Travelling light - what lenses?

[foxwelljsly]

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.

Just take the 50mm 1.8.

I used a 40mm pancake lens as a general purpose small prime with my OM1n, a great lens and absolutely tiny, but they're very rare and go for big bucks.

The 55 and 50 1.2's are quite a bit bulkier than the 50 1.8.

 

[cliffpatte]

Nothing less will do (I think this is Cliff road-testing a small sample of his kit).

That bloke is way too thin for me ;-)

In the bag today, one e-p1 and a "standard" zoom

On the shelf ready to go tomorrow, one om4ti with 55/1.2 and a roll of Acros 100.

I still say the best "standard" lens for travelling with an OM camera is the 24-48 zoom - it really is very good. The F1.8 50mm is also very good, but not quite as good in the Bokeh department as either the 55/1.2 or the 40mm pancake.

cheers
Cliff

PS I still reckon that Ian has more cameras than me ;-) ;-) (to be sure ;-))

 

[sideshowbob]

PS I still reckon that Ian has more cameras than me ;-) ;-) (to be sure ;-))

yebbut mine are all cheap

 

[PsB]

or the 55/1.2 ?

50/1.2 is almost double the weight, longer and bulkier. 1.8 used to have a pretty good reputation for image quality.

 

[aybee]

In my experience there will be two things to take pictures of in The Gambia. The first will be the people, many who will be more than happy for you to take their photo, so that 50mm will be fine. The second, if you are interested, is the native bird population, there will be many guided trips available to see the varied wild birds, a longer lens here would be useful for this.

This was with a Pentax ME Super M50 1.7 back in 2000:

 

[tsfc]

definately go with either a standard 50mm or the 40mm pancake and nothing else - HCB created everlasting art with just a 50mm. I started off with big SLR + 3 zooms, all have gradually fallen away and now just use a mechanical rangefinder and 50mm lens without any regrets

T

 

[Rico]

I would definitely take a 28 or 35 as well. don't scrimp and buy the f3.5; go for the 2.8.

for years I travelled with 28, 50, and and aftermarket 135. I later found the Zuiko 75-150 f4 sharp enough.

 

[Patrick Dixon]

I later found the Zuiko 75-150 f4 sharp enough.

I never liked the loss of contrast with mine - or when using 2x converters either. But I prefer 35mm to 50mm as it gives you more options in confined spaces.

 

[Mullardman]

I have a Canon 350D, several lenses and no talent.

For lightness and convenience I just take the standard 50 1.8. It is fab in low light, great for portraits and small groups but will also do fine street scenes and landscapes, so long as you are prepared to do a bit of walking about.

If I had one, I might also take a short/wide angle lens.

Otherwise I'd go with the classic Viz advice. 'Don't waste money on expensive telephoto lenses. Stand closer to your subject'.

 

[ClaraBannister]

But is it quite as simple as that? If you shoot a portrait with a 50mm "standard" lens, the conventional wisdom is that the subject's nose appears disproportionately large, being nearer to the camera than the rest of the face. With a short telephoto "portrait" lens of about 105-135mm, this discrepancy is reduced, and a much more flattering picture results. Focus is more critical, of course, but you always focus on the eyes. The corollary is that, with the more critical focus, you can use depth of field to throw the background out of focus if you wish.

 

[joel]

This is my new camera, It's small, lightweight and it's excellent!
[YOUTUBE]<object width="873" height="525"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/QzJF3OonSP8&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&hd=1&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/QzJF3OonSP8&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&hd=1&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="873" height="525"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Rico]

But is it quite as simple as that? If you shoot a portrait with a 50mm "standard" lens, the conventional wisdom is that the subject's nose appears disproportionately large, being nearer to the camera than the rest of the face. With a short telephoto "portrait" lens of about 105-135mm, this discrepancy is reduced, and a much more flattering picture results. Focus is more critical, of course, but you always focus on the eyes. The corollary is that, with the more critical focus, you can use depth of field to throw the background out of focus if you wish.

you have to love the obsessive analysis of photography written in a hifi forum.

successful photojournalists have summed up the focal length argument with as few words as "use f8 and BE THERE".

 

[ClaraBannister]

In my early days of photography, I got excellent results from following the pictograms which used to appear on film cartons. Older members will recall these. They depicted various weather conditions from black as the hobs of hell to brilliant sunshine on sand or snow, and the corresponding aperture settings to use with a shutter speed of 1/125 second. A rangefinder took care of the focussing, much better (IMO) than any more modern focussing aid. To this day, when I go anywhere with a camera, I leave it set so that I can just grab it and get something, should a photo opportunity arise unexpectedly. As with hi-fi, or with anything else, there are different levels of understanding possible. One can just enjoy the hobby at the most superficial level, or seek to know more about its intricacies. If you doubt my assertion about the lenses for portraiture, try it out.

Incidentally, the picture a couple of posts back of that little camera reminded me of some miniature cameras I recall being widely available in Dublin in the early sixties. I don't recall seeing them on my visits to England. They were German, I think, and about that size. I'm not sure what film they took, but it must have been something like 16mm.

 

[Rico]

I don't doubt your assertion; I understand it fully. My point is that the internationally successful pros keep it simple - "use f8 and be there" relates to using a relatively short lens and getting in amongst it. World-class photojournalism is rarely produced by someone spending hours on-line arguing techniques and changing lenses in the moment to get the right relationship between focal length and subject .

Travel photography is similar - not being able to predict what you're going to encounter, so go with a catch-all setup. 35 or 28mm and getting stuck in; f8 for dof. instead of agonising about the technique, be in the moment.

"sunny 16" has a lot going for it too.

 

[cliffpatte]

Travel photography is similar - not being able to predict what you're going to encounter, so go with a catch-all setup. 35 or 28mm and getting stuck in;

I'd still bank on a 24-48 Zuiko, or a Leica Tri Elmar to be more useful than a 28 or 35 prime in most cases.

Cliff

 

[Rico]

sounds a good suggestion, Cliff. I'd love to have tried the 24-48 zuiko; assuming it had that great sharpness and saturation the zuikos are known for, it'd be a good all-rounder for travel.