[RXrenesis8]

50 and 35 are a bit close for a three lens kit, but it depends upon what you tend to shoot.

I agree. I think you should look for a 24mm or 28mm lens.

28mm f2.0 would be a really nice one for general-purpose.

I agree with you that it's a bit close to the 50, but I tend to see a lot of interesting (and tiny) flora and fauna. I'd like to keep my prime kit at 1:1 or at the very least 1:2 capable, so I don't think I have much of a choice...

[paperbag846]

Ah, macro is a good reason.

Have you considered pairing the 35 with the DA 70?

[RXrenesis8]

It for me was less about different focal lengths and more about abilities. I had wanted a macro, then a low light lens, and I am now realizing that I love my zooms all the way at the wide end. I think I would enjoy the dramatic perspective of a super wide in a small, dedicated package.

I had considered pairing the 35 with the 77 but after using the 50 f1.2 I don't think I can ever go back to traveling without it... at f1.2 it obliterates everything but your subject, sucks in light like the black hole it is, and flatters the subjects in an amazing way. (not to mention that it focuses like a dream, unlike the almost non-existant, free spinning focusing ring of the FA 1.4)

It's not just a (slightly) different focal length, it's a different experience.

[v5planet]

I know people are probably sick of hearing it, but I once walked 2200 miles through the Appalachian Mountains with only the 35 Limited. It is a very versatile lens, not just because of its middle of the road focal length, but also because of its absurd close focusing ability. It's that incredibly practical versatility that makes me think twice before considering selling it to finance purchase of more interesting lenses... If I knew I could only use one lens for more than just a simple outing, this would be it.

However, I find the FL to not be terribly exciting. If I had the luxury of taking two prime lenses, I agree with many here that the 21/70 combo would be an excellent one, giving you interesting and functional focal lengths on either side of normal. If I were interested in a two lens setup, this is definitely what I would do (well, maybe 21/77 =P). Currently my AF lens lineup is restricted to the 15/35 combo, but that's only because I am planning on what I think is probably the best set up, which is: the three prime lens kit. Many have stated the merits of 15/(31, 35, 40 or 43)/(70 or 77). I hope to be walking around 15/35/77 myself in the near future.

[RioRico]

It depends upon where I am going and what I think the views will be like. I'm heading for San Francisco later this month and I definitely intend to bring my 75-300MM Vivitar and probably my 50MM 1.7 but I'm just not sure about taking my 28mm wide angle or my 35-75MM zoom even though they might come in handy because of the big panoramic type views out there. I definitely don't think I'll be taking my 105MM or my 135MM at all.
...
CA is so darned gorgeous and this will be the first time I've really gotten to capture any of that beauty with a DSLR and some good lenses. Might be fun to take a good handful, though that would make my kit a fair bit heavier.

Driving fast, I'm about 3 hours from The City, and I get there 2-3 times a year to see the kids and shoot the shots. What lenses to take with my K20D?

* The DA18-250 is basic, as always. Covers many situations, even if imperfectly.
* The Lil'Bigma 170-500, for lounging by city squares and sniping far passersby.
* The Tammy 10-24 for urbanscapes, bright neighborhoods and indoors, etc.

But much of The City and environs aren't conducive to such large lenses that cry out, TOURIST! So my basic small fast prime set comes into play:

* Zenitar 16/2.8 for that fishy wide view.
* Vivitar 24/2 as the basic wide-ish street lens.
* Nikkor 35/2 for that long-normal viewpoint.
* FA50/1.4 because a Fast Fifty is required.
* Nikkor 85/2 for neighborhoods in the evening.
* Enna Tele-Sandmar 100/4.5 for stealthy sniping.

Could those be squeezed down into a 2-prime kit? Not really. A 3-prime kit? Probably the 24/2, 55/1.4, and 85/2. But I'm more comfortable, adding the Zenitar and the tiny Tele-Sandmar. And staying small, I'd throw in the light Meyer Telemegor 240/4.5 for reach. Two or three primes just ain't enough.

[steve1307]

.
* The Lil'Bigma 170-500, for lounging by city squares and sniping far passersby.
.

!!


somebody call Homeland Security !!

