Jump to content

one lens challenge


laura_conant

Recommended Posts

So, hypothetical situation (which is probably going to become real):

You're traveling for two months, and you can only take one body and

one lens. No flash, filters, or accessories. You need to be able to

shoot indoors (such as old churches, mom's basement, or concert

halls), and you also want to be able to shoot landscapes, and

portraits to some extent, more like landscapes with identifiable

people in them I guess. What do you take? I currently have an OM-1

and a 50 f/1.8, but I found that after using it intensively for 4

months, I find the angle of view too narrow for the shots I want to

take. So, what lens would you take in this situation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, for what you described the 50/1.8 would be my choice. If you really need a wider lens, try a 35/2 or even a 28/2. BTW, if you can carry a body with one lens, you can also carry two lenses. I can't imagine a travel situation where one additional lens in the range of 28...50mm is a problem. The Zuikos are small and easy to carry.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the question is strange: Having traveled myself quite a bit, I never asked for the number of lenses but size/weight of my total photo equipment. Any zoom will be more bulky and heavier than a single lens within a corresponding range. If you stay with your number limitation, my suggestion would be a Tamron SP 35-105/2.8; great performance at a great price. I do not suggest the Tamron 28-105/2.8 as it is much bulkier and the performance questionable. For the same weight and cheaper, you could take a 50/1.4 (good for low light), 28/2 or 28/2.8 for your landscapes, and a 100/2.8 for your portraits (all 49mm filter size although you don't want to take filters). I do not suggest the 40/2 due to its inferior performance and handling independent of price.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you'd either have to make do with the 50mm and take multiple interior shots and digitally stich them together later, or take TWO lenses. Church interiors call for at least a fast 21 0r 24mm lens, _maybe_ the 28 would be OK. You'd also have to be very careful with taking "portraits" with the 28mm, the people (even tho you suggest keeping back a bit) will look too 'long in the face'. A fast wide and an 85/2 for people would be light and fit in a small bag.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason I could only carry one lens is that it's a backpacking trip, and when you're walking everywhere with everything on your back, weight matters and so does bulk. I carried the 50 f/1.8 on the last trip which was also a backpacking trip, and I got frustrated with it which is why I'm asking for suggestions for something that's a bit wider that could also be useful as a primary lens. I've had my eye on the 28 f/2 for a while, but compared to the 28 f/2.8 and 35 f/2.8 it's a bit expensive and also bulkier, but I'm willing to deal with the extra weight if it means I don't have to carry a flash. I suppose I _could_ take the 50 with me, but it would live in my pack whereas I carry the camera on my hipbelt, so I doubt that it would get much use if I had to take off my pack every time I wanted to change lenses. I'm also a bit of a minimalist and when I'm on backpacking trip I like to streamline everything and I hate fussing with equipment (of any sort) when there's a million other things to see and do. I strongly believe that the stuff you take should be useful to you when you're travelling, but it shouldn't become obstrusive and get in the way (i.e. when you have too much and always have to think about what to do with it and where to put it).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think choosing an f2 over the f2.8 would make much difference, unless you are going to spend a lot of time taking photos indoors or under artificial light. If you think 50mm is just a little too narrow try a 35mm. You can do a lot with this AoV, as Stylus Epic/Mju owners will testify. Have you considered a point & shoot camera?

<p>

Incidentally, some kind of camera support (bean bag or superlight monopod) would be more valuable than a faster lens.

