How Wide Do I Need?

[jeff_bubis]

<p>We are planning a trip to the UK and Paris. I'm trying to travel as lightly as possible while still being able to have some flexibility photographically. I have an EM-1 and the 7-14, 12-40, and 35-100, however I was considering the LX100 as one camera is obviously lighter. I'm doubting that I would use the long tele much in cities, but was wondering what people's thoughts were on the need for a UWA vs using the LX100? I recognize the megapixel differences and the fact that the LX100 doesn't use the entire sensor. I'm open to other suggestions, as well. Thanks in advance!</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Personally, I would not be happy with only the equivalent of a 24mm as the widest focal length for a trip like that. The majority of my shooting would be with the 7-14 and I am unsure whether I would pack the 12-40 or 35-100 (don't know which one you own) - but would lean towards the 12-40 (or some lighter alternative with more range?). Or travel with the E-M1 with 7-14 and the LX100.<br>

Naturally, I can't answer the question "how wide do you need" - but I did answer the one "how wide do I need";-)</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Some people get stunning results with a UWA, but many don't know how to use them effectively. The fact that you're asking tells me you're not likely to use one very effectively. For most people, I think that a 24mm full-frame equivalent is adequate for the average user.</p>

<p>I can't really know how serious you are as a photographer, but you have some nice equipment. What I can never understand is why anyone with such equipment, that's good at using it, would consider leaving it home when going on a once in a lifetime trip. Just saying...</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>It depends on how you like to shoot. My suggestion is to look through your own photographs and think about what you might miss without an ultra-wide lens.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>I think far too much is made of the need for very wide lenses for travel, and also don't support a view that a longer zoom won't get much use . I agree with Hector's view that it depends what you want to shoot.</p>

<p>From a personal perspective, and always here using "full frame speak" about 70% of my work often comes from a 24-105 zoom; about 20-25% is made on a 70-200 zoom ( often more in cities where I find a lot to photograph with a longer lens) and only 5-10% on my wide zoom of 17-40 , and some of that I could get with the 24-105 if I'd had that on the camera. I find many travel and landscape photographs I see made with very wide lenses to lack subject or focus ( in the compositional sense) simply because everything is so small in the frame. So much is crammed in that really I don't know where to look, and proportionately too much weight is given to the close foreground. So for me, in the (unlikely) event that I wanted to carry fewer than three lenses, I'd prioritise the longer lens as for me the widest lens is pretty marginal.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Like David H, I like the occasional ultra-wide shot, but the most of my photography is done with my 24-105 zoom. On a 35mm sensor, 24mm is really very wide by old-time standards. What I miss most shooting <em>only</em> with the 24-105 is not the 12~24 range, but rather something in the 105~150mm range.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>I find that 28mm equivalents work best for me. I find that the distortion especially of buildings where you'll be shooting just detracts when I go wider. 28mm provides a more natural picture, more often. </p>

[craig_gillette]

<p>I used only a 24-75mm equivalent lens on a trip mostly to Florence and Rome. Most of the time that was sufficient. I think I would have used wider and longer lenses if I had them and on previous trips to other places, the majority of shooting still would have fallen within the same range, however, there were times I used both wider and longer.</p>

<p>I didn't feel that I missed the wider range too often in longer exterior shots (a few times the streets or squares were too narrow to allow getting what I wanted) but it would have been useful a number of times in interiors. Sometimes you can deal with wider angles with stitching. That can be an issue or not depending on the pace of your trip. Longer is different, you can do some cropping but only so much.</p>

<p>One thing to consider is that lenses tend to have problems at their widest and/or longest settings so if you have some overlap, one or the other may perform better, less distortion, vignetting, etc. For example, in my Nikon kit, the Tokina 12-24 does better over much of it's overlap with my 18-70.</p>

<p>Aside from the photographic range, there is the considerations of the pace of the trip, how other people on the trip may respond to photo stops and the whole thing on weight, bulk, convenience of a simple or more complex kit.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Remember, if you shoot in Raw, many competent Raw conversion programs will automatically apply Digital Lens Optimization correction that will correct for geometric, chromatic aberration, vignetting, etc. at every focal length and aperture. DLO is especially important with UWA zooms. DxO Optics Pro, Digital Photo Professional, Lightroom and other Raw converters have DLO module for most popular lens/body combinations.</p>

[colin carron]

<p>I am a fan of wide angles. On any sort of extended trip I woud miss the abilty to go wider than 24mm (eq). I would also miss the tele range. Personally I would take the EM-1 and all its lenses to get as much scope as possible - and the LX100 as well for days when I wanted to go more stealthy. But that is me.<br>

<br /> So the question you need to answer is what balance you want to strike between travelling light and keeping photographic quality and range. So while I would suggest you take the lot (:-) I also second Hector's sugestion that you think about what you actually use in practice. No point in taking it if you are never going to use it. Just be sure you are happy with your final decision as this may be the only time you get to these places.</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>Jeff, what's the crop factor on an EM-1? Who makes it?</p>

<p>Ah, see from another thread title it's an Olympus body.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>Jeff, what's the crop factor on an EM-1?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Like any m4/3 camera - the crop factor is 2x.</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>"I'm doubting that I would use the long tele much in cities"<br /><br />What would make you think that? You don't want to be able to do a shot of the Eiffel Tower or Big Ben from a distance (with something interesting in the foreground, or from an angle you can't get from up close), you don't want to pick out details on a building that are too high up to get to, you don't want to compress a street scene to show how crowded it is, you don't want to be able to get a closeup of the Beefeaters at the Changing of the Guard at Buckingham Palace?, you don't want to be able to get closeups of strangers in a crowd? <br /><br />I would take all three lenses. Part of the point of m 4/3 is that the gear is so small and light that you don't have to make these decisions.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Agree with Craig, long lenses can be very useful. Here's a 70-200mm plue 1.4x TC at 208mm:</p>

<p><a title="Sunrise At Lincoln Memorial by David Stephens, on Flickr" href=" src="https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7293/10563931173_8bb3be7769_c.jpg" alt="Sunrise At Lincoln Memorial" width="800" height="533" /></a></p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>I'd chime in with David Stephens: 24mm equivalent (12mm?) would likely be sufficient wide angle, for <em>most</em> situations. You'll <em>occasionally</em> want more though.</p>

[jeff_bubis]

<p>Thanks for everyone's input. Certainly a lot to think about. I appreciate it!</p>