What lenses for traveling with 35mm?

[TimmyMac]

50/1.4 and 24/2.8 for me! I'd be ok with a just a 35/2 or 35/1.8 if I could get my hands on one...

 

[George Collier]

Whenever I went to Europe, I always took the 28pc Nikkor, and some others, but wound up almost always using the pc, or the 24mm. The pc (perspective control) lens is great for city or landscape, and especially architecture (that's what my degree is, although I never practiced, I still shoot like an architect, I suppose). It's a preset lens, so it's not as fast shooting, but even on landscapes, it's great to be able to find the perspective you want, relative to objects, then shift the lens to recompose the frame, like having half of a view camera. You don't see many around, but maybe you can borrow one. Nikon made a 35 and a 28, but the 28 is much better (and, I think came later).

 

[Sirius Glass]

For Europe I always prefer the 28mm lens.

 

[Besk]

Whenever I am in Eastern Europe I take a 28 and a 50 with whatever camera system I am using. The 28 is used 90% of the time.

 

[Diapositivo]

When I am a tourist I just avoid changing lenses in the street. It's one or two cameras, but each with its own lens.

I would go with one zoom lens, something like 28 - 80, and one camera, as a first approximation.

I am one of those who walk 20 km a day when I do the tourist. Don't go for "fast" lenses. Use a moderately fast film (200).
This keeps the weight low and the action ready. When you are abroad you are probably taking more pictures than at home (many more things will catch your attention, architectural details, people etc.) changing lens is a nuisance and it detracts from the pleasure and the image. Zoom is fine, I say.

Tele lenses (such as 135 or longer) have this problem that you carry them with you for 20 km a day and you take 2 or 3 images with them per day. The sweating/result ratio is unfavourable. In case, bring a duplicator. I know, duplicator + zoom lens is not going to produce excellent quality, but when I travel I forget excellent quality, I go for acceptable compromises. Keep weight low and action fast.

If you are prepared to add a second camera, then I would add a camera with a 24mm.

As a zoom-less alternative: bring a SLR with a 28 and a compact with a 50. Bring also a 135mm. You will take most pictures with the 50mm (compact) and 28mm (SLR) without having to change lens. Only occasionally you will mount the 135 instead of the 28.

My typical travel gear is a small bag with a camera with a zoom (28-85 if film, 24-120 equivalent when I bring my digital, which I do when I go abroad) and a Bessa-L with an ultra-wide 15mm (if you bring the 28-80, the ultra-wide should be a 21).

With this kind of setup I can walk 10 hours or so per day and maintain decent flexibility and smoothness of action, which is very important IMO, one must not be "distracted" by one's gear, especially lens changes.

 

[benjiboy]

My lightweight walkabout travel kit is a Canon FD body with an FD 28-85mm f4 zoom lens fitted.

 

[Peltigera]

Perhaps I am thick, but why does being in Europe need a different lens to being elsewhere? I am permanently in Europe and use various lenses with no ill effects.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Perhaps I am thick, but why does being in Europe need a different lens to being elsewhere? I am permanently in Europe and use various lenses with no ill effects.

I think Mr. Ambivalent is traveling to Europe, possibly from the U.S., and wants to know which lenses to bring - since he can't conveniently nip back to the house for that other lens.

 

[baachitraka]

You will be happy either with a 28mm or a 35mm. Loads of film...loads of film. Perhaps an Yellow filter or Yellow-Green Filter.

 

[werra]

Yeah, another vote for 35mm with yellow filter. Makes the best tourist shots.

 

[ic-racer]

I just got back from 2 week trip. I was using:

Nikon N75 and 35mm f2 autofocus lens
and
Yashica fx3 and Yashica ML 24mm f2.8

BTW, no measurable base density change after two runs through the airport x-ray compared to similar film that did not make the trip.

 

[Peltigera]

I think Mr. Ambivalent is traveling to Europe, possibly from the U.S., and wants to know which lenses to bring - since he can't conveniently nip back to the house for that other lens.

I was commenting on the "When I am in Europe" bit. Not being able to nip back for another lens applies if you are in any country. No big deal - it just struck me as strange.

 

[OldBodyOldSoul]

With couple of exceptions, American cities are so spread out, streets so wide, buildings and people so far from each other, that you will need a long telephoto to make similar kind of shot to the one made in most European cities with a 50mm.
Just my experience.

 

[hugopoon]

If I'm doing multiple lenses, it's a 35 and 50. Most times I'm happy with just one. Depending on where I'm going, I might be taking an SLR, in which case I take a 50 1.4 and 100mm+ just for the SLR (usually it's just a rangefinder). Most of the time I'm perfectly happy to shoot 12 hours a day with a 35, 40 or 50mm. I worry more about how long I can carry the bag and less about how much I'm taking (once you take one lens you'll "have to take another" "just in case" — if you only have one, you adapt (from my experience)).

