Gear recommendations for an experienced beginner for travel

[studiojmm]

After toting a heavy pack around Sri Lanka last month, I'm looking

for recommendations on the best minimalist travel gear.

 

I've been pursuing 35mm photography for about 3 years and have a

Pentax ZX-7 and a number of lenses. I took 4 lenses on my last trip.

I find that I spend most of my time when I travel using the AF 28-

80mm that came with the camera as well as a Tameron MF 90mm macro

lens that I like a lot. I used my AF 100-300mm lens (can't remember

brand - cheap) on a little safari trip and wished I'd brought faster

film and a lens hood. I only pulled out my fixed 28mm once. I

haven�t carried a tripod and have managed by leaning against pillars

and benches in low light.

 

I'm not hugely into landscapes or buildings. I love people and stuff

close up, patterns and contrast. I shoot in both color and black &

white (100-400 speed print film) but usually prefer the black & white

unless there's some reason to use color (I carry a Olympus Stylus

point & shoot for capturing color when I�ve loaded BW into the

Pentax.) I rarely use flash.

 

When I�m on a car trip and can leave lenses behind I don�t mind

carrying extra stuff but I climbed to a ruin on a 200-meter high rock

and spent tons of time walking from place to place on this last trip.

 

At this point, I�m willing to consider a change of brand if I can get

the pack to be lighter � since it�s not just the camera I�m carrying �

usually personal stuff, lunch, a deck of cards, a novel, etc. - all

in a standard daypack because I�ve never found a camera back that I

like.

 

What is the minimum amount of stuff that you would recommend for a

traveling hobbiest? What brands of camera and lenses?

 

Alternatively, I resign myself to the heavy pack buy the 24mm lens

I�ve been eyeing, and perhaps better 28-80mm or long zoom as well.

[keithdunlop]

It would be helpful to know what your budget is, mainly since I will recomend that the best light weight, minimalistic package will be a Leica M7 kit. For general people and travel photography you can get by with a 35mm prime, perhaps a 50mm depending on your personal preference for focal length. Many people travel with only an M6 and a single Tri-Elmar (28/35/50). The only thing that you would have trouble with is "close up" things. If you mean truly macro photography, there is a new 90mm macro lens with a rangefinder attachment for the Leica, but no other true macro options. Most of the other primes focus down to 1 meter, the 90mm lenses focus down to about 3 meters.

 

My current travel kit consists of a pair of M7's (a .58 and .85 body), 90mm 2.8 Elmarit, 50mm 2.0 Summicron, 35mm 2.0 ASPH, and a 28mm 2.8 Konica Hexanon, SF-20, and film. The entire thing fits into a Domke F3X bag, or a pair of Kinesis belt pouches. BUT, you are looking at a huge outlay of cash to build the kit from scratch unless you get older used bodies (M3 or an M6 non-TTL comes to mind).

 

There are other 35mm RF options that other people will recommend, such as the Contax G2, but 35mm RF is what you need to suit your minimalistic needs.

 

Final recommendation - rent before you buy. Rangefinders are very different beasts, and many people have trouble making the switch from an SLR background.

[Jerry_]

If you like 'one lens' a bit, the AF Nikkor 24-85mm f2.8D~F4D lens on a older N90s body (runs on four AA cells) would take most of your images -- instead of the lugging a group of stuff along. It also does close up work at 35mm to 85mm. Nikon also has a variety of zoom lenses but you would be best to look over what is easy to carry (or not) for you.

[dan_andrews]

Jennifer,

 

With respect to Gerald, the Nikon N90 is a heavy body. I agree with him that

the 24-85 zoom will likely cover the bulk of your photos (given what you wrote

above), but you should consider matching the lens to a lighter body, such as

the N65 or N75. You might also consider the 24-120 zoom (for reasons I'll

explain below).

 

If you wanted to stay with Pentax, I would say to trade in your 28-80 and your

100-300 lenses for a single zoom with a slightly broader zoom range:

something like a 24-120 or 28-105. The long end of those lenses is good for

portraits, and the wide end is good for landscapes, and that fact that you have

only one lens to lug around is good for your back. If you really want to do

"true" macro work, then keep your 90mm Macro. If you're using it for other

types of photos, then you can consider whether to take it along as a second

lens or leave it behind.

 

I find that when I travel, I rarely use a long lens such as your 100-300. If you

find that you use it rarely (or if you shoot only at the 100mm end of the zoom)

then leave it behind.

