What lenses would you take on a short trip to Europe

Can anyone suggest a medium tele zoom for a trip to Europe (cities

and countryside)? I think I have room in my bag for one more lens,

and here's what I'm already planning to take:

 

(1) 24mm 2.8D for scenery

 

(2) 75-150 3.5 (MF) for portraits, landscape and macro (with 4T

closeup)

 

(3) 80-400 VR for fun

 

(4) 50mm MF, because it's small

 

(5) 28mm 1.4D for dark interiors

 

I thought some kind of a medium zoom would be useful to have. I'll

be using slide film (Velvia, Provia 100 and Scala).

 

Any specific suggestions or general ideas would be appreciated.

I think you have a good selection of lenses already. A light meter or a flash gun may be a better way of filling up the space.

Dont know if you have one, but consider a 135mm 2.8, although the 75-150 3.5 is propably close enough, but not AF. Im beginning to love the 135mm more and more. 2.8 is pretty fast, and combined with AF, is great for (semi) candids, also under low light levels. Additionally, it's great for portraits, etc. It's getting to be my favorite lens, it's on my system for 80% of the time.

Last time I went to Europe I took one lens (a 35mm), and the time before that I took two (35mm and 20mm) which was one too many.

 

You're already taking way too much to enjoy the trip and take decent photos. Less is more, quite often. Instead of lugging camera gear and constantly making choices and fiddling with lenses, wouldn't you rather be making pictures?

I too feel that you have enough lenses for this trip. I would bring two camera bodies though, for different types of film and backup. You can bring more lenses and bodies, but there will be too much overlap and it gets heavy and bulky.

Naji-

 

I would go as simple as possible. Your 28mm and 75-150mm are enough. Or just take the 50mm. You'll be pleasantly surprised with the results.

 

-Rene

I have to agree with the simple is best approach, mentioned above. Of course, it depends on the type of photography you do as well.

 

My last trip was 1 week in Paris, and all I took was one body (I would take a second body if you have one...just for spare) and a 35mm lens (and a tripod). This simplistic approach helps you to really concentrate on picture making: you are limited to basic equipment which will force you to be creative with it. Furthermore, since you'll be carrying less, you'll have more energy...which again helps to concentrate on the photograph.

 

If I were you, I'd take the 28 and 50 only.

 

Cheers,

omar

The first trip I took to france I took the 35/2 and the 75-150.

 

My next trip i might take nothing but a 50.

 

The pictures you get depend less on the equipment than on what you are interested in shooting and what you see when you get there.

50mm 1.4 or 1.8 because good all purpose lens and is a fast

lens. 28-105 zoom may be other choice, though not as fast or

small.

Aren't opinions fun...everyone's got one, you just have to look for the one you were thinking of anyway and agree with that one!

 

Here's what I'd do....

Ditch the 75-150 and the 50mm and take a 28-105 to cover that range...it will most likely be your most used lens, you can keep it on the body and most likely you'll very infrequently chang it. You could, possibly get rid of the 28/1.4, but that extra couple of stops of light might help you in some situations.

 

Now you still have room for more stuff (if you feel you must fill the bag with something--I recommend against it as the more weight you have the less likely you are to take stuff with you), and then you could add the strobe and extra body, or whatever.

--evan

My choice is a fast (at least f2) 35mm on your choice of camera. Most interiors are dimly lit and discourage the use of flash, so you need some speed on your lens and your film. I chose a 35mm over a 50mm because you can get closer to a subject more often than you can back away from it (at least in my experience).

 

Auto-exposure and auto-focus are good on the camera if you want others to take pictures of you.

That seems like way too MANY lenses to me. Of your current selection, I'd ditch the 24 OR 28 (I'm partial to 24 but that's me), and I'd ditch the 75-150 OR 80-400.

 

On my last 2 european trips I took 17-35 (my most used lens, usually in the 20-28 range), 50, 105, 1 camera body and 1 tripod. For countryside I sometimes wanted something longer, not for cities. My total gear for travels fits into one medium small backpack.

 

Basic rule for happy travel...take 1/2 the stuff and 2x the money!

and take 2x the film!

