One a big world trip a few years ago, I was really ruthless and took
just a 35-70/4 and cheapo 2XTC - it worked, but I wouldn't be quite so
ruthless anymore. I shot mostly kodachrome 64, and the odd roll of XP2
and 200 print film were a comparative luxury. Admittedly I did take a
small tripod, but it was a flimsy piece of s*** - still, it kept my
camera out of the snow in Prague, the mud in Wales, and the ants nest in
Mexico. Either 200 or 400 should be fine, there doesn't seem to be that
much difference in quality these days.
Give _only_ the choices you list, I would just take the 35-70 and 75-150
zooms and leave everything else behind.
I took a 50/1.8 to vietnam last christmas, and don't remember using it
at all - maybe once, with extension rings and 2xTC. If you expect low
light and would be forced to handhold without support, maybe it would be
worth it, but there are usually alternatives.
I also don't find enough difference between 35mm and 28mm to warrant
both (as far as angle of view goes). If you were talking about a
35-70/3.6 then the prime would be nice to have along for when you want
to go really light, but the 3.5-4.5 is so light anyway...I don't own a
28-48 (but shoulda bought one when I saw it at A$150!), but once again,
for an extra 7mm in a lens of similar size to the 35-70/4, I'd leave it
behind.
The 135/3.5 could be nice to use for candids, but is it long enough to
really pick people out from a distance? At any rate, it's covered by the
longer zoom, without much loss of speed and with a lens that's still
easily handholdable.
There are a couple of other things I would take if I had them:
* a 2XTC. Even a cheap one may not be too bad - soft at the edges, some
loss of contrast yes, but often you only need sharpness at the centre,
and a bit of extra reach is a lifesaver (candids, wildlife). Cheaper and
lighter and more compact than a long prime or zoom. For centred
subjects, this would effectively give you an extremely lightweight,
compact 150-300/8 for about $20. If you decide you hate it, knock out
the glass and you have an auto extension tube (as I did to my mouldy old
one after Wayne Harridge generously gave me his much cleaner one).
* A lightweight tripod. I have a Slik Compact which is light and small
but quite rigid and strong - no quick release is the biggest pain, apart
from short maximum height. Good for use in low light, or when you're
using the 75-150 and 2XTC. I _always_ take it travelling or hiking, but
then I'm usually using Velvia so YMMV with 3 the extra stops from
400ASA.
* a shorter lens. Sorry, this is getting expensive now, but I don't know
how I lived before I got my 24mm (sadly a Tamron instead of Zuiko). As
well as the obvious use in scenics and for distortion of perspective, I
like to use it for candid snapshots in busy markets for example. Huge
DOF at large aperture means handholdable and virtually focus free use is
possible, and the widde angle lets you get the subject in even if you
shoot from the hip (a technique which I found valuable in marketplaces).
I also have some nice pictures where people were totally unconcerned,
because they just didn't expect to be in the frame, though I took my
time composing the shot - two girls walking up a flight of stairs
towards me, looking straight at the camera which they are visibly
ducking, and even their feet are in the picture! I can't wait till my
fairy godmother sends a Doris Fang special 21 or 16mm my way...
Dylan
> Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 12:54:31 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Dan Lau <dlau@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] What lens to carry (again)
>
> With all this talk about zoom lenses and travel, I have a
> question about "what lens to carry" again. I have a
> limited collection of lenses, and I want to travel light.
> I have the following lenses: 28/2.8, 50/1.8, 135/3.5,
> 28-48/4, 35-70/3.5-4.5 and 75-150/4. Now my questions:
>
> 1) For general travel photography (i.e., a lot of outdoor
> sightseeing and walking around), if I am already
> bringing my 35-70/3.5-4.5, is there any reason to bring
> the 50/1.8 as well?
> 2) As an additional lens, would you recommend bringing the
> 28/2.8 (or is it too close to the 35) or should I bring
> the 28-48/4 zoom to cover the whole range (or is there
> too much overlap with the 35-70)?
> 3) The only other lens choice I have is either the 135/3.5
> or the 75-150/4. Should I just bring the two zooms or
> will I be disappointed with the slow speed?
>
> I generally use ASA 200 print film, but I can switch to 400
> film if you think it will match the slow lenses better.
> Thanks for any comments.
> -Dan
>
> ------------------------------
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|