 

Final tip: to go really light, don't take a tripod. Take a beanbag instead. A

cloth pouch with velcro can be made into a beanbag when you get to your

destination, simply by buying a bag of black beans, garbanzos, etc and

dropping it into the pouch. You can also buy a "Pod" which is a beanbag with

a tripod screw on one side--I use mine all the time.

[mark pav]

There's that Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 Macro. I'm eyeing one, but I haven't had any experience with it yet.

[Brian]

This is an important and much-asked question, but the answer is different for each of us. For instance, I believe that a tripod is almost essential: if you don't use very long lenses, it can be a very lightweight one. I can't afford the Leica kit recommended above but it sounds good - particularly the TTL metering. Like most people I use chiefly a 35mm SLR. Changing lenses in the field is a pain, but since I've never found a true one-lens solution, it's a pain I put up with. I take up to 3 lenses, but the choice varies according to what I'm going to do. Also a P&S as a snapshot and backup camera. I don't use the Pentax system but I'm sure it's as capable as any.

[studiojmm]

I consciously didn't post a price range to see what would happen. The Leica is out of my range. Honestly, I'm going to research options presented and decide if I can recoup enough from selling my Pentax stuff to buy something else.

 

I used a Nikon (N80?) for one day about 2 years ago and really liked it. I got some brilliant color shots with a lot less lens flare than the Pentax in black and white on the same compositions (had forgotten my lens hood again). I'm intrigued by the Nikor 24-85mm option. I�d be interested in knowing if anyone can recommend a Pentax compatible lens with that range.

 

I don't use the 100-300 often and may experiment with carrying a tele-converter and using it with my 90mm when I occasionally want to photograph something far away (or really, really close-up).

[klix]

I second what another poster said -- if you can make the adjustment to shooting with an RF camera, then your minimalist needs should be met by a 35mm RF camera and a couple of lenses.

 

When I travel to metropolitan areas, I pack a Voigtlander Bessa R2, a 35mm/1.7 and a (75mm/2.5 or 90mm/3.5) -- which fits into a small fanny pack, which, along with a small tripod, release cable, film, small paperback, etc.... fit into a regular backpack.

[dan_andrews]

Jennifer,

 

As a matter of fact, I can recommend a few Pentax (or Pentax-mount) lenses for you to try. The best thing for you to do would be to visit a camera shop and try them out on your body to see how they feel.

 

First is the Pentax SMCP-FA 28-105 which sells for around $200 and is a pretty good AF lens. For about $400, Pentax also makes the SMCP-FA 24-90, which is reportedly well-built and keeps flare down.

 

The third option would be the Sigma 24-135/f2.8-4.5 AF lens. This is a bit wider than the 28-105 model I mentioned earlier, but for $300 it represents an excellent value compared to the two Pentax lenses.

 

Fourth and last would be finding a good used lens in that range. I highly recommend B&H or Adorama used departments; I've bought from them before and never had a problem. On the other hand, if you have a local shop with a good used department you might be mroe comfortable with handling the lens before you buy.

[david_chananie]

You may wish to read Susan McCartney's paperback Travel Photography. She has a good discussion on this.

[phyrpowr]

A suggestion

 

Canon Rebel 2000, maybe a used Elan IIe, 28-135 IS lens, Kenko TelePlus Pro (TelePro Plus??) 2x TC, total cost about $750-$800, Should cover 99% of the shots you describe.

 

Before anyone chimes in, I KNOW that the TC plus the 28-135 will not yield perfectly razor sharp shots at large apertures, but you will get usuable shots in a huge range for little weight/size

[charles_stobbs2]

Do you REALLY REALLY REALLY need more than the stylus? Take it as a challenge!

[soboyle www.oboylephoto.co]

Contax G2 rangefinder is my travel camera of choice. But if you need long lenses this will not do.

I find it perfect, lenses from 21 to 90, superb quality lenses, and it will not set you back to much, the kits seem to be selling quite cheaply these days. Buy second hand from KEH or similar dealer to save a lot of money.

[dan_andrews]

True, the Olympus Stylus is a helluva great camera no matter how you look at it. A razor-sharp lens, 35mm focal length so it's pretty wide for landscapes, good fill-flash with excellent metering, A SPOT METER(!) and it fits in your pocket. Oh, and it's less than $80.

