Jump to content

Lenses for travel photography (New Zealand)


stevenseelig

Recommended Posts

For many years I have relied on zoom lenses with my Nikon gear. More recently, I have switched to Sony 7 series and fast prime lenses.

 

Feb 2018, my wife and I are traveling to New Zealand in a small group tour and I am wondering if anyone has experience or thoughts on choosing primes vs zoom lenses for travel photography in general and more specifically New Zealand. While we will experience some wildlife shooting opportunities, I suspect most of the pictures will be more landscape and/or people pictures.

 

I am interested in the conceptualization around using primes in travel photography

 

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Might be useful to know which lenses you already own.

While we will experience some wildlife shooting opportunities

There doesn't seem to be any native FE-mount fixed-focal-length lens that fits that bill.

 

I have tried to create a travel kit around a Sony A7 - and ended up with adapted M-mount Voigtlander 15/4.5, 21/1.8, 40/1.4, and 90/2 manual focus lenses and a 28/2 AF lens. Relatively compact and with enough spread but still sufficient spacing in between. And certainly limiting towards the long end (though I could have added my 180/3.4 if need be - but then the bag starts getting full and heavy).

 

The Zeiss Batis lenses (18, 25, 85, 135) make for a nice spread too - but there's at least one lens missing in the center of that range (which the Zeiss 55/1.8 would fill nicely). And 18mm might still be a bit too long for me.

 

Personally, I rather would travel with 12-24, 24-105, and 100-400 (or 70-200 to keep weight down and if wildlife isn't on the agenda) then any set of primes. I already started down this path by trading all the above mentioned M-mount manual focus lenses for the 12-24/4 and a 70-200/4.

Edited by Dieter Schaefer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the A7, I'd prefer 2 or 3 primes and one telephoto zoom. Identify your go to lens that you will use for 70% of the time and a WA and tele zoom that you will use for the rest of the time. The FE 55/1.8 is a very nice lens if that FL meets your needs as a go to lens. Check out the FE 100-400mm for a telezoom. For an ultra wide angle, you can check out the F-mount IRIX lenses (11mm or 15mm) or Samyang lenses (14mm) or M-mount ZM or CV lenses.

 

My wife and I are visiting that same part of the world in April and I've decided to go with a DSLR, although I am still undecided between the D800e and the D500 and still undecided with respect to which lenses to bring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bodies

Two a7RII

 

The lenses I currently have are

Sony FE 28mm f 2.0

Sony 21mm adaptor for the 28mm f2.0 (makes the 21mm f2.8)

Sony Zeiss FE 55mm f1.8

Sony GM FE 85mm f1.4

Sony Zeiss FE 24-70 f4

Sony FE 70-200mm f4

 

This collection is not too heavy.

 

I tend to shoot with the 28mm and the 85mm most of the time and I find the IQ to be quite good. Generally I find the 55 a bit too long or too short so use it less often.

 

Dieter, why would you prefer the zooms. I know Sony has a new f4 24-105. Have you tried it?

 

But I am wondering about how to think about travel photography with prime lenses. Are primes too restrictive in terms of focal length to deal with the variable focal length needed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know Sony has a new f4 24-105. Have you tried it?

Nope, haven't even seen one yet. In stores only since Nov 30 AFAIK.

 

Dieter, why would you prefer the zooms.

More flexibility, less lens changes. I can't possibly pack all the primes I think I might need and even if I could, too often the wrong one would be on the camera. I like to react to situations as they present themselves and with primes only, the need to change lenses constantly puts me off. With primes only, I know there will be gaps in focal length coverage and there are techniques to deal with those (panorama stitching, cropping; and no, "zooming with my feet" isn't one of them); they make more work and aren't applicable in all situations. With primes I feel I have to pre-visualize even more than I have to with zooms. When looking at a landscape I need at the same time evaluate whether to use an ultra-wide, wide, normal, short, or long tele; with zooms I have at least some range always covered. In essence, I have to work a lot harder when using primes than I have to when using zooms. Primes often have the advantage of being smaller, lighter, and better performing. The size and weight advantage can quickly dissipate when I feel the need to carry too many of them. Stopped down when shooting landscape etc., the performance advantage may also be not as big as many expect or even non-existent. Fast aperture primes have their advantages too - shooting in low light, indoors, or for star-trail/milky way shots.