[henryjing]

I recommend DA21, one lens is enough

[al_undy]

I've been following this thread and it has really stimulated a bit of introspection. Primes are part of my kit but I haven't thought of them as travel lenses, more special purpose rather than multi-purpose. This may simply be a reflection of where I am at as a picture taker. For travel the DA18-250 has always been my main lens along with the FA31ltd and the combo hasn't let me down.
I am now thinking about taking the 21/43/70 combo to Disney World at the end of this month. The thing is, I have never been a big fan of the 21, in fact it is my least used lens. I was looking through photos taken with the 21 over at pbase and realized that the images I was least impressed with were wide open. They lacked detail, color, and contrast, which of course, makes a lot of sense.
For those of you who love the 21, does this observation hold for you? Suggestions for the getting the most satisfying images from the 21?
Thanks to all for their comments. This thread is a good one...

[magkelly]

Actually I can only take one bag, period. It's not about what I'd prefer it's about what the airline charges to take anything "extra" these days. Extra to the airline I am on apparently means anything more than that one carry on.

It's insane what they're charging just to take one small suitcase. For each leg of the trip, per plane, they'd want money for each bag they check. It's $25 per bag, each plane it's on. I'd end up spending $100 RT just to be able to taking one darned suitcase? Uh, no, I don't think so.

They probably won't like me much when they see me check in. I'm carrying ONE carry on type bag for the 5 days. My camera bag can go separately and I won't have to pay extra for it, qualifies as a personal item, but other than that it ALL has to fit in the one carry on for the entire 5 days I'm there.

My carry on is pretty roomy and I don't have a problem packing light besides. When traveling I don't take much in terms of toiletries except a small 6x6" purse sized makeup kit and a little kit for my medications. I never bother with more than that. It just makes going through security that much more complicated and anyway they do have Walgreens and travel sized shampoos where I am going.

My camera gear and my laptop get first priority, always. Other than that the rest is negotiable except for the makeup/meds kit. Clothes-wise I usually travel with a jacket and jeans, sneakers, and a t-shirt or sweat shirt on. I take one pair of extra lightweight black pants, a couple of t-shirts, a sweatshirt if wasn't wearing one, a very light weight knit skirt, a nice top, a pair of tights, 2 pairs of socks, flat shoes that can be worn daily to walk or to go out, a colorful scarf that can double as a belt, a pair of flashy earrings and maybe a bangle or a necklace, undies and that's usually about it. I just do without things like blow driers, extra shoes etc. If I really need anything else clothes-wise I hit a Goodwill while I am there and toss it before I return or mail it back if I'm really taken with whatever I've bought for some reason.

(I always hit all the good thrift shops whenever I go somewhere if I can. My idea of souvenirs from SF isn't cable car magnets or some Ghiradelli chocolates that I can easily buy at Walmart back home anyway. It's a good old lens/camera if I happen to stumble on one! It likely won't happen, but hey you never know....)

I don't need much else for the trip. So long as I bring my laptop I can take an entire library of books, tunes and a few movies so I usually do. I usually take one big paperback besides for when I can't use it for some reason. A couple of snacks, chips and jerky, a piece of chocolate so I don't get hungry on the plane and I'm ready to go pretty much.

More than one camera bag would just cost me money I'd rather spend in SF doing things, shrug. I can pack up to 4 lenses actually in my Tamrac bag if I am careful. I'd rather limit myself to 3 maybe, but I could. But my day bag actually fits quite a bit for it's size with the two add on lens cases and my clip on flash/batteries cases attached. About the only thing that won't fit is a battery charger or two and that's easily tossed into one of the carry on pockets.

My main rule of thumb is that if it won't fit into the carry on and/or it makes the thing weigh a bloody ton? It has to stay home. 20lbs is the airline's limit for weight on a carry on, and it's definitely mine too. I'm just not into lugging it if it weighs much more.

I honestly don't get people who pack more than one suitcase for a short trip actually. I mean it's one thing to pack heavier if you're going on a 6 month trip to Europe in the rainy season or something but for 4-5 days I just don't think I need to carry all that much. SF's a pretty big city. I can usually get anything I need fairly cheaply if it turns out I left something important behind and I can always mail anything I buy there back if I need to rather than lug it.

this goes back to how you carry your gear.

