[Closed] Travel photography - but with only one lens choice

I would almost certainly take the 28mm but I massively tend towards shooting wider. Plus you can always crop to get a 50mm equiv.

Which do you shoot most often?

50mm personally. Defintely can't take a zoom?

I'd take the 50 (or leave one pair of socks at home and take both).

50,but how much landscape will you be shooting ?

Personally I think you'll miss not having something longer. Ideal for 'one lens for all' would be something like a 20-200.

To be honest, I'm struggling to decide between the two, but probably leaning more towards the 28

I'm usually a landscape man and the only zoom lens I have is a 10-24mm - but it's big and heavy.

But the scenery is going to be lovely in Tuscany(which says wide - 28mm) but a 50mm is so useful, makes you think more about composition and it's also f1.4 for portraits and night time

I really can't take two lenses, too heavy and too much bulk. I leave a pair of socks at home, that would mean I wouldn't have any socks at all. I'm traveling that light!

Sounds like a prime (hoho) excuse to buy a new lens.

But the scenery is going to be lovely in Tuscany(which says wide - 28mm) but a 50mm is so useful

We need photo proof of how light you're really travelling

My one lens choice would be an 18-200 - jack of all trades, master of none

Take 50mm and stitch together Landscapes if you need to.

Stitched this from about 30 shots using 50mm

[url= https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3824/9682911482_09f117fb0a_z.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3824/9682911482_09f117fb0a_z.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/fKDseG ]Positano Pano[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/people/75003318@N00/ ]brf[/url], on Flickr

50 without doubt. Thats a serious camera and no need for a zoom as you'll be able to crop. Assuming you mean 50mm equivalent and not an actual 50mm. That Fuji lens is suburb.

Yep 50mm equiv its a 35mm f1.4

speed and size and relative IQ being equal: 28mm for sure

ppl in scenes and landscapes should be ok and you have the MPX for a bit of cropping. If your beyond arms length +1 distortion of faces may not be such a problem..

Which is the larger physically?

50mm equiv is probably sharper/faster on Fuji though?

I reckon you already have a preference - I have a lens I love and a lens I use. Not necessarily same!

I'm reminded of the inimitable Ken Rockwell 🙂

For Intimate Travel

The 50mm lens is ideal for photographing one subject at a time. One subject at a time results in the best photos.

For instance, when the LEICAMAN enjoys a ski holiday in Chamonix with his wife and children, it is the 50mm lens which receives the distinction his accompaniment.

The 50mm lens is ideal for recording everything from the radiant beauty of his lovely wife, his children's glee enjoying the slopes, the alpenglow on L'aiguille Verte, as well documenting his acquisitions of sculpture and painting from the local galleries. For all this, a single 50mm lens is more than sufficient.

*If* I had a Leica + Lens and took t' family to Chamonix for an extra holiday every year - I would happily shoot 50mm every where as well 🙂

I wonder if he really means it's a great reccomendation to shoot kids skiing with a manual focus rangefinder (Leica?) and 50mm lens. Honestly?

I guess a sunny day on snow might give just the light for zone with f8, f16 though..

I'm just not sure if I'd be congratulating myself or cursing at blurred and blown shots of kids - "why won't they just stand still-grrr" 😉

50. You can always stitch panoramas to get wider.

I'm traveling super light on the bike in Tuscany. I was going to take my Ricoh compact which is dslr size aps-c sensor and 28mm fixed. Awesome results (properly good) and small but no feeling/joy when taking the photos as no viewfinder. So was considering my
Fuji X-T1 with just 1 small prime which is a 35mm (50mm equiv) f1.4. Larger but not massive but a joy to use and wonderful sharp lens

funny you say that - I get the same feeling with my GR.. Can't fault it, but somehow it is not satisfying..

I had the x100, s110, rx100 - enjoyed all-great results possible, but somehow they stayed at home in the end.. Small and mirrorless mostly now. Always have the wrong lens with me though.

Decisions, decisons

Just had the 28mm Ricoh lcd and the Fuji 50mm lcd on top of each other. Forgot what the actual difference was in field of view!!!!!

Sounds like a good excuse to buy a Fujifilm 27mm XF f2.8 41mm equivalent pancake lens.

Bonchance, I can't read anything by Ken Rockwell without suspecting it's largely tongue in cheek.

As a user of a 60 year old rangefinder and 50mm lens, taking photos of kids is like herding kittens...

Another 50 and stitch.