 

[baachitraka]

If I'm doing multiple lenses, it's a 35 and 50. Most times I'm happy with just one. Depending on where I'm going, I might be taking an SLR, in which case I take a 50 1.4 and 100mm+ just for the SLR (usually it's just a rangefinder). Most of the time I'm perfectly happy to shoot 12 hours a day with a 35, 40 or 50mm. I worry more about how long I can carry the bag and less about how much I'm taking (once you take one lens you'll "have to take another" "just in case" — if you only have one, you adapt (from my experience)).

Biggest inconvenience is carrying too many things. Apart from important documents I would like to carry a SLR and a 35mm lens + 20 rolls of film and you can leave the rest of the rolls in the hotel.

 

[Uncle Bill]

On a recent trip to NYC I took an Olympus OM-1 with a 28 f3.5, 50 f1.8 and 135 f3.5 Zuiko lenses along with a Rolleicord. I realized once I was there I really needed a 24 f2.8 lens, unfortunately none of the usual suspects (B&H, Adorama etc.) had one in stock. I do plan to go back next year and I might instead go with the FM2 so I can use my 24 f2.8, 28 f2.8 and maybe sub out my 50 for a Nikkor 35 f2 and 105 f2.5. I got a year to figure that out. The Rolleicord is still going along for the ride too most likely. I liked having medium format with me too.

 

[RedTownCats]

You might find you want wide more than usual.

If you're keen on bringing a 100 consider the small Series E - could give you more room for a 200 or, as suggested, a PC lens.

 

[semi-ambivalent]

SURVEY SAYS!

Well, we're back. Frankfurt, Krakow, Prague, Vienna, Florence, Venice, Sienna, Volterra, Verona, Munich and Frankfurt. A few of these just long enough to make the train we HAD to make. It was hot. It was humid. Other than that it was wonderful.

I brought ten rolls of Tri-X and shot 9 of them. Three rolls of Ektachrome 100G and shot none of them. A hand check leaving Denver was easy but I wasn't sure about Europe so I shot the Tri-X at 250/320-ish. (I had wanted to do some at 1000/1600 and stand proc. in Adonal.) A security lady in Munich said I my film could skip the X-ray but then she dropped the bag in the tub and sent it through. The guy at the screen looked at my bag for quite a while, clicking through the layers, and then sent it out and said something to another woman. She picked up my camera, a straight F with a 50mm f/2 Ai, and asked me to turn it on! I'm not lying here. She was certainly old enough to have used a film camera in her youth; perhaps just didn't see them at all anymore. I took the lens off and showed her the mirror and offered to let her take a picture but she declined. The film went through various X-ray machines three times. We were otherwise able to stay inside secure areas and avoid a couple more hits. I abandoned the color stuff to my son and a digital; it was liberating.

I took an F, an F3 and 20, 28, 35, 50 and 105. The plan was to bag the 35 but at seven ounces (f/2.8) it was too easy to include. I had my son carry the 105 for me . I used the 35 and 50 for probably 80% of my shots, 28 for 15% and the rest with the 20 and 105. For those, they were what I wanted so I'm glad I carried them. It was all rather light and if I had to carry the 105 too it still would have been fine. The 50 was f/2 and everything else was f/2.8(5). Having 1.4 would have been handy but I really like the look the 50 f/2 has. No regrets except that it might have been nice to ditch the family and go out alone more than I did. There were many instances where I chose not to take pictures, to just take it all in. No regrets there either.

s-a

 

[SafetyBob]

Glad your back and thanks for the excellent report on what happened during the trip. I am surpised you took THAT big of a selection of glass with you. May I ask what specific results do you like with the 50m f/2? I see that so many people swear by them but never get to any specifics.....is B&W just got "that" look to it? Color give it the old fashioned look from long ago? Just wondering.

My wife LOVES Prague, even with her old film P&S she got some wonderful photos. If you get any real keepers, I think we would all love seeing a few.

Bob E.

 

[summicron1]

my trip to glacier ntl park i took the leicaflex sl2 with a 24, 50 and 135 but mostly ended up using the 28-70 zoom and the Olympus XA. For the trip to Chicago I think it will be the CL, the 15mm Voigtlander, the 40 and the 90, and the XA. Still pondering whether to take a medium format other than the pinhole...

i have a lot of these things, it occures to me...

