advertisement


Travelling light - what lenses?

DuncanF

DuncanF

pfm Member
I'm off to The Gambia in a couple of weeks and expecting plenty of opportunity to get some great (I hope) shots. However ... I do not want to schlep around with a huge bag full of lenses and a heavy camera.

So I plan to leave behind my EOS 20d/17-85mm IS f4-5.6/70-200mm f4 in favour my old Olympus OM1n. Here's the thing. I only have a 50mm f1.8 for that. I can pick up lenses for this quickly and cheaply on eBay. So if you were me, what would you take, assuming you want to limit things to just the body and two lenses?

For a real hair shirt approach I have the option an an ME Super with a 40mm Pancake. That's about a small/light as an SLR will get. Again though I can pick up lenses dirt cheap.

So which way guys? What would you take?

For film I plan to use Reala 100 pushing a (half-)stop to increase saturation and then have it digitised as it's processed.
 
I don't know if such a thing exists for your camera, but I have a 35-70mm zoom macro that is rather sweet, and with a 2x teleconverter that goes all the way up to 140mm. :)
 
If you insist on prime lenses for the OM, and have a standard already, I guess the choice for the other is either a short telephoto (105-135 mm region) or a wideangle (28-35 mm region). Which would prove the more useful? I suppose it depends whether you'd be taking landscapes or candid street shots. I think you'd be surprised what you could actually do with just the lens you have. Remember that many photographs we now consider iconic were taken with just the one lens, such as on the early Leicas.
 
When I had my OM2n, I just used two lenses - the 35/F2.8 and 200/F4. I also bought a 75-150/f4 zoom but didn't really like the drop in quality, and was given a 50/F1.8 but preferred the 35 for most things.

Don't forget to take spare batteries for the meter.
 
I like the idea of one prime lens only, and maybe a 35mm would be a better jack-of-all-trades leaving me to be the master of none ...

As for batteries, OM1n is full manual with a meter. So "sunny sixteen" should work well in the light I'm expecting if it fails. Which leads back to the ME Super. If the battery in that fails, then you only have 1/125. So perfect for 100ASA film and "sunny sixteen", and with the pancake lens, vanishingly small.
 
Vivitar make a nice 28mm ultra-wide for the OM which focusses down to about 29cm. It's not the easiest lens in the world to focus as the focus ring covers such a large area, but it takes decent pictures and allows wide angle landscape shots and very close up macro stuff. When I take my OM2 out I usually take the 50 and 28. As you've already got telephoto covered with the other camera, why not go short with the OM?
 
Another brain pick for you experts. I want to pull the film to ISO80 to slightly overexpose it as I've read good things about this with Reala. Now that would be minus 1/3 stop. If the meter fails, I'd probably shoot at 1/125 as a good enough speed to eliminate any blurring with a 50mm. This would be plus 1/3 stop if I'm using 1/ISO for sunny sixteen with no meter. So we're back to all square - minus 1/3, plus 1/3.

So ... if I now change the rule to Sunny Eleven and use f11 for the brightest shots, I'm back to 1/2 stop of overexposure, which is roughly what I wanted in the first place. Have I got that right? Pass the cold towels ... ;)
 
Err no.

If you treat the film as iso80 and you use 'sunny 16', then you shoot f16@1/80 which is 1/3 stop over the iso100 rating. If you set the meter to iso80 and the light is 'sunny 16' then this is also what you will be shooting.

If your meter fails and you shoot f16@1/125 for 'sunny 16' then you are 1/3 stop under the iso100 rating. (It makes no difference what iso you set the meter for - because it's failed).

If your meter fails and you shoot f11@1/125 for 'sunny 16' then you are 2/3 stop over the iso100 rating.
 
When I did this sort of thing I used 28, 50, 85, 135 and doubler for 135 OM2n. On looking back I could have done most with a 24 & 85 (a 35 but not too sure) and this I feel would cover most of my faces and places requirements.
 
Duncan,

Go through your 20D photos and find out what focal length you use most. The EXIF data will give you an idea. Take the 1.6 crop into account and you'll find what sort of length you will miss.

Pesonally I rather like a portrait lens for travel since you can use it for portraits (obviously!) and a bit of reach helps you feel less conspicuous about sticking a camera in peoples faces if you don't know them. I'd therefore choose an 85 and a 35.

There appears to be an 85/2 for OM which would be my choice.