I have, and I think I posted this earlier, adapted a 2 bag approach. One bag that carries everything I think I might use for an extended trip, lenses, bodies, chargers, back up HD etc... This is either a hard case or back pack.

I then pack a second much smaller bag, for day shoots, take 1-3 lenses and one body or 2 lenses and 2 bodies. Spares are in the small bag.

I believe you need to separate how to get to a major destination from what you do when you get there. if yoou are in the city, you don't need wild life lenses, and when shooting wild life, you don't need a full range of short primes, more likely just one medium to tele lens that is close focus capable.

WHile you may need it all for the full trip, a lot, on any one day can be locked up in a hotel room.

If I need to carry it all, all the time, I reconsider my load at the onset, and back pack it all.

[Duplo]

The thing is, I have never been a big fan of the 21, in fact it is my least used lens. I was looking through photos taken with the 21 over at pbase and realized that the images I was least impressed with were wide open. They lacked detail, color, and contrast, which of course, makes a lot of sense.
For those of you who love the 21, does this observation hold for you? Suggestions for the getting the most satisfying images from the 21?
Thanks to all for their comments. This thread is a good one...

Well it really is hard to say, especially since I have claimed it to be one of the finest rendering landscape lenses. So my opinion obviously differs from yours and I have found it highly usable wide open.
In fact I do not hesitate to shoot it at any aperture. but yeah it does have lover contrast wide open, as do any other lens I am aware of.

No reason to pollute this thread with alot of images, but here is a wide open one
Sunflower
Now the tips to get the best out of it, will be the same as with any other lens, use it well, shoot in good light (for photography), make sure your compositions are interesting and subject matter is the same.

[Piotr]

my prime kit:

• FA 20/2.8
• FA 43/1.8
• Leica Vario 80-200/4

Leica Vario 80-200/4 is not prime it is zoom - I know - but in fact it behaves like sum of primes in 80-200 range.

[DirkG]

The thing is, I have never been a big fan of the 21, in fact it is my least used lens. I was looking through photos taken with the 21 over at pbase and realized that the images I was least impressed with were wide open. They lacked detail, color, and contrast, which of course, makes a lot of sense.

A similar not-so-positive impression of DA21 made me sell it and switch to older Pentax glass, specifically K-series lenses. K20/4.0 for instance is much more contrasty and colorful than DA21 - in my eyes at least.

To come back to the question that started this thread, in my experience, I get a long way with a two-lens combo:
- anything between 18 and 24 (in my case, that would be K18/3.5, K20/4.0, or K24/2.8) for landscapes, cityscapes, architecture;
- something 50-ish (like K55/1.8 or F50/1.4 if autofocus is desired) for portraits of the people you interact with.

[sterretje]

I was thinking about "do most of it" prime kit myself, something that would be good in almost any situation I would encounter. Something like:

A 50 f1.2 . . . . . Low Light
DAL 35 f2.8 . . . Macro
DAL 15 f4.0 . . . Wide Angle

Whaddya think?

FA31Ltd general purpose and low light
DFA100WR macro
DA15Ltd wideangle

It depends on what you want to shoot in low light. The 50mm is, for my liking, too long in confined spaces where I would more then likely use it.

[stevelink]

Greetings!
Well, I think that most folks here have a better "travel" kit than me, but I'll throw in my 2 cents anyway...
Pentax K-5 and
Option 1: 16-45, 50-200, 43 Ltd.
Option 2: 16-45, 70 Ltd.
Option 3: 16-45, DA* 55
My dilemma is in deciding which of the above is the best option for an upcoming trip to San Francisco. Obviously, I'll want a wide angle for Golden Gate and Redwood shots, which is why the 16-45 is pretty much a given, since it's my "widest" lens. Dilemma number 2 is whether to travel "light", i.e., a 3-lens kit, without a tripod, and my small camera bag, OR with a tripod and my larger Tamrac Evolution 6 bag.
Anyone with experience in San Francisco photography, I'd be interested in hearing your suggestions. thank you, and good luck!

[lytrytyr]

I don't normally like to put the paddles on a code blue thread, but here goes:

Anyone with experience in San Francisco photography, please feel free to comment here

As earlier posters remarked, discreet is good.
My own choice: the K24/2.8 with two Voigtlaenders (58/1.4 and 90/3.5).