Although I would almost be inclined to go 80-90 and stitch myself! Short tele gives wonderful portraits and also compresses perspective which makes pano landscapes a little more dramatic 😉

I use the 45mm Olympus a lot for that reason (90mm equivalent)

I travel with a 22mm f2 pancake on my EOSM.bwirks for many situations for me.

It does depend on you

But 28mm every time for me. I'd still be stitching for wide shots

Portraits don't need many pixels so they can easily be cropped out of a more distant shot

The ideal compromise for me would be 35mm equivalant. But its easy to crop to that from 28mm

i find composing with 50mm very tough for anything landscapey where your trying to get a forground and back ground

as were playing 'what lens for'- I couldn't help looking at the xf range

xf35 seems a possibly better lens than xf14, so all things may not be equal.

The one you don't have: xf23 would be my first choice.

If I was going on your trip (I wish!). I would take GR I think. Solely size<>quality can't be beat.

Also because I can wear it on belt, or use the velcro to lash it bars - ever-ready..

Our own field of view is around 35mm, I'd go for the wider lens.

If you want a nice photo of a landscape when you're touring, far better to buy a postcard and post it home.

"Ken Rockwell"

Yeah, I'd pretty much do the opposite of most of what he says.

Fwiw, I'd take a 35mm as an ideal prime, so would err towards the 28 in your situation.

The one you don't have: xf23 would be my first choice.

Yep, I've got one on my XE-2. The Zoom hasn't been on since its arrival. Awesome lens.

Which focal length do you naturally default to? That will be the right lens to take.

Alternatively perhaps you should trade both the 18mm and 35mm in and acquire an XF23mm 1.4 which is a better lens anyway.

I'm naturally a wide angle man, hence owning the 10-24mm and 14mm before that.

But the XF35mm 1.4 is such an amazing lens - I've been blown away how sharp across the frame it is even at 1.4, it's got a 3d quality to the photos that make them pop out. Yet it's relatively cheap, small and light. The XF23 might be a 'better' lens but I think that will only be at the pixel zoomed 300%. The XF35 is that good - hence me even thinking about it.

I could even spend £200 and get the wide angle kit for the Ricoh and have a 28/21mm combo in a tiny lightweight package.

But I'm drawn back to the Fuji, as good as the photos are from the Ricoh, the lack of a proper big bright viewfinder means the experience of actually framing and taking the photos is lost.

gr + ovf?

starts to eat away at the small.pocketable USP of GR

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Ricoh-GV1-External-Viewfinder-For-GR-Digital-Cameras-/371304281342?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_3&hash=item567375b4fe

Looked at the ovf before but unless you only use the camera in auto then you can't see any of the camera settings without taking your eye off the ovf and look at the lcd which defeats the point a bit.

This is all a bit mad really

Take the Ricoh. "No joy..." I thought you were going light weight

If you take XT do not choose the lens on the basis of how sharp it is. Shakes his head.

Not really that odd.

Just choosing between two awesome cameras - nice position to be in

With all this ummmming and aaaaahing over the appropriate lens, I am reminded that this is why I like zoom lenses for [s]taking on holiday[/s] travel photography.

Every prime lens is also a zoom lens. It's a unique system called legs.

geetee1972 - Member
Every prime lens is also a zoom lens. It's a unique system called legs.

It doesn't achieve the same thing though (foreshortening with a telephoto or distortion caused by a wide angle etc.).

and rather you than me trying to get close enough to take this with a 35mm prime:

[url= https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7437/10090486444_720566792d.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7437/10090486444_720566792d.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/gnEo5d ]13-06-29 DSC_6806[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/people/91882170@N06/ ]STW stumpy01[/url], on Flickr

Looks like you could of done with a wide angle lens and you'd have been able to fit the whole elephant in 😉

geetee1972 - Member
Every prime lens is also a zoom lens. It's a unique system called legs.

Every prime lens is also a zoom lens. It's a unique system called legs.

Elefant +1

Its not just the walking across the water. Its loosing the water as the forground

I just happen to have pair of wide and longish shots from about one spot

[url= https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7381/13910330191_1e090c3603_z.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7381/13910330191_1e090c3603_z.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/ncd5xa ]castle (1 of 1)[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/people/7615885@N08/ ]John Clinch[/url], on Flickr

[url= https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7381/13819739323_3543685064_z.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7381/13819739323_3543685064_z.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/n4cM2D ]Dunstanburgh Castle (1 of 1)[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/people/7615885@N08/ ]John Clinch[/url], on Flickr

^^^^ see. Nice example of foreshortening....

