Travelling Light

<p>In May I plan to spend 2 weeks touring California this year, doing a circuit from San Francisco to Sonoma to Yosemite to Sequioa NP to the Big Sur and back to San Francisco. I plan to take my Hasselblad 503CW but have limited myself to a small backpack and plan to take one lens, one back and one viewfinder. I also have room for some ND filters, an exposure meter and a separate tripod.<br>

My question is. What lens should I take? I have 50mm, 80mm and 150mm but as pictures will be almost exclusively landscape I was favouring the 50mm. What do you think?<br>

I am pleased with the results from Kodak Ektar 100. If you only used one film which one would it be?<br>

I am also taking my Nikon D300 for tourist snapshots. <br>

Thanks for your help<br>

Michael Bisset</p>

The 50 and the 80. How much room does an extra lens take?

<p>Don't bring both, at least during the day. It's too much stuff to deal with and will likely take away from the visual moments you will see. I would lean towards the Hassy because of the sites you will be visiting. However there is a big safety factor with going digital, especially if you can't make it back.</p>

<p>I have a medium size crumpler. If it doesn't fit in there, it doesn't go. It's my sanity check and limits the abuse from the wife. ;)</p>

 

<p>Michael,<br>

This is a highly subjective question as it really depends of your own style.<br>

Let me give you my (highly biased!) answer as I often face the same dilemma:<br>

- Take the 50mm<br>

- Don't take the D300 unless you plan to sail on the SF Bay and you need an extra anchor<br>

- Replace the D300 by the 150mm<br>

- Use a metered prism and leave your light-meter home. Be sure you use it before so you know it. Best choice is PME51.<br>

- If you really want another second camera, buy a cheap tiny Canon. It will do most of what the D300 would do and take no extra space.<br>

For whatever it is worth for you, after years of trials, when I travel and can't carry too much, I take my 503CW with a 40mm CFE IF and a 100mm CF. They are both so sharp that you can "extend" their use outside their format and cover a wider range. But, again, this is my personal choice and won't necessarily fit others.</p>

<p>The 50mm is relatively heavy. I'd go with the 80mm.</p>

<p>Clearly you need a 60/3.5 for this trip.</p>

<p>Having a backup always makes sense. For me though I'd take the Hasselblad with all three lenses and buy a decent point & shoot for the backup/ postcard role so long as the photographs you intend to make have no commercial intent. </p>

<p>As a philosphy, I don't agree with "travel light" unless photography is really rather secondary to the purpose of your trip. My first priority is to make sure I have with me the equipment I need to make most of the photographic opportunity. If I go on a longer walk I can always leave a lens in the car. If I'm working from or near the car it costs me very little to have the right equipment available.</p>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2342830">Michael Bisset</a> ,<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1713391">Michael Axel</a>,<br>

As you did not specify which 50mm you own, the weight and size are difficult to judge. My favorite version of the 50mm is the CF, not FLE, it has only one focusing ring (a big advantage), is smaller than the 80mm and weight almost the same as the 80mm. It is very sharp, and except in few situations you will not see a difference in image quality with the FLE.<br>

If this is the one you own, I would definitively recommend that you take it in your trip!<br>

Regarding film, if I had only one to take, I would go with Velvia 50. (A highly subjective choice!)</p>

<p>I would bring all three lenses, but perhaps leave one or two behind when walking about. The purpose of a wide angle lens is to emphasize the foreground, not to "get it all" in one shot. I tend to use longer lenses for landscapes, and stitch panoramas if I need width but not so much sky and dirt. Mountains look a lot more dramatic through a 150 than the 80, and like foothills with the 50. I find I use the Hasselblad 80 a lot more than I would a "normal" lens on a small-format camera, but I also tend to make bigger prints. I can't remember the last time I used an Hasselblad without a tripod. (Actually, I can remember, but the results are forgettable.)</p>

<i>"My favorite version of the 50mm is the CF, not FLE, it [...], is smaller than the 80mm and weight almost the same as the 80mm."</i><br><br>It's about 1.5x as big and weighs about 1.6x as much as the 80 mm.<br>The FLE version is just short of 3 mm taller (not quite 3%), and weighs 5 grams (about 0.6%) more.

<i>"The FLE version is just short of 3 mm taller (not quite 3%), "</i><br>"shorter", that should read.<br><br>I agree with David Littleboy: a 60 mm would be ideal. But since it is not in the mix, i'd take the 80 mm. A very versatile lens. A 50 mm is often too wide.<br>But then, (at cost of image quality, of course) you can crop a too wide image to a narrower one, but never the reverse.<br>Yet, i'd still take the 80 mm.

<p>My 50mm lens is the CF with FLE so it is definately heavier than the 80mm. The 50mm and 150mm lens are about the same weight and size. All three of my lens have the same B60 filter size so I only have one set of round filters and one adaptor for my Lee ND grads.<br>

I do have the PM45 non metered prism but this really weights a lot and I was not planning to take it.<br>

Thanks for the diverse but always helpful comments.<br>

Mike Bisset</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>As a philosphy, I don't agree with "travel light" unless photography is really rather secondary to the purpose of your trip.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'd agree with David H. Bring as much useful gear as you can; once you're at your destination, operating from a base or a vehicle, you can then be selective about which items to take for specific purposes or "trips within the trip".</p>

<p>Regarding specific lenses: when I shot 6x6 film, a 60/3.5 Curtagon and a 120/2.8 Biometar comprised the final version of my walkabout kit. With my Mamiya 645 1000s, it was a 55/2.8 and 110/2.8 - same idea.<br>

With my 645AFD and digital back, it is a 55-110/4.5 AF zoom, plus something wider (because of the back's crop factor) - either a 35/3.5 or a 24/4 fisheye. For low light, I generally put away the zoom, and revert to faster primes in its range: 55/2.8, 80/1.9 and 110/2.8. (And in really low light, I sometimes revert to a film back.) </p>

<p> </p>

<p>I've done a couple of major trips using just my 503Cx and 80mm along with a meter knob with no regrets. Sometimes its good to just work with what you've got. Having said that, I would probably carry my 40CFE as well in the future. I own a 50CF and 150CF as well but don't like lugging a lot of stuff so they increasingly get left at home. I also own a PME 45 metered finder but it adds more bulk and weight than I care for. The meter knob does a good job with the TMY film that I always use.</p>

<p>I would just take the Hasselblad with the 80mm lens and leave the D300 at home. Not because of the weight but because I find it difficult to switch into a different way of seeing when I travel with two systems. Fuji Pro 160 S would be my choice of film, or Provia (or Kodak Tmax 100). The 80 mm lens is much more compact/lighter than the 50mm.</p>