 

[semi-ambivalent]

Glad your back and thanks for the excellent report on what happened during the trip. I am surpised you took THAT big of a selection of glass with you. May I ask what specific results do you like with the 50m f/2? I see that so many people swear by them but never get to any specifics.....is B&W just got "that" look to it? Color give it the old fashioned look from long ago? Just wondering.

My wife LOVES Prague, even with her old film P&S she got some wonderful photos. If you get any real keepers, I think we would all love seeing a few.

Bob E.

Bob,

THAT big of a selection of glass, when it's almost all f/2.8, is pretty light, though I might just be a glutton for punishment. I have 3 50mm f/1.4's; 2 s'es and an AiS. But I like how the f/2 looks wide open and it's Ai so my son could use it on his digital (he used it, a lot.) I'm not very educated on the specifics but the 'look' is just something I like, and the spatial quality wide open too, especially after shooting wide angles a lot where everything is in focus. Also, it would be the cheapest to replace if stolen. I want to add here that at no time on the entire trip did we ever feel threatened or in danger or that we were being 'cased'. I did get a lot of attention because it was 'one of those old film cameras' and let's face it, if you're in the nave of a 900 year old church and you push the button on an F everyone knows it. . We might have stood out because we weren't using huge (digital camera) zooms. Fs and F3s are sweet little packages with a modest lens mounted. I carried them both; that might have drawn some attention too. I never once thought I had brought too much glass.

I like B+W and I wanted the future to have some dog-eared B+W prints of us in Europe so my son could reminisce over them; I don't think the digital images he took will be around in 50 or 60 years. He is 16 so he could order his first legal drink, in Italy (a glass of prosecco in the Piazza San Marco, 9 euros). It was his first trip out of the country. Lots of stuff to remember when he's old like me and I want to leave him prints of it all. So, most of my work was rather personal, family stuff. there might be some 'street' stuff and if so I'll post a couple. I need to mix some new D-76 and then let it cool off for a few days.

Not to offend anyone but I disliked Prague. Granted, we didn't have much time there and the heat and humidity was terrible. Need to go back and give it another chance. The architecture was fabulous, and all of it needed a good acid washing.

s-a

 

[SafetyBob]

S-a, I figured that you were going more of the B&W way than color. I am finding that having been a color fanatic for most of my life, I am finding the lure of B&W and the classic look it gives to be more satisfying as I get older.

Honestly, I have not explored wide open on any of my fast lenses. Now that I am starting on the home processing thing, certainly no better time than the present to start exploring the limits of my equipment.

I also get your not exactly being a fan of Prague. I agree that if most of that architecture was cleaned up even just a little bit to bring out all that detail, it would be even more stunning. Looking back at all the photos I have of Europe's notable places (and not really knowing how to photograph well at all), the lack of detail that is hidden in the dark was and is still disappointing.

This kind of reminds me I should pull out one of my old cameras and go "shooting" this weekend.

Bob E.

 

[Vanishing Point Ent.]

What lenses you pick really does depend on what brand of camera system you are using.

I'm going to be in Eastern-ish Europe for a couple weeks and I'm trying to figure out what lenses to bring. I'll be shooting almost all Tri-X, maybe some Ektachrome 100G (Bringing a Canon Powershot 630A for the "color" stuff if we have to have some snaps.) I'm traveling very light and want one camera and perhaps three lenses. I have some Nikkors and can get my hands on just about anything I don't have. I'm only interested in B&W street stuff but my wife is an architect and she'll want elevation shots and maybe details.

What has worked for you? I'm thinking 50/1.4, 28/2.8, 20/2.8 and mmmmaybe a 105 because I can't imagine not having one. A 200/4 is pretty light, but...

Open to any thoughts,

s-a

What lenses you pick really does depend on what brand of camera system you are using.
Let me explain:

One of the previous posters mention the Leica CL;
there were only 2 lenses available for this system
the 40 mm & the 90 mm lenses.

For the Minolta CLE;
there were 3 lenses available for this system
the 28 mm, the 40 mm & the 90 mm lens.

For my Contax G2;
the original kit included 3 lenses the 28 mm, the 45 mm, & the 90 mm lenses.
Then they added a 21 mm lens. The 16 mm lens was never very practical &
thus didn't sell very well. It was also very high priced.
So, I added a Voigtlander Bessa L with the 12 mm & 15 mm LTM lenses.
It ended up being cheaper while providing more flexibility.

Do you see a pattern here ?

A Super Wide, A Wide, A Normal & a Short Telephoto lens.

With a rangefinder camera, small prime lenses are the rule.

For an SLR, you can cover a lot more with 3 zoom lenses
& a Macro lens.