Yep. The water looks quite loose in those snaps.

The compression effect is a product of focal length, not the zoom function. You get the same result with a 200mm prime lens as you do a 50-200mm zoom set at 200m focal length. Besides, we all know that the vast majority of people use zooms to frame rather than add any 'creative' element to a composition.

The compression effect is a product of focal length, not the zoom function. You get the same result with a 200mm prime lens as you do a 50-200mm zoom set at 200m focal length. Besides, we all know that the vast majority of people use zooms to frame rather than add any 'creative' element to a composition.

Of course and I was blown away I put something other than a 50mm lens on my first SLR

Or you could just own a wide and crop for everything, like phone owners do

I'll also agree that alot of people should use their feet more and zoom less

But that doesn't make a prime a zoom does it?

Still not sure esp. after reading this months STW magazine and the Tuscany article that shows the amazing scenery!!

for what its worth I used a Fuji XT1 and the 18-135 lens in New Zealand, both worked flawlessly (even when soaked) and also a Sony RX100 for when I was travelling realy light

The compression effect is a product of focal length, not the zoom function.

That's the thing the Fuji produces beautiful images!!

Interesting - I often found otherwise - good case in point is the classic 135-150mm portrait lens. It's just not possible to get same photo from a 28mm cropped. Distortion of facial features and pulling of background is one noticeable aspect..

You can crop a wide angle and end up with the same [s]photo[/s] subject as you'd get with a long lens

Just had a look on the Fuji website and the 18mm lens (27mm eqiv) only weighs 115g.

Hmm....

Ah. I popped in thinking a decision might have been made! 😀

Sounds like you've just found another option to ponder. New lens time? 😉

I hope we're gonna get to see some of the pictures taken as a result of this in depth decision making process?

Yeah I know, I had decided on the 50mm buying I can pick up the 18mm really cheap it might be worth it.

You could always use exposure plot to determine your most popular focal length.
http://www.vandel.nl/

I know personally - I'd take the 28mm equiv. You must have an incling which you would prefer before you posted right?

I had to explain foreshortening and perspective distortion to a friend when those topless pictures of Kate Middleton were in the papers (he said they looked a bit flat).

If it was purely down to focal length then 28mm rather than 50mm would be the choice I'd usually gravitate towards.

But the 28mm is on a compact camera without a viewfinder and the 50mm is on a Fuji X-T1 which has an awesome viewfinder and is a pleasure to use. Both cameras produce lovely photos and have ace quality lenses.

I should take the Ricoh as its light and small, but the Fuji with the 50mm is a just about acceptable comprimise as far as size and weight.

Interesting - I often found otherwise - good case in point is the classic 135-150mm portrait lens. It's just not possible to get same photo from a 28mm cropped. Distortion of facial features and pulling of background is one noticeable aspect.

The distortion you mention comes from perspective, it's not lens distortion.

If you take a portrait with 135mm, don't move and take a photo with a 28 then crop you will get the same image. The only difference will be the number of pixels (which obviously may make this impracticable).

the effect is the same - try it? I'm not sure I get your point..

edit

http://gizmodo.com/5857279/this-is-how-lenses-beautify-or-uglify-your-pretty-face

The point is simple, it's the distance to the subject that matters. In the link you've given the distance is changed to maintain framing (the images have not been cropped).

The distance to the subject causes a change in perspective that looks like distortion.

distortion is distortion though and I do prefer to avoid it - once I spot it..

IMHO Assuming 28mm and 135mm: if the subject distance and exposure remains the same; DoF is then different due to effect of focal length - thus photo containg any elements of the scene is different -The backdrop has a different rendering. Unless a crop is 10px of a cheek perhaps. For me the effects seem real and practical through observation.

Maybe I'm missing your point, perhaps it's theoretical - but don't worry about it, many ppl are wrong the tinternet - often me!.. 😀

You are, and it's not theoretical. You're confusing focal length and perspective. Understand perspective and everything else falls into place.

And... It's not distortion, it's perspective. Try sticking your eye 6" from someones face. Looks funny.

ok - if it is a practical and not theoretical point - what is your practical focal length recommendation for head shot portraits? Maybe that will help me get it.