 

Primes can work for me if I am concentrating on a particular subject, but generally, when traveling, I am open to anything. I could roam the streets with just a 35mm or 28mm doing street photography only and would not miss other focal lengths - if that was all I was interested in. But in reality, I might be shooting architecture now, then a street scene close, then one more distant. With a zoom I can react, with a prime in those kind of scenarios, I'd be missing shot after shot. Or would be swapping lenses like mad.

 

I tend to shoot with the 28mm and the 85mm most of the time

While I could get a lot done with the 28, I would feel very much lost with an 85 (I do own one but it only ever comes out when I am doing portraits). Since you have the 24-70 and 70-200, I am wondering why you prefer the two primes?

 

Is 21mm wide enough for you? If so, then I think you already have a very good travel rig. Otherwise, add the 12-24/4 and you are good to go. Or the 16-35/4 instead if the other is "too wide".

 

Are primes too restrictive in terms of focal length to deal with the variable focal length needed?

They are for me. More work, requiring more discipline. All primes is just not for me; most of the time anyway. If one finds that one is shooting at either end of the zoom almost always, then it could make sense to replace the zoom with primes (adding lens changes into the mix that before only required the turn of a ring). There are people who are happy with just a 50, or a 35 and a 50. Or a small set like 28/35, 50, 85/100. Not me.

 

Identify your go to lens that you will use for 70% of the time and a WA and tele zoom that you will use for the rest of the time.

The problem for me was that there was no one lens that gives me that percentage as most of my travel shooting so far would split about equally between the 16-35/4 and 70-200/4. I even felt the need to add a 50 to bridge the gap. And when traveling with only one body, the wrong lens would be on the camera most of the time; the two body solution adds weight and cost. When I looked at my wife: most shots taken with the 16-80 on a DX body, augmented by an 11-16 and a 70-200/4; I re-evaluated my approach and got a 24-105 for my Nikon.

 

I mentioned the three lenses 12-24, 24-105, 70-200 (or 100-400) above - either three-lens set would cover about 98%+ of everything I would want to make images of when traveling. With in-camera image stabilization, I wouldn't even need fast primes - though they could come in handy on occasion (mostly playing with shallow DOF).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would still love to use my primes if possible....Just trying to understand how to do that well

Pick a set, be aware of the limitations that set imposes on you and then just do it. A lot has to do with your mindset - don't fret the ones that got away but enjoy the ones that you do get. Make the decision on which primes to go with and then don't ever question it.

 

I currently don't have a full set of primes that I would be happy with. The manual focus M-mount lenses I owned came pretty close to a set I could have worked with: 15 to cover the ultrawide, 21 for wide, 40 for the normal stuff and 90 - would be better if it had been a 135. And the 28 to have at least one AF lens.

 

You said you like the 28 and 85 - so you could put them on your two bodies and be ready to shoot with either. You didn't answer my question about the 21 being wide enough - so I assume that you are happy with what you have. 21, 28, 85 (the 55 seems not to suit you so leave it home). Do you feel you need to get something longer than 85? Within the Sony system, there doesn't appear to be anything longer than 135mm primes.

 

I don't seem to be the right person to answer your question - maybe someone who primarily or exclusively shoots primes will come along and explain their approach.

Edited by Dieter Schaefer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pick a set, be aware of the limitations that set imposes on you and then just do it. A lot has to do with your mindset - don't fret the ones that got away but enjoy the ones that you do get. Make the decision on which primes to go with and then don't ever question it.

 

Agreed. This is my travel mindset vs maximizing coverage when traveling. I have found that I do have a go-to lens when traveling; from the time that I have acquired them, that go to lens has been either my 35/1.4 ART or my 50/1.4 ART, with the 20/1.8 AFS or 24/1.,4 ART as my WA, respectively, when using my D800e. It's on the long end where I have flip-flopped between primes and zooms. For the upcoming trip, I may opt to bring my recently acquired Sigma 150/2.8 although if I had $$$$, I would love to get an 80-400mm AFS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used standard length zooms for a LONG LONG time, and have gotten used to them.

 

When I shot 35mm my travel kit was 4 lenses: 24mm, 43-86/3.5, 80-200/4.5 (not the larger f/4 or f/2.8 zooms), 105/2.5.