Hi Naji!<P>

 

Sounds like you have an exciting trip planned. What parts of Europe will you be in? and for how long?<P>

 

Some witty someone (wish I could remember who), somewhere on photo.net (the Leica forum?), said, that back when he was an engineer at the "skunkworks" (where they designed the SR-71 Blackbird), they had a saying there: "Simplificate and add lightness." I think this is the best advice to follow for photography. In keeping with which (and in agreement with those others who have suggested it already), I'd recommend a little stringent discipline in what you take.<P>

 

If it were me, I'd take the 24, and the 50 (you don't say what its speed is, but I presume it's at least 1.8?). These focal lengths, plus two bodies (especially important in my view, for both backup and for use with different films or focal lengths), make really the best compromise kit, considering weight, bulk, flexibility, and ease of use (especially in low light).<P>

 

If I just couldn't get past the possible need for telephoto (or if I liked using longer glass), I might consider a 105 (if you have it, or can get it) plus a 2X teleconverter. If, instead of the 105 you prefer a zoom, I'd make it the 75-150, as the 80-400 is likely quite large and heavy, is it not?<P>

 

Even though I'm a manual focus shooter, I'm aware that autofocus cameras and zoom lenses are well suited for each other. If, with that in mind, you want to go the zoom route, the optimum combination, to me, would be a 17-35/2.8 and a 28-70/2.8, each of them on a body; and with a 50/1.4 in the bag, for use in low light and as back up. I'd leave the 80-400 behind in this scenario as well, again because of weight concerns; but I would pack a 2X converter.<P>

 

Enjoy Europe. Shoot a lot and shoot well. Post some photos when you get back.

Hello

 

I took a 24 and 70-150 when I went to Europe and was very happy with this selection. If I had had the option of a 28 f1.4 I would probably have chosen that instead of a 24. I agree with a posting above - simplify. You are using good quality lenses, so you can always crop later if necessary without mush reduction in quality. For a short trip you don't want to be wasting time thinking about whether the 70-150 or 80-400 would be better - you may miss a shot.

 

But I would also suggest you look at your existing portfolio and think about which lenses you usually use for the sort of thing that may interest you in Europe.

 

Regards, Ross

As they say "Keep it simple but not too simple." Sorry if I am going to offend some people, but IMO it is a very bad idea to bring just one or two lenses on a major trip like this (unless that is all you have or you have a 24-300mm zoom :-) ). There will be occasions that you'll need a wide angle and others you'll need a telephoto. Occasionally lenses do break down and it is good to have some backup. For a European city type tour, 3 to 5 lenses and 2 bodies should work quite well. Bring more if you can handle the weight and a bit less if you can't.

 

You don't have to carry everything all the time. 1 or 2 backup lenses can stay in the hotel for the most part.

some years ago I went to London and carried a Pentax Pz-1 and two lenses 28-80 zoom and a 100-300 zoom. I walked all day for over a week and my shoulder got a nice groove. Of 20 rolls of film I think I used the 100-300 about 5 shots (for external architectural details some 20-30 feet above the ground. Realistically one zoom will do you. For dark interiors, bring a digicam.]

 

If I was going to go to London again I would pack a 35 mm f2 as my main lense, then a 20 (f4 oldie Nikkor is what I have), maybe a 50 f1.4 or a f2 (smaller), might take a second body for BW, colour in the main camera (in my current gear - a FM2 and FM)

 

Dont know that I would bring a flash.

Yeah, Naji, in my answer above I was equivocating about that third lens for the sake of keeping your kit on the light side - because going light is key to enjoying both travel and photography. But the more I think about it, the more I know that, if it were my trip, I'd definitely take a 105 (or the 75-150 zoom - slower and heavier, and maybe not as good in terms of image quality, but with the decided advantage of being already familiar, and paid for) and a 2X converter. <P>

 

The 28 and the 24 are close enough that you can leave one behind. And since the 28 is so fast, that would probably be the one I'd settle on, for that reason only.<P>

 

And, of course, the 50; as well as the two bodies mentioned earlier.<P>

 

On the other hand, if you really get on a lightness kick, you might elect to take only a 24 (or 28), plus a 50 and a 2X converter. If the 50 were, say, a 1.4, then on the converter it would of course be 100mm/2.8, and in that mode could serve as your telephoto/portrait lens. <P>

 

But I agree that it's good to bear a little extra weight for the sake of having some backup, so in the end I'd throw that 105 (or the zoom) into the bag, as well, knowing that I could use the 50 plus converter to back it up. <P>

 

I also agree that you can leave some gear behind in your room when out shooting. The travel shooting I've enjoyed most were those early mornings when I was out with just one body and a fast 50mm. Less gear around one's neck often equals more and better pictures (think Cartier-Bresson and his 50mm-equipped rangefinder).<P>