Jump to content

Travelling Lenses.


tones

Recommended Posts

Hey everybody, 

 

I'll be on a 2 week trip all over Italy, ( amalfi, rome, tuscany, venice, florence) and i was hoping to hear some opinions as to what lenses would be best to take there. 

 

I have the X-T2 body and 16mm f1.4  + 18-135mm f4, but since my girlfriend has the X-T1 i was hoping to get another lens to have an extra option. I've never been to Italy, so not sure what to expect as far as places, moving around with the extra weight and security issues etc. (we'll be hitting the train, bus, driving, and hiking around)

 

I've been drooling over the 10-24mm or the 35mm f2 for a while now. but im open to any suggestions.  Money is an issue, but to be honest its just a matter of time till i get both. And i think with the trip coming soon it would be a good opportunity to bite the bullet, get it and take advantage of it in Italy. 

 

One more thing, as a bonus... I didn't want to bring with me the booster grip cause its very heavy. however i thought it would make sense to bring it along instead of the battery charger, it will charge 2 batteries on a single plug.  ( 2 chargers are still lighter than the grip ) 

 

Thanks so much for your opinion on the lenses and if you have any other tip about traveling to Italy or travel photography in general is greatly appreciated. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll leave it to others to comment on lens choice other than to say that the 18-135 and the 10-24 is my basic travel lens combination But as far as the grip is concerned, leave the grip and buy the Neewer Portable dual battery charger. It charges two batteries at once, weighs almost nothing, and cost less than $11 on Amazon.

 

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Neewer+Portable+LED+Display+USB+Dual+Battery+Charger+for+Fujifilm+NP-W126+Battery%2C

Link to post
Share on other sites

My two favorite travel combinations are an X-Pro2 with:

 

16mm, 23mm, 35mm (all f/1.4 versions), 55-200mm, X-T1 with 27mm

 

OR

 

10-24mm, 23mm, 35mm, 55-200mm, X-T1 with 27mm

 

The 18-135mm was an okay lens in its versatility, but I think the copy that I had was from the first production run and had some quality control issues. Landscapes seemed to require a lot of dehazing in RAW because anything at a distance lacked contrast. My personal preference is primes anyhow, so I sold my 18-135mm. 

 

For me, my limit on what I travel with is whatever fits in my billingham bag, which easily fits under the seat in front of me on a plane. I don't get too hung up on limiting how many lenses I bring as long as they fit in the bag, so I don't really miss the versatility of the 18-135mm. That's a personal preference though, some people are the opposite. 

 

I would tend to go for a large aperture prime to complement the 18-135mm. There are wonderful opportunities to shoot at night on the streets that image stabilization won't help with. I love the 35mm lenses, but I do slightly prefer 23mm as a little more versatile for covering both street and a lot of landscapes. I know you said that you have the 16mm f/1.4, but for me that's a little too wide in some situations. Again, that's just personal preference though and the streets in Europe tend to be much narrower than the US.

 

One thing that would make me consider the 10-24mm is architecture. If you plan to shoot a lot of architecture while there, it's hard to beat this lens given the stabilization. At 10mm I've shot 1/4 second handheld in dimly lit historic churches and other buildings on my travels without having to sacrifice depth of field. 

 

It comes down to asking yourself what you want to take home from this trip in terms of photos. If you want to capture a cross-section of street images and the life of the place, another prime is how I'd go. If you're more interested in documenting the physical characteristics of the place and possibly trade off some street opportunities at night, then the 10-24mm is the way to go. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want one more lens to go on the X-T1, the new 23mm f2 is good. It's small, weather-resistant and a classic 35mm-equivalent photojournalist focal length. There were photographers in WWII who shot the whole conflict with just a Leica and 35mm lens.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited by Warwick
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopeless to get a definitive answer. It is not about geographically specific demands upon lenses, but rather the focal lengths you yourself find comfortable in a given photographic situation.

 

There are no wide-angle countries, no telephoto countries nor any 18-55mm specific countries. Wherever you go, you will find narrow alleyways and broad plazas. Flowers native to the region photograph no differently from those outside your door. Superwide lenses can make some sweeping vistas seem vast, but a panorama shot with a normal lens will capture even more. On the other hand, a telephoto can strongly emphasise a unique landscape feature. A lens that works well on a tall person will work fine on a shorter person. A bird is a bird, and photographs about the same no matter where you find it.

 

I love travel photography and I could post an inventory of my kit on the most recent trip. It would do you no good. I used everything from a fisheye to the equivalent of a 2,000mm on a bridge camera. It is very unlikely that we work and see identically, so even if I posted along with examples and expressed my reasons for lens choice, they would not necessarily resonate with you at all. Even though it was a journey through the Rocky Mountains and I live in a rather flat city, what I used there is what I use here. Your eye and your workflow dictate the lenses—not the destination.

Edited by Larry Bolch
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Just came back from my 2 week trip in Andalusia, Spain.  I only took my 16mm f1.4 and 18-55mm f2.8-4.  It was light, portable, and didn't have to change lenses too often.  Never really saw the need to have any longer focal length.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

I have been to all of these locations in Italy. I would bring a wide angle (10 to 24)  for Tuscany, Florence and Rome (Vatican). Also, the 23 prime (35) would be very useful for street shots and most semi-wide shoots. Finally, I would bring a 16 1.4 for the close shots and other wide shots. You may want to bring an 18 to 55 2.8/f4 kit lens instead of the 23 and 16 1.4. Have fun.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopeless to get a definitive answer. It is not about geographically specific demands upon lenses, but rather the focal lengths you yourself find comfortable in a given photographic situation.

 

There are no wide-angle countries, no telephoto countries nor any 18-55mm specific countries. Wherever you go, you will find narrow alleyways and broad plazas. Flowers native to the region photograph no differently from those outside your door. Superwide lenses can make some sweeping vistas seem vast, but a panorama shot with a normal lens will capture even more. On the other hand, a telephoto can strongly emphasise a unique landscape feature. A lens that works well on a tall person will work fine on a shorter person. A bird is a bird, and photographs about the same no matter where you find it.

 

I love travel photography and I could post an inventory of my kit on the most recent trip. It would do you no good. I used everything from a fisheye to the equivalent of a 2,000mm on a bridge camera. It is very unlikely that we work and see identically, so even if I posted along with examples and expressed my reasons for lens choice, they would not necessarily resonate with you at all. Even though it was a journey through the Rocky Mountains and I live in a rather flat city, what I used there is what I use here. Your eye and your workflow dictate the lenses—not the destination.

 

Very true what you say. I took a 23mm/50mm/90mm with me recently. I used the 23mm 85% of images and the 50mm 10%, the 90mm 5% - but as Larry says it depends on a few things, such as: subject matter, your own preferences and so on.

 

As a lighter outfit I would have been just as happy with my 14mm and 50mm which of course relates to 21mm wide angle and 75mm portrait etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...