The reason for the zooms vs. primes was simply convenience. I did not have to move to change the image crop (I was shooting slides), nor did I have to change lenses (if I was shooting primes).

The 105/2.5 was carried simply for it's f/2.5 speed, vs the f/4.5 of the 80-200 zoom. But was otherwise a duplicate lens, and was not used much, and could have been left out.

When I was younger, the weight of this 4 lens kit was not a problem to carry.

 

Today for 35mm, my travel kit would be smaller, 2 lenses: 24mm, 35-105 (or 35-135).

Again the standard lens is a zoom. But one with a wider range than the 43-86.

The kit is smaller because as I get older, weight has become an issue. And by using a standard zoom with a little more reach, I can avoid carrying a longer lens.

 

For Nikon DX, it is 2 lenses: 18-140/3.5-5.6, 35/1.8

The 18-140/3.5-5.6 is a decent GP lens, with it's only fault being that it is a slow lens, hitting f/4.5 at 40mm and f/5.6 at 100mm.

The alternative is the 16-80/2.8-4. Shorter range, but a faster lens.

I could actually shoot with only the 18-140, but I've been in enough places where I wanted a faster lens, so I would not have to raise my ISO to 16,000. And the 35/1.8 does not add much space/weight.

If I wanted additional focal length coverage, I would add a 10-20 wide zoom, rather than a longer lens.

 

For Nikon FX, I would take a 24-120/4, 50/1.8.

The 24-120 range fits my idea of a good general range. I used to shoot with a 24mm on my film cameras, so I am used to having that on the wide end.

Similar comment about the 50/1.8, it is there for shooting in dim light, but can be left out if weight and space was an issue.

 

Now, as for an all prime GP kit for 35mm or FX, I would do: 24, 50, 135

 

Unless I KNOW that I need a longer reach, like for shooting distant wildlife, these lenses are generally adequate.

 

In your case with your lenses and what you said, I would do: 28 (with the 21mm adapter) + 85.

But for wildlife, your only long lens is the 70-200, which depending on what kind of wildlife, may not be long enough. But longer zooms are bigger and heavier.

Edited by Gary Naka
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Sandy. I do understand that.

 

Dieter... generally 21mm is wide enough for me. If I need wider, I will shoot a panoramic, either on a tripod or handheld. I have have had a fair amount of success with handheld panoramics.

 

Beyond the lense question, I am trying understand how a prime lense photographer thinks about travel photography. How do they think, what do they consider, how do they look at scenes, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I look at a scene, I think about what focal length I will need, and what is on the camera.

Even with a zoom, I may immediately decide that I need to switch to the wider or the longer lens for that particular scene, and what I want to do with it.

 

Similarly I may decide after looking through the lens, that the lens on the camera (zoom or prime), is not giving me the image that I want, and I need to change to a different lens.

 

The other thing is that I may and have shot the same scene with a wide, normal and tele lenses. Each lens or zoom position to get a different image. If I do this often, it could be a hassle with primes. But I view changing lenses as something that has to be done, to get the image, not something to be avoided. And that is what the SLR was designed to do, change lenses.

 

My only issue with changing lenses was the lens mount. My first SLR had a Pentax screw mount, which made changing lenses slow and tricky, so I did not want to changes lenses as much. So my next SLR I went with a bayonet mount, and changing lenses was so much easier and faster.

 

For me shooting primes (including fixed lens cameras) means that I have to use my feet to crop the image, vs. using the zoom, moving towards or away from the subject. So getting the image as I want it takes a bit more work with a prime.

 

Maybe the fact that I started with fixed lens cameras then prime lenses on SLRs, a long time ago, makes it easy for me to shoot both primes and zoom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beyond the lense question, I am trying understand how a prime lense photographer thinks about travel photography. How do they think, what do they consider, how do they look at scenes, etc.

 

When capturing an image on travel, I generally look for 3 attributes in a scene, in this order: 1) What is the primary subject of interest? 2) What are the supporting elements that support the primary subject of interest? and 3) Are there other peripheral elements?

 

I can usually imagine what lens I need for a given subject (wide / normal / tele), constrained by the primes that I have in hand. Would I be able to do the above with zooms? Of course, but I have a personal affinity toward fast sub-f2.0 lenses (which is why the f1.8 Sigma zooms are sooooo tempting). I am not always successful with this approach, but that's how I instinctively compose a scene.