Something like 10' to the subject is normal, so the focal length to achieve that without cropping on full frame would be 135mm ish - 90mm on apsc, 65mm on m4/3 or you could use either of those on FF and crop to give the same result.

bonchance sorry he is correct

A portrait lens needs an angle of view not a focal length

On Microfourthirds then a portrait lens might be 45mm, on FF 90mm on Nikon 1 32mm. That's as they have the same field of view. So the distortion is identical for all 3 systems

A portrait lens needs an angle of view not a focal length

...to achieve the image you want at the distance you want. It's the distance which is often overlooked and is actually the key to all this.

Which takes us back to what started this. Zooming with your feet doesn't work and 'zooming' (or digital zoom that the poster seemed to mean by this) is the same as changing focal length.

5th elefant

I couldn't be trying any harder to agree

I know you know 🙂 , just wanted to tie it all back together.

all fascinating, I do prefer FF equiv 135-150 for portraiture, for the reasons I mentioned - and for all this it seems we all may 🙂 I was comparing my results with 28mm and 135mm FF equiv.

AFAIK Focal length has been commonly used to express the angle of view. It's certainly marked on every lens I have owned - I think even since std film size and std lenses were invented. Ampthill. I guess your just saying crop factor is a factor - perhaps an unusual way to express it.

I'll let the OP have his thread back, keen to hear the final Lens judgement - my money is still on that great looking XF23 - obviously the one he doesn't own - good luck all!

I'll let the OP have his thread back, keen to hear the final Lens judgement - my money is still on that great looking XF23 - obviously the one he doesn't own - good luck all!

And the one that's £650 too :0)

all fascinating, I do prefer FF equiv 135-150 for portraiture, for the reasons I mentioned - and for all this it seems we all may I was comparing my results with 28mm and 135mm FF equiv.

AFAIK Focal length has been commonly used to express the angle of view.

It's certainly marked on every lens I have owned - I think even since std film size and std lenses were invented.

I mean the commonly accepted standard film size; from which popular contemporary consumer photography standards are derived:

Film 35 mm wide with four perforations per frame became accepted as the international standard gauge in 1909

From this the reference focal lengths and concerned fields of view are derived and came to be *commonly* known.

A camera system; with a medium below this standard size - is specified with a numeric 'crop factor'.

Take this factor. Apply it to the mm focal length of your lens (marked on *every* lens).

The resulting figure is then *commonly* accepted as a specification which describes the field of view.

If you are genuinely trying to suggest otherwise, or that folk buy lenses marked in degrees - it seems disingenuous.

Semantics aside, your practical recommendation for portrait appeared to be the same as my related experiences - and many others - so we may in fact agree!?

In which case - If I misunderstand your intentions, or I have failed to understand the point you are trying to express - I apologise.

Well took a while but decision made and bought for anybody that's interested.

The 23mm f1.4 was to expensive and heavy.

Couldn't not take the 35mm f1.4 as its soooo nice, sharp and fast with almost 3D results so I got lucky and bought a brand new sealed box 18mm f2 lens from eBay for £150 (which is a bargain and cheaper than s/h prices).

Lovely lens that gets a bit of a bad rap. Only 120g and tiny. Stop it down to f5.6-8 and its sharp across the frame so fine for landscapes. It still has the fuji look to the photos, so very happy.

So it's the Fuji XT1, 35mm f1.4 and 18mm f2 is the chosen camera.

All I weight is about 750g which is about 500g heavier than my Ricoh GR but I still think it's worth it and my only luxury with all the rest of the kit parred back to the bone and super light. Still not a bad weight for a camera and 2 lenes.

Pleased that you've made the choice.

But wasn't the original post about 'only being to take one lens' and 'don't want to buy anymore lenses for the trip'? 😆

Well done on sticking to the plan!!

Yep it totally was, but I gave in on two counts-

New lens only weighs 120g and is f2

and they retail for £300, s/h for about £200 and I got a brand new one with warranty for £150 :0)

Skimmed through this thread and did initially wonder why don't you MTFU and take a couple of lenses? 😉

I totally get the travelling light thing but I'm a bit OCD with camera gear and would rather carry the extra 'tools' to cover [i]most[/i] eventualities rather than do the who 'what if' teeth gnashing.

My fave lens this year has been the Canon 24mm TSE which I've been using for shift panos, often with focus stacking and the compulsory HDR bracketing. 🙄

#toomuchtime #toomucheffort #allthegearandnoidea

Old thread resurrection.........

Thinking of trading in my XF 35mm f1.4 for a 23mm f1.4. I'm I mad?

Anybody?