<p>

If you are open to zooms my suggestion would be the tiny <a href="http://olympus.dementia.org/eSIF/om-sif/lensgroup/35-70mmf35-45.htm">Zuiko 35-70 f3.5~4.5</a>. This lens is the same size and weight as the 50mm f1.8, but covers a useful range of focal lengths. Yes, it's slow, but suprisingly sharp for an inexpensive and tiny lens. I sold mine and sometimes wish I hadn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, Laura, reading this, I ask myself why don't you take one of those fine rangefinder cameras for your back packing trip, e.g. a Konica S3, Minolta High-Matic, Canonet GIII, Olympus 35RD, 35RC... These cameras are smaller than your OM-1. They usually don't cost more than a 28/2.8 Zuiko (depends on the model), some of them have a very good 40/f1.7 fixed lens (the cheaper have f2.8). Nearly all these cameras have 35...40mm, maybe the focal length that works perfectly for you. They have manual and auto exposure, are very light...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, if you travel for two months, you should bring two Stylus Epics and two spare batteries: one camera loaded with color slide such as Provia or Velvia, the other with B&W negative such as Tri-X. The camera costs about $90 new and you can put it in your pocket. Save space for film!<div>00ASQl-20932584.jpg.425e78977f63c8e3d7df73fcaec71aae.jpg</div>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't going to sneak in this thought,but someone already brought it up. Whazzat? A backpacking camera,purpose built. Rugged,durable,good ergonomics, unobtrusive,great f 2 lens,35mm-wider than 50mm but not too much to give distortion trouble, did I say reliable, autofocus,rangefinder convenience,toss in the bag quality, available very reasonable on the used market. Still serviced by Konica Minolta.(I'd loan you mine,but it still gets used) The great,the unrivalled, the champion in the welterweight class,in this corner, the Italian Stallion,er I mean the Konica Hexar AF. Seriously, read the reviews here. And give this one a chance. I take it city backpacking and it is all I need,a humdinger. Be well,easy on the eggnog,aloha,Gerry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the suggestions. I actually used to have a stylus epic and I used it a great deal when I worked at a summer camp, but it died when it got run over by a truck. I loved the little thing but I haven't been able to justify buying another one. The one thing I missed when I was using it was being able to manually control everything. That's the reason I got the OM-1 in the first place. The photos I take on that trip (if it happens, I'm waiting for grant money) are going to be used in my senior thesis exhibition, so I want to be able to photograph the way I'm used to, and have complete control even if it means carrying a little extra weight. Quality is also the reason I would consider an f/2 over f/2.8 (from what I read the f/2 is sharper and of course it helps that it's fast).

BTW about an hour ago my dad found an old lens he had that fits the OM mount. It's a Sakar 28-70 f/3.5-4.5 brand new in the box, does anyone know anything about this lens? It's pretty big, but if it's sharp, I guess I don't even need to worry about a new lens.

Thanks for all your help so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would definitely go with a Zuiko prime lens over the Sakar. No I've never used a Sakar, but I wouldn't expect very good quality when enlarging past 5"X7" or so given the very low cost of the lens. You might as well shoot a roll with it and try it out since it's unused and free, but I wouldn't expect much out of it. The fact that it's bulky and slow goes against your main needs, so the test roll may not even be necessary in ruling it out. My suggestion would be the Zuiko 28mm f2.8 (or f2 if you have the money and don't mind the extra size/weight). If you want to go wider than that I'd suggest the 21mm f3.5 made by Zuiko. It's a TINY lens, much like the pancake 40mm in size and the quality is pretty good, plus it's a lot cheaper than the f2 version. Have you thought about making room on your hipbelt for an extra lens? Zuiko made some really tiny and light lenses that wouldn't even be noticed in a small pouch on the belt, and having a 21mm or 28mm along with your 50mm would make a lot more sense than just having one, unless it's a big bulky zoom. If photography is an important part of the trip, I would break your one lens rule in this case.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<i>it died when it got run over by a truck</i>

<p>

So it is not its fault ;-)

<p>

IMHO, if the trip is important to you, you should bring a Stylus Epic as a backup in case something happens to your OM-1. And I think the image quality of Epic is enough for any publication under most conditions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I could take only one lens, it would be a Zuiko 50mm/1.4. But do a lot of low-light photography and I never use a flash. Also, I tend to be more interested in people than places, so I like the way the 50mm gets me in a bit closer than a 35mm, which is what I first learned photography on.

 

My "basic" kit is getting kind of big, but it's still not bad, especially for a kit that can deal with low-light situations without a flash. I use an OM-4Ti, my trusty 50mm/1.4, a truly delicious Zuiko 100mm/2.0, and a Cosina 24mm/2.8. (The last I would love to replace with a Zuiko 24mm/2, but I'm kinda broke these days.) This, plus filters etc. and a dozen rolls of film will all fit into a camera bag that's not too large at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd take what I already use most of the time on my OM-1, the 50mm f/3.5 macro Zuiko. If I could afford the 50mm f/2 macro Zuiko, then that's what I'd stick with for a single lens jaunt.

 

Another advantage to the 50/3.5 macro Zuiko is that you don't need a lens hood. The front element is deeply recessed within the barrel so it's already well protected from flare and damage.

