Going to Europe ... only with my 50mm lens!

Thinking about all the places in Europe I have been to I reckon that I would have lost a lot by not having something in the 24-28 range available ( and I am not only talking about buildings and cities here ).

 

If it has to be one lens then for me it would be a zoom ( as quick a one as possible ) in the 24/28 to 85/105 range - a little compromise on quality ( depending on the film used ) but a big gain in coverage.

Always bring a spare lens (and perfect would be a spare camera as well).

The one time I didn't that lens broke down one week into a 3 week trip to an area that's now pretty much inaccessible to tourist (central Asia, way too dangerous now that the KGB no longer rules with an iron fist).

If there hadn't been someone else in our tourgroup using the same model camera I had who was willing to lend me a lens for the trip I'd have no photos at all.

 

That lens was a 50mm f/1.4 b.t.w ;)

 

So take both lenses, and just consider one to be an emergency backup. Myself I'm all for primes (though I don't like the 50mm) so I'd keep that one on the camera and the zoom in the bag for emergencies.

In your case you might also take out the zoom when you run into situations where the POV of your single prime is simply impossible.

Since you want film: consider the Olympus Miyu 35mmf2.8; it's very small and light and allows you to shoot 800ASA w/o a flash. They're very cheap now and this means you can take your one lens (the zoom), have a w/a and a second body. I used to carry one on my belt and it flips out in a second. enjoy your trip.

wow, popular thread!

 

I think the answer to this really depends on how you take photographs. I've found over the years that the travel photographs (of mine) which I like most aren't the ones where I had the 28mm - which could include all of a square or a cathedral - those pictures ended up being straight, dull shots of squares and cathedrals that anyone could take. I started off with a 28-85 zoom for travelling, but found myself always trying to 'fit everything in' whenever I came to frame a shot, ending up with these dull, boring pictures.

 

Recently I started taking my 35-70 lens instead (which is also smaller, lighter, and better) and my pictures improved noticeably; instead of fitting things into the frame all the time, I started getting a little more creative.

 

In August I went to Vilnius, Lithuania, and because it was a short trip (a long weekend) I decided to just take a 45mm/f2 lens. I ended up taking far more shots than I usually do, and I really like more of them than I usually do. There isn't one straightforward snapshot of an entire cathedral or a square, because, knowing that I couldn't fit these subjects into the frame, my eyes were always looking for other opportunities. And instead of constantly zooming in and out trying to find the best composition, I'd know immediately what would work with the 45mm perspective and just walk closer or further as necessary.

 

Having said that, last month I visited Athens and a couple of Greek Islands, again with the 45/2... and wished I'd had my 35-70 with me. When I got my photos back... I loved them all, and was glad I'd taken my 45. But at the time, I was in 'postcard' mode and kept getting frustrated with not being able to get wide-shots of the coastlines and sunsets. I'm glad I didn't though, because if I wanted shots like that I could have just bought postcards - having the 45mm made me think less about how to take the obvious shots, and more about what shots to take.

 

It's true what they say about standard lenses - using one really does improve your photography. Having said that - as i said above, i find that using a zoom makes all my pictures dull; if you don't suffer from my affliction :) you might be better with the zoom. But I'm happy with my standard lens - and I find that it's a LOT lighter to carry (not that my zooms are that big, but there's a significant difference), and i enjoy using it more.

"I ended up taking far more shots than I usually do, and I really like more of them than I usually do"

 

"made me think less about how to take the obvious shots, and more about what shots to take"

 

 

I second. That's all.

The 50 f/1.8 is a nice lens for traveling, but like others said before me, I would consider taking also a wider lens. Usually I take every lens I got + tripod + backup camera on my trips (body building is also among my hobbies :), but when I'd like to travel light, the lenses of choise are 50 f/1.8 and 24 f/2.8 (great for architecture, but you have to be careful with the perspective).<p>I use a film camera BTW.

I agree with your wife mostly, keep it simple. But I would add a 28F2.8 lens to that kit for "vistas".

<P><I>Europe is small and crowded compared to America.</I> I've read this a number of times in travel threads and it always cracks me up. Don't let ideas like this affect your lens choice.</P><P>However, if you can bear to carry two lenses, I would suggest a wide-angle as well as your 50. The 28mm would be good. The combined weight would be less than a 28-105 zoom, and the lenses would be faster and probably sharper.</P>

I was just in France/Italy recently and I took a 35-70 and 17-35. I used the 35-70 the most, but I definitely needed the 17-35. I left my 80-200 and 105 macro at home with the tripod, which was a smart move. I would recommend you take a wider lens. You won't hold up the group changing lenses as groups tend to move rather slow anyway. It doesn't take long to change a lens and you will kick yourself if you don't have what you need. Have fun!

Go with the two primes and have fun, keep it simple.

 

Cheers.

I'm sure others have said this, about you NEED a wide angle lens in Europe. So, for a film SLR:

 

28-105 USM II 3.5-4.5 (quality lens, but the least expensive of the 3)

 

28-135 USM IS

 

24-85 USM

 

Basically, a lens with 24/28-XX(X). And a zoom will give versatility, but a prime 24mm or 28mm, might suffice. (I would strongly suggest you get a zoom, IMHO)

 

Safe travels,

 

Amol