Pack the primes or go with a decent tele? Travel quandary...

I'm heading to India in July and want to take my trusty F100 with me. I haven't done much travelling with the F100 other than some city breaks but want to make sure I take advantage of all the (hopefully) great opportunities India will give me shot-wise.

I've read a lot of different opinions about what people might take with them on such a trip, but I can't decide between taking three primes I have (24mm f/2.8f, 50mm f/1.8, 85m f/1.8 - all AFD) or investing in a decent wide tele to cover everything. We won't be travelling about a huge amount, but lugging lenses and kit in 38c heat doesn't fill me with joy....

Does anyone have any sage advice based on experiences with film kit in such a situation?

Thanks in advance!

I've been on both sides of the fence on this one. What I've evolved to is thinking zooms are the best option for travel. The less I carry, the more fun I have. The less I have to fiddle with changing lenses etc., the fewer shots I miss. If the F100 will function with the Nikon 24-120mm f4 VR, that's the lens I'd pick up on ebay, or the Sigma 24-105mm f4. Add a 35mm f1.8G (or the new Tamron VC version) and you should be covered. I would bring lots of film--might have some difficulty finding it there. I'd also bring a small back up camera on a trip like that.

Kent in SD

Shorter prime lenses are ideal for walking about town, taking shots of people, shops, etc. They're small and light. My preference would be a fast 35 mm lens, possibly 28 mm, but your 24 or 50 mm would work. For general photography, including landscapes, a mid-range zoom is best. My choice is a 24-70/2.8, but an 18-200 or 18-300 is a good one-lens-fits-all option, but rather slow at f/5.6 at the long end. ISO 400 film is the most flexible choice.

On a film camera traveling that far I opt for the 24-70 2.8 and get your negatives processed and scanned along the way Its getting harder to find film processors and scanners.They probably have lots of Fuji Film in india.

I've been on both sides of the fence on this one. What I've evolved to is thinking zooms are the best option for travel. The less I carry, the more fun I have. The less I have to fiddle with changing lenses etc., the fewer shots I miss. If the F100 will function with the Nikon 24-120mm f4 VR, that's the lens I'd pick up on ebay, or the Sigma 24-105mm f4. Add a 35mm f1.8G (or the new Tamron VC version) and you should be covered. I would bring lots of film--might have some difficulty finding it there. I'd also bring a small back up camera on a trip like that.

 

Kent in SD

Thanks Kent. I'm wondering whether limited myself to an f/4 lens as it might not give me the enough in terms of aperture when using, say, 400 iso film. That said it's probably the best of both worlds. There is the older 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6D but I can't imagine half a stop is going to make much difference at that stage?

ISO 400 is a little hot for bright sun, outdoors, and slow for dimly-lighted interiors. ISO 800 (or more) is too contrasty and grainy for good landscapes, so I I find 400 is the best overall compromise. It's hard to change film mid-roll on the fly, and you always lose at least one exposure. That's what makes film photography fun and challenging ;)

One advantage of film is that you can stop down to f/22 before diffraction affects the results (exceeds the resolution of film)

MANY years ago, my 3-lens kit was 24/2.8 + 43-86/3.5 + 80-200/4.5

Today, I would go with a lighter 2-lens kit; 24/2.8 + 35-105 (or 35-135).

You can always stick a polarizer on if using ISO 400. I routinely use a polarizer for daytime shots anyway. As for the older 24-120 f4 vs. newer 24-120mm VR, the newer lens is sharper, and it has VR. I find VR pretty useful (unless using a tripod for most shots.)

Kent in SD

Shooting street stuff in film days I had two lenses: 35 & 135 IIRC. The longer one used the most because I liked the perspective and it allowed me a bit of anonymity when shooting people. When I couldn't get back far enough or was shooting someone who knew I was shooting them then the shorter got pulled out. I was mostly shooting Kodachrome 50 w/ F, F2, OM1, OM2. From memory this kit worked out quite well. I'm old and my memory tends to forget negatives though.

Today (digital) my 24-70 is my primary walking around lens though street shots will still be 135, 200, or, if Nikon will get the FL version out, 300.

Second the polarizer (B&W Kaesemann).

I have a standard go everywhere bag that's been much the same for a very long time. Two bodies, usually an F4s and an N90 along with 28, 85, 80-200/4.5 and a 300. This can get a bit heavy so I have a smaller bag that carries a single body with 28 and 85. I rarely miss a shot because I'm not carrying the right lens though I've missed a few while messing with the gear instead of using it. I would take a 28 everywhere and a single longer lens that will do what you need it to do. If you want to just use a single lens go with an 18-75 or the 24-120 will do well.

Rick H.

Personally . . . I would bring as much with me on the trip as I could get onto the plane with and then select the kit that carry each day based on how I feel and what I will be doing that day. Around the cities and villages, the fast primes will be great and something like the 24-80f2.8 when you are out doing landscapes or only want to carry the body with one lens. I would hate to be that far from home and not the lenses that I need to get the quality that I desire.

