Your view on focal lengths for travel photography

Hi there

 

I'll keep this brief - for general, 'serious amateur', non-location-or-subject-

specific travel photography, how important do you think wide/standard/tele

focal lengths are vs. other types of photography?

 

I.e. How important is a super-wide zoom, for instance?

How important is a tele zoom or prime?

Would you consider taking just a super-wide and a tele zoom and nothing in the

standard (say 28 to 70mm) range? What about the reverse?

 

Curious about this...

Are you rushing or taking your time?

If the latter it doesn't pay to skimp.

I bring at least two 35mm SLR bodies, and their friends:

24, 35, 50, 85, 135, 200. All primes, sharper.

Polarizer, Yellow 1.5, Fog 3.

20" Cable Release

A nice tripod and a Nice Backpack.

 

I own a couple zoom lenses that were given to me over the years, but they're nothing I

ever use. I don't want to get back from a long trip to find that the images can't keep up

with my enlarger.

 

If I had to bring only one lens on one body it would be the 35 on a mechanical SLR like

an FTB or K1000.

 

My 2 cents.

Yeah, as long as you carry around 50 pounds of gear you should be ok.

Which lenses you choose depends on your camera (a 17-35 is super-wide on film but merely wide on a DSLR), what you like to shoot, the strength of your back and last, not least, your budget.

 

I use a 17-35 about 50% of the time. It is the most likely lens to be on my camera (a D2x) when walking about and for people. Most of my landscapes (and cityscapes) are taken with a 28-70, along with a 55/2.8 Micro (freedom from flare and chromatic aberation). I use this same lens for most super-wide stitched panoramas. I use a 70-200 VR lens for candids, architectural details, concerts and theater.

 

I have never found a compelling need for a super-wide DX lens. If I had one, I'd use it. I use the space in my bag for a second body and other things. The bag weighs about 36 pounds and is, consequently, a backpack. Sometimes I carry more along with a smaller "day" bag, depending on circumstances. "More" includes video and sound gear, which pays better than still photography :-)

35mm is great for general photography as it's wide but no distortion. 85mm is great for people shots where you want to keep a reasonable distance. Those would be my 2 top picks. A 28-85 or 35-85mm zoom would be ideal.

The last trip we did o/s we had 2 35mm film cameras, 19-35mm wide angle, 70-200mm zoom, 28-70mm zoom, 50mm 1.8, tripod, filters etc, all up I think it weighed 9kg including the waterproof backpack.

I carried it all day which was a pain sometimes but worth the versatility.

 

As a note we only used 2 lenses but if the 50mm was a macro I would have used it a lot. Don't skimp unless you are able to return later and redo the ones that did not work.

It takes more skill (and arguably, chutzpah, if amongst people, in interest of getting close) to get consistently good results in the ultra- and super-wide range vs. wide and normal. I've far lesser use for tele when traveling.

 

The loose dogma: travel images usually depict...right. How better than with 'wide'? Within your unspoken parameters (i.e. choice of 2, maybe three lenses) I find 17-35/2.8 (35mm format) is optimal despite weight. In fact the size/weight/range amounts to how many primes? 'Cropping' via zoom can be a godsend. As is not changing glass on-the-fly. I'm partial to 20-35 range. Superwide is very entertaining for both shooter and viewer.

 

A flyweight 50/1.8 would take little persuading as a 2nd lens. Or 85mm. (Did someone mention toting a 70-200/2.8? Traveling or training?)

 

I would not consider 'just a super-wide (prime) and a tele zoom'. Role reversal. I'll stay w/ 17-35 and trade tele-zoom for a very small and very light tripod that will see good use and better results. Just one prime: 28/2...and even smaller tripod.

So far, everyone has talked about film. I do digital. I have gotten to the point in my life that I don't want to carry 50 pounds of gear. For me, the best lens around for general travel shots is an 18-200 Nikon. Then, as a backup for indoor, a 50mm f1.8. That's it, except for a flash carried in a case that hangs from a belt loop.