 

Here's an example from a trip from a couple of years ago. I had my usual 35/1.4 and a 20/1.8, and I opted to capture this with a 35mm. Applying the above approach to this image, the primary subject is obviously Mt. Fuji; the secondary elements that support that subject are the blue sky and water. Peripheral elements that provide additional support are: 1) the fisherman and 2) the treeline, small buildings and everything else closer to shore.

 

One other thing: I also seem to have an affinity for the rule of thirds. In the image: the mountain, the sky and the water. I think this kind of vast scenery would be comparable to scenery in Aus and NZ.

 

Info: D800e with Sigma 35/1.4 ART. ISO 100. Exposure: 1/1600 at f/8. -1 EV

 

http://www.leonin.net/img/s/v-2/p1503321489-5.jpg

Edited by photo_galleries
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am trying understand how a prime lense photographer thinks about travel photography. How do they think, what do they consider, how do they look at scenes, etc.

"Shoot what you have, as good as you can"?

Dunno, I have been messily shooting primes for a while. Somehow I tend to end with zoomless kits. For 6x6 B&W film it was a Mamiya with 55 &135 mms plus a 75mm folder. I like Leica. APS H & FF, the usual line 21, 35, 90 + 15, 50, (135). - I don't feel having enough bodies; i.e. 3 would be more desirable than my 1.5 ones to get closer to complete coverage instead of just shots of things that happen to fit the mounted lens' frame. Clarifying: Yes, I do change lenses, while I have the time. to do so, but assuming I am hiking in a group, I'm under pressure. I lack the strength to jog cycles around my co travelers and need time to frame and take shots, so I am too slow, period. - Depending on the terrain I am supposed to master 3 bodies out would probably not always be an option. In an urban environment with paved even paths I'd be fine with them. So I try to anticipate what I'll face next and mount lenses accordingly.

I also travelled with APS_C; either Pentax / Samsung: 2 bodies, 135/2.8, (50/1.4), kit zoom, 12-24/4 or a pair of Fujis & consumer 16-50 & 50-230.

Back to Steven:

I'd suggest trying to ask yourself:

  1. What is this, that I do have? - (The answer should includes a lot of adjectives! )
  2. What am I after?
  3. What am I expected to deliver?
  4. What am I willing and (or?) able to carry?

Example: 1. I have a line of heritage wides for my Pentaxes. -14/3.5 bad & bulky, unspectacular 20, 24, 28 /2.8s, 24 bulky AF f1.8, 28, 35, 50 f2s, decent 50 & 100/2.8 AF macros which are on the heavy end and the shorter one suffers from lack of a focus range limiter. crappy 70-300 AFs, heritage cheapo 300, 400 & 1000. All that stuff stays at home. The long zoom isn't worth bringing, the long bottle bottoms would require a tripod, and the wides are too unspectacular to pack them instead of the dedicated APS lenses. When I toss a 2x converter into my 12-24, 18-55, 50, 135 mm kit, I am even sufficiently backed up; i.e. I could enjoy the rest of the trip with one lens lost.

 

I have a 90/2 for Leica. It stays at home; I'm packing an f4 instead. - Much lighter, way more compact and still hard enough to focus for a wide open shot.

 

IMHO a travel / landscape picture is more likely to benefit from DOF, sharpness, either IS or maybe tripod usage than from insane lens speed. - Yes, I am lusting after a stabilized 85 mm for my Canon but such a lens is meant for the opposite of travel pictures. - If you shoot a full length person in a landscape with a 50mm, isn't f5.6 and focus on your subject providing sufficient background separation and still an idea of the environment?

 

I don't feel a huge difference between zooms and primes. With both we become conscious of the too short long end's reach, or

most of my travel shooting so far would split about equally between the 16-35/4 and 70-200/4. I even felt the need to add a 50 to bridge the gap
I hear him; that was the reason why I brought the 75mm folder between my TLR lenses.