For myself . . . I would be lost, anywhere, without my 80-200f2.8!

This partly, of course, depends on how often you travel or expect to travel to this location.

Unlike a home kit, a non-pro travel kit is a compromise based on many variables.

• How long are you going to be traveling?
  
  • A 20 pound camera bag might be easy to carry for a few hours. But everyday for 14 days, and it could start to feel REALLY HEAVY.
    

  [*]What mode of transportation?

  [*]Any luggage or carry restrictions?

  [*]Rules at the destination country?

  • By this I mean carrying too much gear/film could result in them classifying you as a professional, then they may hit you with "do you have the proper permits, to shoot as a pro?"
     
    
  • When I traveled back in the 70s, I carried a body + 4 lenses + 2 or 3 bricks of film (40 or 60 rolls) + flash. With all that, I definitely did not fit the profile of the average tourist. What tourist carries 40 to 60 rolls of film? Today that 2,160 frames fits into 1 or 2 large SD cards.
    

  [*]Age / physical condition.

  • Today, I cannot carry the same 20+ pound camera bag that I so easily carried in college.
    

  [*]Climate at the destination. Heat and humidity will sap your energy a lot faster than being in temperate climate.

  • In the heat and humidity of Florida, just carrying a body + 1 lens was difficult, because I was so worn down by the heat and humidity.
    

  [*]How much walking will you have to do? The effect of weight increases the farther you have to walk.

  • I have gear that I use at home or within 100 feet of my car, because it is too heavy or bulky to carry for any significant distance.
    

  [*]Do you have someone else that will carry some of your gear, or do you have to carry everything yourself?

   

  [*]Expected weather; hot/cold, dry/wet.

  • There were times that I wish I had a Nikonos (underwater camera), because it was RAINING so much.
    
  • Really cold weather can cause your battery to weaken faster.
    
  • Handling metal in really cold weather is difficult on your hands, cuz it sucks the heat out of your hand. You may need gloves. My fingers got so cold that I lost feeling, and had to do everything (including loading film) by sight.
     
    
  • Handling metal in HOT weather is difficult on your hand, cuz the hot metal burns your hand. Again you may need gloves.
     
    
  • You need to know how to safely move your gear from the COLD outside into a warm building, and the reverse from a cold/cool building out into a hot/humid outside, to prevent damage from moisture condensation.
    

  [*]Some specific requirements and considerations:

  • Lens related
    
    • Will you have wide scenes?
      
      • You can always crop into a wide image, but you cannot create what isn't there.
        

      [*]Will you have tele scenes?

       

      [*]Will you need a super tele? Do you REALLY need the super tele?

      • If you are bird watching or shooting a rocket launch or surfing, YES you probably do. A 135 or 200 would be too short for the small/distant subject. IF that is an IMPORTANT part of your trip.
        

      [*]Will you need the flexibility of a larger/heavier zoom, or can you do with smaller/lighter primes?

    • Are you going to do close ups that you need a macro lens?
       
      
    • Will you need a FAST lens, then which one (wide, normal or tele)?
      
      • If you have a DSLR, you can compensate to some degree, by cranking up the ISO level.
        

      [*]Do you NEED the larger/heavier FAST lens, or can you do with the smaller/lighter slower lens?

      • Example 70-200/f2.8 AF VR vs. 70-200/f4 AF VR vs. 80-200/f4.5 manual
        

      [*]How many lenses can you carry/fit into your bag?

       

      [*]Are there any lens trade-offs?

      • Example, lens X is bigger and heavier than 2 (or 3) smaller lenses.
        

    [*]Tripod

    • Will you be taking time/slow exposures, and need to bring a tripod? Night work also requires a flashlight.
      
    • Will you need to take/buy a Carbon Fiber tripod, for its lighter weight and ability to handle in COLD or HOT temp. Or can you make do with your aluminum tripod?
       
      
    • Will your tripod fit into your luggage? And leave enough room for your clothes and other stuff.
      

    [*]will you need to bring a flash? If so, how much power will you need?

    • More power = more weight and bulk.
      

    [*]do you need to bring filters?

    [*]How many shots do you expect to take.

    • film
      
      • You need to take/buy enough film.
        
        • I carried 40-60 rolls, and that took up a fair amount of space. Going to digital gave me back all the space that those rolls of film took up.
          

        [*]Do you process there or bring it all home to process?

      [*]digital

      • Do you have enough memory cards?
        

    [*]etc . . .

Other comments

• I carry almost ALL my gear. I did not leave EXPENSIVE camera gear in the hotel, while I was out playing tourist.
  
  • I would leave a $50 tripod in the hotel room. I would not leave a $800 Gitzo with a $400 head in the hotel room. So I travel with an inexpensive/low cost tripod.
    
  • I left the extra film in the room.
    

  [*]I put the 80-200/4.5 into the hotel safety deposit box (not the dinky box in the room) when I went out for dinner/evening stuff.