 

However you obviously need a wider angle lens, given your stated preferences. In that case I'd go with either a fast 28mm or 35mm or, possibly, a midrange zoom, tho' I wouldn't want to give up yet another stop. So I'd try to find a way to afford the 35-80mm f/2.8 ED or, failing that, the 35-70mm f/3.6 Zuiko.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>>>You need to be able to shoot indoors (such as old

churches, mom's basement, or concert halls), and you also want

to be able to shoot landscapes, and portraits to some extent,

more like landscapes with identifiable people in them I

guess.<<<<<

 

a 28mm or 24mm zuiko and the epic (35mm) for back up with

fuji 800 npz / press.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of answers, lots of new questions.

 

Given how small Zuiko lenses are, a key advantage of the OM sytsem is the ability to carry more than one lens with minimal impact.

 

If I HAD to pick one lens to take on a trip, it would probably be either the tiny 35-70/3.5-4.5 (make sure you note the aperture, as there are several, very different models), or a 35mm lens. The 35/2.8 makes nicer images to me than the 35/2, both of which I've had.

 

OK, now I'll venture my advice for a minimal, 3 lens kit, which I think gives the most versatility. In general, popular advice is to bring lenses that are double/half the next one, to give a significantly different perspective when changing. Otherwise, you end up changing lenses more than you take pictures.

 

Wide Angle - 24mm, The f/2.8 is the best value, but I like the bright finder and extra stop of the f/2. Alternative: 21/3.5, which is very wide and deliverd many great photos for me in the 20 yrs that I had it. I've tried to like a 28mm for travel on an SLR, but it never works for me, always too wide for a normal lens, too narrow for a wide angle. The 24 sees like I do.

 

Normalish - 50/3.5 Macro ($150) or 35/2.8 or 35/2. Or use the 50/1.8 if you like it. I don't think I've used a 50mm lens on an SLR in 10 years. You could substitute the litte 35-70 zoom here.

 

Telephoto - 135/2.8 or f/3.5 (alternative: 100/2.8, but it's not that long, whereas the 135 is a very different perspective). Both are very cheap and excellent quality. I sold my f/3.5, as it wasn't THAT much smaller than the great f/2.8.

 

Filter sizes can make a choice too. Most faster Zuiko lenses use 55mm filters, most slower ones use 49mm.

 

Skip

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking along the same lines as Skip. I took an OM2n, 24mm and 50mm to Dublin once (a few B&W pics <a href="http://www.mawddwy.freeserve.co.uk/dublin.htm">here</a>) and could have found use for a 100 or 135mm. But I was still very happy. The spare lens, orange filter and two rolls of HP5 Plus fitted in the smallest bumbag I could find.

<p>

A 135/3.5, with 49mm filter thread, is even cheaper, smaller and lighter than the 135/2.8.

<p>

If Laura still wants to keep it strictly to one lens I'd suggest the 35mm (especially as she has used and liked the Epic). BTW the lowly 35/2.8 is no slouch. Some of my favourite photos have been taken with an old beaten-up single coated one. But do get a lens hood. I like the collapsible rubber type, you can leave it on the lens the whole time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd agree with the three lens kit, if that's a viable option. That's what I usually carry for casual shooting.

 

My kit consists of an OM-1, 28/2.8 Zuiko, 50/3.5 macro Zuiko and 75-150/4 Zuiko. All three fit neatly into a Lowepro Off Trail, their smallest waist pack. The lenses are narrow enough that they slip easily in and out of the pouches while I have to claw my Nikkors out of the same bag. Even with the zoom mounted on the body it'll fit in the main, roughly triangular pouch.

 

In and around the remaining spaces I'll tuck extra rolls of film, a microfiber cleaning cloth, body cap, one or two filters and other small accessories.

 

For three weeks in May and June I toted this kit around Savannah, photographing the usual stuff: Historic District, River Street, Factor's Walk, Bonaventure Cemetery. I never felt overburdened, despite having a bum back, neck and joints from my right ankle to right hip.

 

The only item I sometimes missed was a lightweight tripod since I shot mostly ISO 100 slide film. But I'd have wanted a carbon fiber tripod to pair up with my Velbon magnesium ballhead slung behind my back. I couldn't afford a CF legset at the time so I left my heavier aluminum legsets at home.

 

Beats heck out of the times I need to carry my back breaking Nikon gear - two bodies with motor drives, six or more lenses, two or more flash units, numerous accessories, sometimes two large bags to carry it all.

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...