So with 2 bodies I'd prepare the best and 2nd bet, to approach subjects. My first look would always be for the available light's demands. Darkness might rule out the 90/4 and demand 50 or 35 mm on Leica. Same about 135/2.8 or zooms and 50/1.4 on Pentax. Movement of my group might also suggest shorter focal lengths, loitering longer ones, Boredom around monuments triggers my 15mm selfie mood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just take something simple when traveling. On my last trip, I took just a Fuji X100T with its fixed 35mm lens. Never had a problem, just found the photos instead of struggling with carrying more stuff or changing lenses. You can see how this worked here - My 2017 Travels in Spain and Portugal – Jeff Spirer (The airplane photo at the beginning was taken with a phone.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

. . . I am interested in the conceptualization around using primes in travel photography . . .

 

haha! Jeff beat me by a few minutes. I was about to link to his Spain and Portugal Photos. My opinion is there are some real gems in that Portfolio..

 

To address your question - I travel about every 12 to18 months: I used to diligently take two DSLR bodies and four lenses: one/two Zoom and three/two Primes. Long story short: now I (still) take a 5D Series and my 24 to 105/4L IS USM, (but I forget the fast 35, fast 135 and Fisheye / or a 16 to 35) .. back in 2013, I bought a Fuji x100s, subsequently, on my last trip, March 2017, the Fuji was used for about 80% of my images.

 

If I were as dedicated as Jeff, I would categorize and upload a comprehensive file of my Fuji x100s Travel Photos - but I am not so organized as he, but a couple of additional points aside from weight, pocketability and fun of use the Fuji is also great with and R72 filter on - so here is one:

 

18392681-lg.jpg

 

*

 

If I had Sony 7 Series - I'd look at a Sony Distagon T FE 35mm f/1.4 ZA, (and maybe one other Prime - in the range 85 to 135), that would do me for my Travel requirements.

 

WW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a similar photo trip to to a distant place I had never been before, Iceland. The scenery is fantastic, as would be New Zealand. I carried a mix of primes and zoom lenses, but my mainstay proved to be a Sony 24-70/2.8 GM. My second most used lens was a Sony 70-200/4, which is light and very sharp. I also carried a Sony 16-35/4, but used it in only one situation, mud pots where you had to stay on a walkway.

 

In urban settings, a big zoom lens is heavy and obtrusive. A good wide angle prime seemed the best choice. I have a Loxia 35/2 and a Batis 25/2. The 35 was a little long for my last, so preferred to use the Basis 25.

 

I carried, but did not use a Loxia 50/2 and a Sony 90/2.8 Macro. As it turned out, the 24-70/2.8 focused close enough for any closeups I wanted.

 

As important as camera gear, I carried a laptop with a card reader, disc burner and a wallet full of Blu-Ray discs for daily backups. Most US electronics can use any voltage, but wall adapters are a PITA. My brother brought an outlet strip with US sockets and a European plug, rated for 120-240 VAC. You risk a fire or minor explosion if you use a 120 VAC strop with 240 volts, and any case, the voltage protection circuit vaporizes the first time you use it.

 

The only wildlife in Iceland were horses, sheep and foxes. Foxes are very shy and live in remote places. Horses come to you begging, and sheep ignore you completely. I hear there are sheep in New Zealand, and some unusual native birds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the input. I really appreciate it. I enjoyed Jeff's webpage. Not only because of the wonderful photography, but also it demonstrates what one can do with a single lens. It reminds me of the old saying 'The best camera in the world is the one you have in your hand at the moment.'

 

Keith and Gary...thanks for reminding me to think about the fundamentals with whatever lens I have with me.

 

One of my concerns is this is a small (10 people or so) group trip so flexibility in shooting may be restricted some. We shall see. My bias at the moment is to start with the 28mm (+21mm adaptor) and 85mm primes. But I will have the 24-70 f4 (or the new 24-105 f4) and 70-200 f4 in the bag just in case. The new Sony 100-400 is a good lens and might be considered as an alternative to the 70-200 f4, but it is very heavy. Not sure I can convince myself of the value of the extra weight for this trip.

 

When we went to Peru a few years ago I took my 14-24 f2.8 Nikkor lens and never took it out of the bag. Instead, if I wanted a wider perspective, it was faster and easier to shoot a hand held panoramic with my 24-70mm f2.8 (not a perfect solution, but practical).

 

I will add to this my GoPro for our zip line adventures.

Edited by stevenseelig
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ed...an interesting perspective and a great picture.... the picture you showed was shot at 200mm. Would you have preferred something longer. The weight difference is pretty significant and when i test drove the Sony 100-400mm and found that handheld was doable but a challenge. It is also a bit slower on the long side.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The weight difference is pretty significant and when i test drove the Sony 100-400mm and found that handheld was doable but a challenge.