 

The fact is that for travel the Stylus has a LOT of what you might want as a backup body. The only two things it lacks (as far as I am concerned) are interchangeable lenses, and the ability to read the DX coding on Fuji Velvia. The Stylus reads film DX coding from ISO 100-1600 only. So, I shoot 100-160 speed print film in my Stylus and Velvia in my Nikon.

[studiojmm]

I really like the Olympus Stylus (I'm using the Epic) and carry it with me all of the time but don't have much luck with the flash. I've found it to be completely overwhelming so I usually shut it of - which you have to do every time you turn it on.

 

Conversely, it does suprisingly well in low light. The Dambulla cave shot really suprised me - no flash, camera on a bench, 400 speed film. It was really dark in there.<div></div>

[studiojmm]

The statue was front lit from below the bench.

[rick_helmke]

No one else has said it so I will....a 300D with the kit lens which is way better than many will admit but a bit slow. Then get the fastest lens in the 80-200 range you can afford. 95% of your needs will be covered. The other 5% will be the heaviest and most costly.

 

Rick H.

[julian_love]

I got fed up with carrying heavy, bulky gear on a 6 month latin america trip last year, and got myself a Nikon FM3a, 24, 45 and 105 mm lenses. Gerat travel kit, fits in a small Tamrac belt bag that can switch round to the front when you are carrying a big pack (e.g. when trekking) and coupled with a little gitzo 01 tripod I had everything I needed.

 

Highly recommended. Total cost 2nd hand (FM2/FE2 might be easier to find) approx $1000.

[adrian_morgan]

You might be surprised about what you can get a leica outfit for. I picked up a 'user' grade M3 for US$400 and then added a Voigtlander Nokton 50mm f1.5 for US$280 and the required adapter for $US40. Had a CLA done - US$100. Total $820. No lightmeter, but after reading an article called 'Ultimate Exposure computer' I haven't needed one!

[jay t.]

Most of the brand switching suggestions given above will end you up right where you began. The Pentax is a light body, so switching to other bodies will give you no advantage. It's clearly down to your lens choice, and you've already indicated you use the 28-80 the most, but that the real question is about the Tamron 90 that you like so much. But why the Tamron 90? Because of the focal length? It sounds like you're just wanting to cover the whole field, 28-300, in the lightest possible package but without sacrificing anything else. Unfortunately, you're going to have to make a sacrifice somewhere. You seldom use the 28 prime, so don't bring it, and the 100-300 would give you more flexibility than the 90 at a similar weight. Your choice, if you're cutting down on weight and amount of equipment, is between the 90 and 100-300. A system change will not solve your problem!

 

On the other hand, if you find yourself using mainly one focal length in that 28-80, then you could dump that and replace it with a better quality prime.

 

As for your experience with the Nikon that one day, I can't see how the body would make a difference with the flare! Clearly used a better lens attached to the body. Dan Andrews above already presented you with some good Pentax alternatives.

 

Changing to a rangefinder can be fun - I've got a G2 - but the lenses aren't that terribly light even though they are smaller in size than most SLR lens counterparts. And you'd need to give up the thought of a zoom (yes, the G2 does have one zoom, but the lens speed is a bit slow for the price). On the other hand, a G2 with a 28, 45, 90 lens combination would probably cover most of your needs in a reasonably small package and with wonderful lenses. Still, why overcomplicate?

 

Stick with your Pentax, change to a better moderate length zoom, and eliminate the baggage of your other lenses and you'll probably be happy.

[colin_morrison]

I've had considerable joy with my Dynax 7 and 24-105mm lens combo - I lugged a load of other stuff around which I hardly used. Perhaps you could go for a Sigma or Tamron 24-135mm for your Pentax, though the Minolta 24-105mm is a much smaller lens, from what others have said.

[manh_le]

My experience is similar to that of Julian. My travel light kit consists of 24/2.8, 50/1.4/, and 85/1.8 lens, and, FM3A body. Second body is an FE. This kit handle about 95+% of my shooting.

 

My lighter combo is the same as above but without 85/1.8 lens.

 

My lightest combo is 50/1.4 AIS, and FM3A body.

 

Recently I added a 45/2.8 P to my kit. This lens is my favorite for outdoor photography or bright light indoor.

 

My lightest and least intrusive combo is 45/2.8 P lens, FM3A body, and 400+ ASA black and white film.

 

Good luck with your decision.