WHICH LENS TO TAKE?

Your photos could end up having a surprising element in them.

Potentially true, but, I suspect, less so for a "normal" lens than perhaps for something atypical, like a UWA. (Perhaps not accurate in today's world. I remember when the vast majority of folks only had a prime lens and nothing else. Today, I suspect the vast majority have some flavor of zoom, and my out-of-date perspective is overtaken by events. It may well be that a single, prime lens is now the exception rather than the rule.o_O) Fred's comments are interesting and offer intriguing possibilities. However, for that once-in-a-lifetime trip, I would want some flexibility. I suspect I'll get back to the Hoh eventually. When I do I'll have more options available. When photographing routinely accessible venues and subjects I tend to play more with a single lens option to see what creative juices it squeezes out of me.

It would put me, often, in very different physical relationships with the content I was shooting and would create different sorts of physical relationships within the frame.

Thats the million dollar sentence! And its not just limited to the choice of lens (which no doubt you are very aware of), but is also extended to choosing unconventional elements/subjects in a familiar setting, or a different time of the day. Its all about expanding one's breadth into the subject by going beyond the familiar spectacle.

However, for that once-in-a-lifetime trip, I would want some flexibility.

I totally understand, and I have been in similar situation, and many times I felt like you. But after several experiences like that, I realized more I think about what I am missing, my vision gets tunneled. I would rather focus on what I have in hand and think in terms of the available equipment. Thats not to say, your point is invalid. The equipment should be carefully planned to suite the purpose, otherwise there would be frustration, but I think the flexibility can be seen in both ways, the choice of lens is one, and in absence of suitable gear, flexibility of mind can be the substitute.

Potentially true, but, I suspect, less so for a "normal" lens than perhaps for something atypical, like a UWA.

I agree, but in this case I would try to utilize the shallow DOF to my advantage. A f1.8 can be used to create interesting layerings of near and far objects/vegetations with varying focal blur.

for that once-in-a-lifetime trip

Here's the crux of it, IMO. When I originally advised taking the most flexible of the lenses, I was thinking of someone who likely wanted to take the best vacation pics he could and wasn't thinking much about making art photos. When on vacation, I, too, will take postcard type shots . . . just because . . . as well as some less expected views of things and I like looking at them when I get home. Now, that's more about a once-in-a-lifetime TRIP. A once-in-a-lifetime PHOTO, on the other hand, especially one that leans more toward art (if that's your thing) than towards memento or scrap book filler (not that good scrapbook photos and art are necessarily mutually exclusive, but there's often little overlap) is going to come about in very different ways than most photos of a once-in-a-lifetime trip. Interestingly enough, on several of my trips, taking good snapshots has sort of primed me (and maybe even bored me) enough to also take some different sorts of pics that are, at least to me, ultimately more rewarding than the photos that represent or convey the once-in-a-lifetime trip.

I was thinking of someone who likely wanted to take the best vacation pics he could and wasn't thinking much about making art photos.

I, too, had this impression. The OP's description of his question and his kit gave me (right or wrong) the distinct picture of someone who is more interested in travel photos than high art. This is why I agreed with Fred's suggestion. If, however, we assume a focused intent on Art (an assumption not overtly supported by the OP), then a whole different set of considerations come into play. I continue to believe the OP's question, and, therefore, the initial intent of this thread, is in regards the best approach to travel photos. That does not mean the OP will be incapable of making Art photos with his kit, it just means his primary criteria are defined by travel over Art. If someone were going to photograph a baseball or football game for the first time, then our counsel would be much more specific to that venue, as it would be for architecture, wildlife, street, concert, etc. ad nauseam. An important aspect of travel photography can be the capacity to deal with the unexpected. This capacity can include knowledge, experience, foresight, equipment selection, reference materials, research into likely possibilities, planning for specific if unplanned opportunities, etc. We risk doing a disservice to those we advise here if we go too far out on a limb of assumptions not based in real data. I'm not arguing against exploring possibilities, only suggesting we clearly differentiate between the criteria upon which our various responses are based, as Fred does in the post quoted above.

in absence of suitable gear, flexibility of mind can be the substitute.