Let's start with some kind of;
17 - 35 mm, 35 - 105 mm, 80 - 200 mm & a 50 mm or a 90 mm Macro lens.

Your exact mm's may vary, but you get the idea of the ranges needed.
This system is definitely heavier than a set of primes;
but when you're traveling, it's better to have the flexibility the " right " mm lens for
the shot will give you, especially when shooting in film.

You could opt for a do-all lens & a Macro lens !
The New Nikon 28 - 200 mm G-Mount lens comes to mind, BUT, This Has It's Limits TOO.

First, most of these aren't as sharp as the combination I recommended above.
Second, the do-all lens will always be heavier, than the smaller zooms or primes.
Third, the slow variable aperture is usually a problem. The zooms mentioned above
can be had as f 2.8's. The 28 - 200 is 3.5 - 5.6. Now the G-Mount means the camera
will force the lens to put out f 5.6 across the whole range, but that's a little slow, for
most people to rely on.

The Macro lens would be a 50 mm, a 90 mm Tamron, or a 100 mm. This would depend on you.

I'm handicapped now, so my Contax G2 system with the above mentioned lenses gets more
of a workout, than my SLR system with the above mentioned zoom lenses as per above.

Finally, strictly from my experience, if you have an SLR & must have prime lenses;
A Full-Frame Fisheye; 15, 16, 0r 17 mm, A 24 mm, A 35 mm & 85, 90, or 100 mm lenses.

Besides weight the best reason to use prime lenses are for the speed &
I would purchase them for that reason.

Of course you can mix & match primes with zooms. That's what makes life interesting !

 

[semi-ambivalent]

What lenses you pick really does depend on what brand of camera system you are using.
Let me explain:

One of the previous posters mention the Leica CL;
there were only 2 lenses available for this system
the 40 mm & the 90 mm lenses.

For the Minolta CLE;
there were 3 lenses available for this system
the 28 mm, the 40 mm & the 90 mm lens.

For my Contax G2;
the original kit included 3 lenses the 28 mm, the 45 mm, & the 90 mm lenses.
Then they added a 21 mm lens. The 16 mm lens was never very practical &
thus didn't sell very well. It was also very high priced.
So, I added a Voigtlander Bessa L with the 12 mm & 15 mm LTM lenses.
It ended up being cheaper while providing more flexibility.

Do you see a pattern here ?

A Super Wide, A Wide, A Normal & a Short Telephoto lens.

With a rangefinder camera, small prime lenses are the rule.

For an SLR, you can cover a lot more with 3 zoom lenses
& a Macro lens.

Let's start with some kind of;
17 - 35 mm, 35 - 105 mm, 80 - 200 mm & a 50 mm or a 90 mm Macro lens.

Your exact mm's may vary, but you get the idea of the ranges needed.
This system is definitely heavier than a set of primes;
but when you're traveling, it's better to have the flexibility the " right " mm lens for
the shot will give you, especially when shooting in film.

You could opt for a do-all lens & a Macro lens !
The New Nikon 28 - 200 mm G-Mount lens comes to mind, BUT, This Has It's Limits TOO.

First, most of these aren't as sharp as the combination I recommended above.
Second, the do-all lens will always be heavier, than the smaller zooms or primes.
Third, the slow variable aperture is usually a problem. The zooms mentioned above
can be had as f 2.8's. The 28 - 200 is 3.5 - 5.6. Now the G-Mount means the camera
will force the lens to put out f 5.6 across the whole range, but that's a little slow, for
most people to rely on.

The Macro lens would be a 50 mm, a 90 mm Tamron, or a 100 mm. This would depend on you.

I'm handicapped now, so my Contax G2 system with the above mentioned lenses gets more
of a workout, than my SLR system with the above mentioned zoom lenses as per above.

Finally, strictly from my experience, if you have an SLR & must have prime lenses;
A Full-Frame Fisheye; 15, 16, 0r 17 mm, A 24 mm, A 35 mm & 85, 90, or 100 mm lenses.

Besides weight the best reason to use prime lenses are for the speed &
I would purchase them for that reason.

Of course you can mix & match primes with zooms. That's what makes life interesting !

I've never been able to get comfortable with a 24, although 20s and 28s are fine with me. I've never used zooms; they only give me an opportunity to angst about whether I need 52mm or 56mm. With the added benefit of dropping/losing all your lenses at the same moment.

s-a

 

[Hatchetman]

I'm going to modify my previous assessment of bringing three lenses. After walking around for two weeks in Japan and Hong Kong with a backpack, camera, water bottle, guide book, and snack, I've come to appreciate the "one lens is adequate" philosophy. The 50mm f1.4 pretty much handled everything I needed.