As for backup plans if you get a battery failure etc, i'd take a second fixed focus length camera. I'd pack an olympus XA which is a small automatic 35 rangefinder - you get a lot of backup camera for your 225g with one.

http://www.urban75.org/photos/olympus-xa.html
 
I spent around 15 years with OM10 and OM4 as my only system. My stock lenses were the 24-48 zoom as a standard lens, the 180mm f2.8 for distance work (and a teleconverter for longer shots), and a 50mm 1.8 if it was dark(ish).

Now, with 35mm film I find the 135mm and 85mm lengths pretty handy and have a Nikon lens of each of those lengths as well as a 135 in Leica M fit - it is a very handy length.

Be wary with 2nd hand Olympus lenses because the F2 lenses are generally less sharp than the slower models but they fetch ridiculous prices.

cheers
Cliff

PS, Auric's list looks good above, but the 24-48 saves a bit of weight over carrying bespoke primes from 24-50. I do love my 24mm F2 tho' :)
 
Duncan,

During my full-on nerdography days I schlepped around every lens I had in an oversized and shoulder-deforming camera bag. But over the last few years I've discovered simplicity -- or perhaps that my shoulders aren’t what they once were -- so I typically carry three or fewer lenses now.

Unless you have specialized photography in mind (e.g., expansive landscapes, macros of bugs and flowers, or frame-filling shots of little bitty birds), you should be fine with, say, a 24mm, 50mm and 105mm* or the closest focal lengths you have to those.

I took me a long time to realize it, but I've come to terms with my lack of great photography being much more Joe related than equipment-deficiency related.

Joe

* Substitute an 80-200 f/4 zoom for the 105 if you need a bit more reach
 
IMVHO the number of lenses is less important than total weight/bulk. Some of the shorter focal lengths in the OM system are so small an extra one does not make a whole lot of difference. The big question is the tele: how much magnification do you think you will need in the Gambia, and zoom or not?

In my backpacking days I carried (with an OM10 or OM1) a 28/3.5 (but some prefer 35mm), a 50/1.8, and an 80/200 zoom plus a matched doubler for emergencies. No flash, no tripod and it was still heavy. The zoom (unfortunately a Vivitar job, student budget back then) felt as heavy as all the other stuff combined, and probably was. On the other hand one of my favourite photos (still up in the dining room today almost 30 years later - fresh snow blowing off a distant peak in the KaraKoram) was taken with about 350mm, and I was happy to have the big zoom+doubler. The fuzziness of the Vivitar contributes to the hartistic side of both pictures.

If I had to do it now, I would check out the Zuiko range for a good zoom 28-50mm and compare the weight of that to 2 primes, and check also how much aperture you lose for low level light scenes. Then for the tele decide zoom or not, and magnification/aperture. I think there is a case for having at least 200mm on a trip like that. I now have a 180/2.8 Zuiko that is pretty nice but on the bulky side. The 200/4 and 135/3.5 Zuiko are not the last word in quality but are nice and compact. The 100/2.8 is very compact and high quality.

The OM1 is a great choice of camera for a trip like that. Light, tiny, good viewfinder, and very reliable. Why on earth they don't make the digital equivalent these days is beyond me. The size of modern DSLRs with the same sort of quality just seems a bit silly.
 
The Olympus XA was a masterpiece. A friend had one when it first came out, and I was amazed. Ironically, earlier today, I was complaining how small digital cameras are. I was looking for a replacement for my 2 megapixel Olympus C220, which is about the same size as a 35mm compact, and still quite pocketable. It seems that all the current digital compacts are really tiny, and I can't understand why they have to be.
 
When I used Olympus kit, I had 2 bodies, and 21, 35, 50, 85 and 135mm lenses. After a while it dawned on me that 90% of the photos I took, were just with the 35, 50 and 85. I didn't use the extremes, so I sold them.

Later, I was working in Istanbul and didn't want to be burdened down with kit, so I borrowed a Billingham Alice bag (now called the L2 I think), and took one body and the three remaining lenses. I got all the shots I wanted, and certainly didn't miss the weight.

I now use Leicas and have the 35, 50 and 90 Summicrons. I managed to borrow a 21mm for the weekend some time ago, just out of interest - it went back to its owner and was never replaced.

Incidentally, Olympus used to make a tidy 35-105 f3.5-4.5 zoom. Although only one lens, it did weigh about the same as a 35 and 50 together.
 
I've never tried the 55/1.2, but I think the bog standard Zuiko 50/1.8 is one of the best normal lenses I've ever used. And the OP already has one :)

If telephoto is going to be useful, I can also vouch for the 135/2.8.
 
overloaded.jpg

Nothing less will do (I think this is Cliff road-testing a small sample of his kit).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top