I'm reminded of a quote from Colin Fletcher in his book The Man Who Walked Through Time. I've referenced it before, but I don't have it to hand in the moment. To paraphrase, he talks about how freeing it was during his backpack the length of the Grand Canyon when his camera failed. Suddenly he was freed of the demand to see the world around him through his equipment, and could experience his world more holistically. This might sound anathema to photographers, but it speaks to an essential, human issue. We can easily become so engaged in managing our technical/artistic tools that we miss out on an enormous fraction of the experience, and, by extension, additional creative opportunities. An example for me occurred at last August's eclipse. During totality I was so engaged in removing and replacing filters, adjusting exposures, staying on target, etc., that I very nearly forgot to stop long enough to look at the visible corona, feel the change in temperature, listen to the crickets, see the moon's shadow moving over the landscape, and experience the overall impact of the eclipse. I gave myself about 15 seconds of this, and then I had to get back to the business of photography in a technically very demanding venue. Perhaps the highest level of photography as an art is when we can simultaneously engage in the artistic/technical aspects while staying engaged with the environment in which we are working. In doing so, we might allow Supriyo's flexibility of mind to allow us to see creative opportunities that might otherwise escape us.

Coming late to the party, I add the following.

My wife and I do a lot of traveling, and on the last few trips she's had the 18-140 and I've had the 16-85. Of those two, I think the 18-140 is the sharper, and if you're expecting to need much reach and not bringing another telephoto, I 'd go with that one. With that said, the 16-85 is decently sharp too, and that extra two millimeters on the wide end is very nice to have. I think it's also a tiny bit more robustly made than the 18-140. But both of those lenses will do the majority of what you need, On my last trip my longer lens got water in it and was uselessly fogged up for a good part, and I hardly missed it. Both lenses are pretty close in size, so I think it really comes down to whether you need the extra width or the extra length.

We generally have just enough room when traveling to take a couple of lenses, and I usually pack the 16-85, a 55-300, and one small faster prime lens, useful in low light and a good backup. A 35 prime takes no appreciable space.

I'm reminded of a quote from Colin Fletcher in his book The Man Who Walked Through Time. I've referenced it before, but I don't have it to hand in the moment. To paraphrase, he talks about how freeing it was during his backpack the length of the Grand Canyon when his camera failed. Suddenly he was freed of the demand to see the world around him through his equipment, and could experience his world more holistically. This might sound anathema to photographers, but it speaks to an essential, human issue. We can easily become so engaged in managing our technical/artistic tools that we miss out on an enormous fraction of the experience, and, by extension, additional creative opportunities. An example for me occurred at last August's eclipse. During totality I was so engaged in removing and replacing filters, adjusting exposures, staying on target, etc., that I very nearly forgot to stop long enough to look at the visible corona, feel the change in temperature, listen to the crickets, see the moon's shadow moving over the landscape, and experience the overall impact of the eclipse. I gave myself about 15 seconds of this, and then I had to get back to the business of photography in a technically very demanding venue. Perhaps the highest level of photography as an art is when we can simultaneously engage in the artistic/technical aspects while staying engaged with the environment in which we are working. In doing so, we might allow Supriyo's flexibility of mind to allow us to see creative opportunities that might otherwise escape us.

Its actually a very important point. Many photographers, sometimes the ones new in the game (imagine myself in that place not too long ago) often are seen to be too focused on their equipment, tripod, best location, etc, to get that perfect pic that checks all the boxes of photographic grammar. On a clear day at sunrise at the Grand Canyon, all you can see are rows of tripods and people glued to their viewfinders. I wonder, how many of them would dare to look up to view the real thing, the first ray of light glimmering in the horizon, and risk missing that perfect shot. Its a mindset that doesn't seem to let go for some until you have exhausted your ideas of perfect pics (and there aren't that many which haven't already been shot and published in some heavy books) and then suddenly you come to the realization, whats the point! Then you ask yourself, did I take away anything special, anything of unique value from this place other than generic photos. Did I enjoy the view with my naked eyes? Did I look around to see how my love one(s) is enjoying that view and then share that enjoyment?