There is no one ideal solution for everyone. We all have our individual requirements, and travel and destination requirements.

Today I would carry a DSLR (D7200) with a wide range zoom (18-140) and that would be enough for 95% of what I would expect to run into.

With my prior DSLR (D70) I would carry its normal range zoom (18-70) + longer zoom (70-210).

This is a massive reduction in load (both bulk and weight) compared to what I carried before.

And yes this is a compromise and I accept it, to fit into MY requirements and limitations.

...whew

I do travel assignments now and then and I would bring the following, swap logical digital bodies in if that is in mind:

Leica M6 w/ 35mm 1.4 asph, 28mm 2.8 asph.

Nikon FM3A or F100 with a Zeiss 50/2 Makro, 105mm 2.5 AIS.

The reason for primes vs zooms is two fold for me.

1. If a lens gets wet, soiled or damaged to the point that until I can properly clean or repair it and it is unusable, I have other lenses to use to get the shot. Zoom lenses are all your eggs in one basket, it gets soiled or breaks down, you are done, that is bad news in a place like India.

2. Zoom lenses are always larger and sometimes very much so, can make a person feel intimidated like you are zooming in close to them even if set at the wide end. Also, they are often associated with being "Pro" equipment making them the target of a thief and can even cause access issues in some places like concerts, art galleries and churches for the same reason.

I have several zooms I use for different tasks but primes are by far my go to, I see better with them, rely less on the gear and more on my mind's eye.

I really appreciate the old school film connoisseur but really recommend taking a digital to go along with the F100. Instead of Olympus Stylus Epic, why not a small digital camera (P&S) with a good zoom range?

Anything can happen to film and while the same can be said about cards, you do get an immediate feedback (so that you can redo, if its not right on travel), and have an option to upload while you're there. I believe all battery chargers are 120/240V so all you need is just a plug adapter (no transformer required).

I think you'll be happy w/24-120f/4. That's my goto travel lens, along with 55f1.8 and 70-200f/4. This combo has traveled with me near and far.

I really appreciate the old school film connoisseur but really recommend taking a digital to go along with the F100. Instead of Olympus Stylus Epic, why not a small digital camera (P&S) with a good zoom range?

 

Anything can happen to film and while the same can be said about cards, you do get an immediate feedback (so that you can redo, if its not right on travel), and have an option to upload while you're there.

Nah, having a digital along with film is one heck of a distraction for most. When using film, it is like playing guitar well, you don't have to look down at the fretboard, you just get into that rhythm and jam....you are good, you don't need to look. I don't know how the OP works with film but when I am using it the last thing on earth I want to have around is a digital anything.

Nah, having a digital along with film is one heck of a distraction for most. When using film, it is like playing guitar well, you don't have to look down at the fretboard, you just get into that rhythm and jam....you are good, you don't need to look. I don't know how the OP works with film but when I am using it the last thing on earth I want to have around is a digital anything.

If you say so. I have never shot film and digital together. I did start with film using Canon A1 in early 80s...yikes, its over 35 years ago. I still have it somewhere stored in the original box with a battery removed. Couple of lenses too.

I have to say that since going digital in early 2000s, never touched film again. The last film trip was a trip to Australia and New Zealand in 2000. I take far more images now than I ever did using film.

Can't imaging fumbling rolls of film every 36 shots and worrying about environmental control and bulk of multiple rolls. But I don't have any vinyl records either, much less a turntable to play them on. Have some CDs collecting dust somewhere since its all now on HDD or up in the cloud....

If you say so. I have never shot film and digital together. I did start with film using Canon A1 in early 80s...yikes, its over 35 years ago. I still have it somewhere stored in the original box with a battery removed. Couple of lenses too.

 

I have to say that since going digital in early 2000s, never touched film again. The last film trip was a trip to Australia and New Zealand in 2000. I take far more images now than I ever did using film.

 

Can't imaging fumbling rolls of film every 36 shots and worrying about environmental control and bulk of multiple rolls. But I don't have any vinyl records either, much less a turntable to play them on. Have some CDs collecting dust somewhere since its all now on HDD or up in the cloud....

Thanks for your thoughts. I still indeed shoot digital for any paid work (such as event/PR work). However, I love film for when I'm shooting for fun and for personal stuff. Different strokes for different folks I guess, but when not 'on the clock' I get far more pleasure from film than digital these days. Wasn't always the way but for trips away the enjoyment out weighs the hassle of travelling with film.

Thanks for your thoughts. I still indeed shoot digital for any paid work (such as event/PR work). However, I love film for when I'm shooting for fun and for personal stuff. Different strokes for different folks I guess, but when not 'on the clock' I get far more pleasure from film than digital these days. Wasn't always the way but for trips away the enjoyment out weighs the hassle of travelling with film.

Those who say "I went digital in 20XX and never looked back" have no clue as to the new niche that film is now experiencing. It's a brilliant time to be a photographer, we can do both and more people now do.