When traveling wieght is all that matters to me. It would be amazing to have primes only, but they are not what I would recommend for traveling. You are restricted to the Focal lenght and you'll have to have 5 of them! I traveled for ten months around MIDDLE EAST, ASIA and SOUTH AMERICA. I had a Canon 17-85mm IS, a Peleng 8mm fish eye and a Canon 90-300mm f/4.5-5.6. The latter I've changed because of it poor IQ. But a good zoom for telephoto photography is highly recomendable. You can't always ask people if you can't take a picture of them, there's when the tele comes alive!

If you travel with digital (as I do), you have to consider the supporting infrastructure.

 

You need a reliable source of power to recharge batteries and back up your images. You need a portable hard drive and a laptop (or stand-alone drive), and preferably a means to burn DVDs to back up the backup. You need enough memory to cover the time between backups, or better yet, twice that amount. The same for spare batteries.

 

This stuff is heavy, but lighter and easier to carry than the amount of film I would need for the same coverage, and without the anxiety when going through foreign X-ray machines.

 

Canon makes a superb 70-200/4 IS lens. If Nikon made a good f/4 VR lens like this, I'd have one in an heartbeat. It's too tempting leave a 4 pound lens behind even at the risk of missed shots.

IMO if you are trying to get good people shots on your travels, ones where there is some interaction, you should use something in the 35mm to 50mm range. You can't have interaction with someone standing 30 feet away. I lived in Cambodia for many years and shot everything with a 20mm because I didn't know any better.

<p>

Take a couple of primes and get in close.

<p>

20mm

<img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/22/37233968_3bf1e8ff5f.jpg?v=0">

<p>

28mm

<img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/45/132549532_6a23af9461.jpg?v=0">

<p>

20mm

<img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/31/39392059_b76b64f130.jpg?v=0">

It would make sense to tailor for specific locations, but for general theory, I guess 100-400 zoom, XXwide-100mm zoom, a macro lens, and possibly a fast, lightweight prime like 50mm. For DX format.

It depends. Film or digital? Interiors or landscapes. Civilization or back country. Weight limitations? My wife and daughter walked the last 100 km of the Santiago de Campostela in Spain last fall. Their sole luggage was a knapsack each and no more than 10 pounds of luggage which they carried all the way, so weight was important. Their cameras were Canon powershots, an A95 and an A620, loaded with brand new lithium AA batteries, and several memory cards. They returned with hundreds of excellent photos. These cameras which each take 4 AAs seem to last forever with lithiums plus AAs are available most anywhere. Film is an airport hassle. If interiors are important, 35mm is not wide enough. Both of their cameras are capable of superb 12 by 18 inch prints. My Nikon D70 can go a long time on its battery. My Nikon D200 can abrely make it through a day. Good luck. Even if I took a DSLR and its associated kit, I would still pack a backup similar to the Canons they took. Good luck!

When I studied photography we were required to shoot only with a standard lens for two years, so 50mm or 80mm. It's a very good way to improve your composition skills but regarding your question I've found that there is not a thing you can't do with a standard lens. Although I have more lenses I would be happy to go on whatever trip with nothing more than a standard lens.

My two cents.

On my recent disney world vacation I was experimenting carrying around different combinations of my D40, D80, Sigma 10-20, 50 1.8, and 18-200.

 

for ultimate simplicity i used the D40 and 18-200, it was sufficient most of the time. Also I tried 10-20 on the d40 and 50mm on the D80. I found this worked well for nice wide angles walking around and gave me an excellent extreme quality setup for portraits. When I knew i wouldn't need the wide so much i'd put the 18-200 on the d40 and keep the 50 on the D80.

 

I found having both the D40 with 10-20 and D80 with 18-200 around my neck to be tiring, especially if I had my SB600 on there.

 

It's all a matter of what you can handle carrying, and what quality of images you want. my thinking is that on vacation. I will take wide landscapes, medium long landscapes, and portraits/candids I don't need a fast lens for either the wide or long landscapes so i wouldn't bring a 80/70-200 or a fast wide like 17-35 etc. too heavy.

 

The only think I need a fast lens for is a nice middle so i can take nice portraits of people. If you REALLY like taking portraits take a mid zoom, but then you're getting into heavy weights stuff again.

 

Overall I found carrying 2 bodies slightly cumbersome, but also unmatchable for flexibility. If however you're travelling alone, and have all the time in the world to change lenses without people nagging you to come along, I would be happy just with the one body I think.