Compared to the Nikon 80-400 and Canon 100-400, Sony's 100-400 is a "light-weight" (by about 1/2 lbs); it's even lighter than any of the current f/2.8 70-200 lenses from Canon, Nikon, and Sony.

 

This year in Canada, I used 300mm on a few occasions for landscape shots but hardly found a need for something even longer. The advantage of having a 100-400 over a 70-200 to me would be mostly with regards to wildlife shooting.

 

BTW, Sony also offers a 70-300 for the FE mount.

 

Oops, need to correct myself - sometimes even 500mm come in handy:

37973178256_49c73d471f_b.jpg

Edited by Dieter Schaefer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ed...an interesting perspective and a great picture.... the picture you showed was shot at 200mm. Would you have preferred something longer. The weight difference is pretty significant and when i test drove the Sony 100-400mm and found that handheld was doable but a challenge. It is also a bit slower on the long side.

There were a several instances when something longer than 200 mm would have been welcome for the right juxtaposition between buildings and the mountains It's not always possible to get closer, to horses in a field for example. Swans migrate through Iceland, but I was never able to get close enough to flocks of these huge birds. 400 mm is at the brink of being limited by temperature induced distortion, but that's time and weather-dependent. I would have much use for 400 mm indoors, for video.

 

I coud manage the added size and weight of the 100-400, compared to the 70-200/4, by omitting one lens from my backpack. Sony GM zooms are very sharp, comparable to most of my prime lenses, and more flexible. I was considering one this summer, but decided on an A9 instead. No regrets, but I have to wait for my funds recover.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. . . My bias at the moment is to start with the 28mm (+21mm adaptor) and 85mm primes. But I will have the 24-70 f4 (or the new 24-105 f4) and 70-200 f4 in the bag just in case. . .

 

Arguing this point re "the conceptualization around using primes in travel photography":

 

I see only very limited gain, if any any at all in adding either a 24 to 70; 24 to 105 "just in case".

 

In case of what? IF you have a 28 and 85, then 85 is practically naught difference to 70 and either only a small crop in post production to attain the FoV of 105, or a short few steps forward and slight perspective change. Any FL between 28 and 85 can be accommodated by either of the same means: albeit sometimes a trade off for the perfect perspective that you might like if you were shooting under 'controlled conditions'.- but crikey you are on holidays and not a $30,000 paid shoot.

 

I also see little point in adding a 70 to 200 - if you think that you will want a longer FL, take a 200 Prime.

 

My point is - it seems you want to have one foot in each camp, or as we say here 'two bob each way' - that's not a criticism per se, but I think that if you are serious about taking the plunge, then you must harness a bit of bravery and stick with the plan and choose one, two (or perhaps three primes) and field test your theories and learn from the experience.

 

The point is, no matter what amount of gear that you take, there will still be a bunch of photos that you won't make - but it is pointless wasting time on those ones as they were never your in the first place.

 

As Jeff Spirer stated above:

 

"[ I ] Never had a problem, [ I ] just found the photos instead of struggling with carrying more stuff or changing lenses."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see only very limited gain, if any any at all in adding either a 24 to 70; 24 to 105 "just in case".

also see little point in adding a 70 to 200 - if you think that you will want a longer FL, take a 200 Prime.

AFAIK, there's no 200mm prime for the Sony FE-mount (unless one adapts non-native lenses). While I agree with William's points, I am not sure I would pick a New Zealand trip to "harness that bit of bravery" - I would definitely "chicken out" and take the zooms and leave the primes at home; better "safe than sorry" (though 21, 28, and 85 should definitely enable some nice landscape and people photography). Or I might take the primes along and have the zooms as "fallback" in case the prime experiment fails (of course, the caveat is that given an easy way out one may not try hard enough).

 

I think the "concept of using primes in travel photography" is rather simple: make the best use of what you brought and don't sweat what you can't get.

 

I sometimes go out with nothing but one prime lens on the camera - after a while I tend to narrow in on those images I can do and tune out the ones that are unattainable. Naturally, one focal length may work better than another, but Steven already figured out that the 28 and 85 work well for him while the 55 does not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...