Family trip (including infant grandson) with only a bit of independent flexibility. 3 days in each place. Notably, I'll be on the 4 hr "In the Footsteps of Ansel Adams" at Yosemite limited to 6 photographers.
Taking:
lots of Portra 400, FP4+ and Tri-X (being shipped there; I'll Fedex it back, so no airports)
yellow, orange, red, polarizing, and ND filters.
Peak Design Carbon tripod, 2 cable releases, extra battery, etc.
In my WANDRD PRVKE light, I can have my Mamiya 7 and 3, maybe 4, lenses.
I own the 43, 65, 80, 150, and 210 (all but the 50), plus the spotting scopes for the 43 and 150/210
1. I'm taking the 43mm for sure.
2. If it comes down to 65 vs. 80, not a huge difference. Which to take, given I'll have the 43? I think my 65 is a bit sharper than my 80, but sharpness isn't a problem with Mamiya.
3. The 210 f/8 is a bit weird (not rangefinder attached), must zone-focus, but good on a tripod. Will I want the reach? or is the 150 enough? (210 = ~ 105 full frame; 150 = ~75). But if I don't take the 150, I lose "walking around"/portraiture longer lens capability.
Obvious 3 lens combos:
43-80-210
43-80-150
43-65-150
possible 4 combo: 4 of the 5 of these? 43, 65, 80, 150, and 210
thanks!!
I almost never take long lens landscape photos. Just not my vision, but yours maybe different. A couple years ago, I drove around the valley floor with 210/320/480mm with my 8x10, and 90% of the photos were with the 210. YMMV though
See if you can find this tree. Pretty easy to spot
The 43 may be the only lens you’ll use during the trip but just to be sure, my vote is for the 65 and the 150. Since you’re traveling with family, including an infant, time for photography may be limited. Keeping a minimum amount of gear will make it easier to stop, get out and photograph before moving on. Having the 150 on hand for any areas you may want to pick out a detail and the 65 will give you a little more room to work with than the 80 for general work where the expansiveness of the 43 may be a tad too much. Enjoy yourself and have a great trip.
The less the better. I always come back with the best shots, when I take the least amount of gear...
My way won't be everyone's preferred way, but in 1979 and 1982 I travelled across North America four times in all and did all my photography, including Tahoe and Yosemite, with a Rollei TLR. One camera, one film format, one lens (well, technically two lenses, but you know), and little else.
In 2006 my partner and I went to Nepal for a mountain trek. I took the same Rollei and a Nikkormat with two lenses (50 and 135). SO had a Nikon with a 28, 35, 50 and 85. Took a dozen slide rolls of Everett and the related mountains with the 28. When we got the slides back, Everest was a small blip in the faraway distance, in many shots about the size of two grains of rice.
Therein lies a lesson. All posts in this thread have good useful information, but I reckon I agree best with mtjade2007 (#18). Keep it simple, but make sure you take the right lenses.
Oh, and bon voyage, OP!!
I almost never take long lens landscape photos. Just not my vision, but yours maybe different. A couple years ago, I drove around the valley floor with 210/320/480mm with my 8x10, and 90% of the photos were with the 210. YMMV though
See if you can find this tree. Pretty easy to spot
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?