The bottomline is, I have stopped taking my hobby too seriously (not to say, I don't take photography seriously). As an amateur, I ought to realize the scope of my photography and not oversubscribe to it's prospect. If its a hobby, there should be a fun aspect to it, that would allow me to walk away from it without regret, and come back at will. Travel should not be for the purpose of taking photos. In fact, photos should be taken, if there's a purpose to it, and that purpose better not be a replacement for real life experience, or following the popular trend. Anyway, that has been my philosophy lately, and it allows me more time to think and shoot satisfying photos.

It’s as important to know when not to shoot as when to do so. Some of my greatest photographic moments have taken place when I don’t have a camera in my hands. Learning to see and visualize doesn’t require having equipment at the ready.

The first time I went to Europe, I was in tears standing in front of a painting by Whistler. I’m not one to take photos of famous paintings, nor to necessarily be that literal. I was immersed in my emotions at the moment. But those are moments I can carry with me when I do have my camera in hand. I can translate the feel of that moment into something more photographically inspiring than taking a picture of the painting of Whistler’s mom.

Though I’ve taken pics of the Grand Canyon and Yosemite, the Grand Canyon and Yosemite to me are more inspiration than subject matter for photos. I do more hiking and breathing in of fresh air when I’m in those places than picture taking. But I come back from those places with a sense of renewal. Trips like that inspire me to make art . . . later, that has less to do with those places literally but a lot to do with them emotionally and with their liberating character.

For me, photography isn’t a hobby any more than playing the piano is a hobby. I approach them both as arts.

imho, fwiw, good photography* is not a function of (lat,long). i would recommend taking whatever kit you use at home on any trip you are planning to undertake.

(of course, i appreciate the idea of buying new kit because you are going on a trip. i do it all the time :-))

* by this I mean stuff you are going appreciate personally

As fond as I am of photography, having done it for a very long time, I always try to be certain that I live life in person, not just through my cameras. Sandy.

I don't see a separation both are combined for me.....brothers in arms;)

My latest toy a Zeiss 25mm for my Nikon: wonderful lens for IQ.

As fond as I am of photography, having done it for a very long time, I always try to be certain that I live life in person, not just through my cameras.

I noticed for the first time how the moments can be lost when becoming too immersed in the lens a long time ago, when I had first gotten my new Pentax ME.

I was watching some 4th of July fireworks. Got some neat pictures for my first try but realized when the show was over I had kinda missed it....

Here is a picture of a cake some friends had made for me way back at that time. Speaks volumes, though at the time I didn't even realize I had a camera in my hand that much.

Still amused at the irony of having taken that picture.....I was still working at mastering depth of field apparently....

A couple of observations.

First, I think both Sandy and Allen can be right. There’s a sense in which being a photographer IS living real life, as Allen suggests, and that can be embraced while also acknowledging that, sometimes, taking pictures can distract me from the bigger picture that’s going on, as Sandy says. Taking pictures can, on the other hand, sometimes make me hyper aware of what’s going on. There’s too much variety and nuance to the experiences I have to make one claim for all situations. Awareness is the key, whether in the moment or when standing back. Neither photography nor life are monolithic activities and the relationship between them will be, IMO, more complex than simple, more uncertain than predictable, more varied than consistent.

This can relate back to lenses. While one may want to use the most predictably reliable and appropriate lens in certain situations, other situations might just benefit from an unpredictable or seemingly awkward lens to use in the moment.

Second, Mark’s friends could be right to some extent. At the same time, photographers and artists are rarely fully understood by others, so what might seem like an obsession to others could be just the outside appearance of a productive, creative endeavor. Photography, and a lot of art, may well be an obsession. The good of that can outweigh the bad.

An artist is a creature driven by demons. He doesn't know why they chose him and is usually too busy to wonder why.

(William Faulkner)

There's no way I can stop writing, it's a form of insanity.

(Charles Bukowski)

To obsess too virulently is to walk alone in anxiety. But to obsess too little is to wall oneself off from one's own creativity.

(Eric Maisel)