet to infinity will probably be acceptably sharp. Makes for quicker shooting, if that's what you need.

 

[GarageBoy]

Thanks, I'm limited by what I can carry on when I fly back
I guess I'll take my Sony A7 as a "back up" / wrong film is in the camera- camera - and by default- either the 50 or the 28 will come along

Maybe 28-35-105?

Might grab my XA2 as well (more friendly looking camera)

 

[cuthbert]

The Nikkor 35 mm f2 AIs is a good replacement for a 50 mm, it's wider but it doesn't distort perspective like a 28mm, fast enough and not bulky like the f1.4.

 

[GarageBoy]

The 35 I have is the 1.8G

 

[BradS]

The Nikkor 35 mm f2 AIs is a good replacement for a 50 mm, it's wider but it doesn't distort perspective like a 28mm, fast enough and not bulky like the f1.4.

Perspective is a function of lens to subject distance. Lenses do not have any effect on perspective...camera position does. If you photograph a scene from the exact same position with either (or any) focal length lens, the perspective in the resulting photos is exactly the same. Only the magnification is different.

 

[cuthbert]

Perspective is a function of lens to subject distance. Lenses do not have any effect on perspective...camera position does. If you photograph a scene from the exact same position with either (or any) focal length lens, the perspective in the resulting photos is exactly the same. Only the magnification is different.

Yes I know but it's easier to obtain a perspective distortion with a short lens than with a long one with the usual distances between camera, subject and background, that's the entire point of using a 85mm for portraits instead of a 50mm or a 35mm unless you want to get special effects.

For me a 35 mm is a standard with a larger field of view, while a 28 or a 24mm are real wide angle lenses that can also not give any distortion but just if the subject is at the same distance for all its lenght, for instance a car seen from a perfect side view.

I don't know if what I'm writing is clear.

 

[John Koehrer]

There is no "perspective distortion". There is perspective. Like brads s said. Any focal length lens from the same position gives the same image except for magnification.

 

[02Pilot]

FWIW, I think much depends on what sort of subjects you tend to shoot. Cities are cities, but as I'm sure you know, the landscape changes a lot as the country moves west. My usual travel kit is 21/50/90. I was in Arizona recently (I live in the Northeast, so quite a different landscape for me) and I was surprised how much I used the 90, and how much I like the results. Overpacking gear is always a temptation, and sometimes I wonder about why I'm carrying the 90, but out west I definitely found it useful.

 

[Alan Klein]

+1 to the idea to take more equipment since you'll be driving. Also, you can have different type film for each camera ready to use for the particular shot.

One thing you have to think about is how you're going to store the film. Cars can get pretty hot when you're not driving and parked in the sun. You might want to take a cooler.

 

[Alan Gales]

+2 on bringing everything you have with you in the vehicle. You don't have to carry it all with you on your person but you will have it available if you need it.

+1 on Alan Klein's cooler suggestion.

 

[NitroRoo]

I just got back from a cross country road trip myself. I'd say I used my 28mm 80% of the time, my 50 15% of the time, and my 135 5% of the time - but I'm glad I brought them all.

 

[Nodda Duma]

What about the really nice and cheap Nikkor 28-80 f/3.5-5.6 zoom? Covers a very useful range of focal lengths with good quality optics.

 

[Alan Gales]

What about the really nice and cheap Nikkor 28-80 f/3.5-5.6 zoom? Covers a very useful range of focal lengths with good quality optics.

Zooms like that are perfect for travel photography. Maybe bring a fast 50mm for low light and you are set.

 

[John Bragg]

F100 for matrix metering + 50mm and 28 mm.

 

[GarageBoy]

Alas, the F100 wont matrix meter with my 28 or 50

 

[GarageBoy]

I started packing and I think the Sony A7 with 28, the F100 with the 35, and the 50 riding along will be just fine

Thanks

 

[flavio81]

What about the really nice and cheap Nikkor 28-80 f/3.5-5.6 zoom? Covers a very useful range of focal lengths with good quality optics.

Which version? Really really good quality optics?

A previous poster mentioned the small Canon FD 35-70/3.5-4.5, which usually gets no respect. I own one and can vouch that it's a very compact and light lens with good image quality. Build quality is not up to the standard of other Fd lenses but is VASTLY superior to the cheap kit zooms of the Canon EF and the Nikon G-series systems.