[Jonathan Mac]

If I were to make such a trip with only a manual film camera I'd select the following from what I own. I'd go with primes as they're easier to focus and I like them more. To go for eight weeks using a zoom that isn't pleasurable to use would ruin it for me.

A series 28mm f/2.8 - excellent from f/4, small and light with excellent build and great rendering
M series 50mm f/1.7 - when size and weight are a premium this one's a given. A superb lens in every way and small, light and cheap to boot
M series 85mm f/2 - a short telephoto for portraits and landscapes, very small for an 85mm. The 100mm f/2.8 could be a possibility here too.

Of these, I suspect that the 50mm would be used 80% of the time.

Going without the M 35mm f/2 might cause me some pain though, but I suspect the wider view of the 28mm would be more useful. I might also miss close-focus as my go-to standard lens on digital is the DA 35mm limited and for film I have the A 50mm macro too, so I'd likely try to find space for a small extension tube. I don't need 1-to-1 macro, just the ability to focus a little closer than a non-macro lens will allow.

---

Last edited by Jonathan Mac; 04-27-2018 at 11:58 PM.

[bassek]

I would just take my K35/3.5 and the M85/2 if I had a manual camera.
Behind would be left my M50/1.7, M100/4 macro, M135/3.5 and M200/4. And the Tokina 500/8.
The fifty could be useful in low light and the macro for bugs, a mirror is only useful at air shows.

Do you really need a wide like the M20? But this was only my opinion.

Seb

[pres589]

Lots of great responses! Over the next couple of weeks I will be playing with my Tamron 17; if weather is good I might be able to get some nice long astro shots out away from light pollution. I can also take a 28mm as well and see what I think of both.

Nobody throwing support to trying to use the Tamron 28-75 2.8 AF lens seems telling. Will put that thought to bed.

[stevebrot]

Nobody throwing support to trying to use the Tamron 28-75 2.8 AF lens seems telling.

If you already own the lens, it might be a good option. That being said, the short focus throw might be a challenge for manual focus. It is a little expensive unless one is interested in a future K-1 purchase with the Tammy as an alternative-brand walk-around over the D FA 24-70/2.8.


Steve

---

Last edited by stevebrot; 04-28-2018 at 10:45 AM.

[Jonathan Mac]

Nobody throwing support to trying to use the Tamron 28-75 2.8 AF lens seems telling. Will put that thought to bed.

I have that lens in Canon EF mount, where I use it only on film cameras. It's a great lens, excellent IQ, fast, and useful range, but I just don't get the same enjoyment out of such a lens as I do from a nice metal prime.

[Eyewanders]

My most common travel kit. M20 / FA43 / FA77

(Though more recently I've been taking only a 2-lens kit: the M 28/2.0 and A 50/1.4)

[pres589]

Mr. Tender, that is quite the setup!

The thing about primes, to me, is that it's easier to say what a specific lens is doing in your bag per the focal length as well as other characteristics. Here's where I think I'm headed;

1. Tamron 17, at least for now, for huge landscape and night sky shots. City skylines, lakes, star trails. Alternate: A 20mm prime like the M 20 f4. The Tamron is nicely sized if I ignore the hood (which I won't, but you know what i mean). I don't know which would resolve better and be generally sharper, the M 20 f4 or the Tamron 17 SP.

2. A 35mm prime that I don't currently own. Maybe an M 35 f2, maybe an A 35 f2.8, something like that. I don't quite understand why the A 35 f2.8 scores so much better than the M 35 f2.8 in the user reviews. I think I'd want to understand that before I spent money one one or the other; I'm leaning towards an M 35 f2.0 today. I want this for the do-all nature of the focal length on full frame. The crop equivalent would be about 24mm which is great for shooting street scenes, tighter landscape shots. Alternative: An M 40 f2.8. That lens seems pretty unremarkable without stopping down and there seems like some good 35mm options that handle this better. 2nd Alt: FA 43 (but I really need to like shooting film to pay for a decent copy of that lens).

After that, I don't know. The trip that this is all being assembled for is me going solo although I will see people I know here and there. So I don't really care too much about having the perfect portrait lens with me. I honestly don't know how much use a lens 50mm or longer would get on something like this. 50mm on full frame feels a bit like 35mm did on crop; too tight to show much but not tight enough to really fill the frame with the subject at hand. If someone wants to put a working aperture ring on a DA 70 2.4 for me, well, let's talk.

Thanks to everyone for getting me to think about this and all the suggestions!

[Jonathan Mac]

The M 35mm f/2 is an excellent lens and one of my favourites on digital (APS-C) for it's great rendering. I use it a lot less on film as 35mm lenses rarely get a look in since I almost always use a 50mm. However, the M 35mm f/2.8 is also very good and at least in terms of sharpness you're not missing much. I rarely use the 35/2 wide open as it's not that sharp on digital, though I'm sure it would perform better in that respect on film.

[pres589]

Waking this thread back up. Last weekend I was in a camera shop in Wichita and they had a DA 40XS on the shelf (mounted to a K-01). Long story short, I now have a nice little lens that, while looking good on my Ricoh XR-7, doesn't work properly on my XR-7. I'm now on the hunt for a Super-A, goth-tax and all vs. the Super Program.

I figure that if I can get used to using the 40XS on a Super-A, then a DA 70 on a Super-A should be nice as well. The 40XS seemed pretty easy to focus on the Ricoh with a focus ring throw longer than my DA 35 f2.4.

[stevebrot]

I now have a nice little lens that, while looking good on my Ricoh XR-7, doesn't work properly on my XR-7.

Nope, your XR7 is yearning for a Rikenon 45/2.8 pancake (highly regarded and fairly rare) or a Pentax M 40/2.8


Steve

[pres589]

Nope, your XR7 is yearning for a Rikenon 45/2.8 pancake (highly regarded and fairly rare) or a Pentax M 40/2.8


Steve

Both can be true.

That said, I wanted something well wider of 50mm, so getting a 45mm pancake seems a bit silly. I think the XR-7 needs a Ricoh P 50 1.7 or 55 1.2 instead, right?

... like my shelf needed more 50's...

[stevebrot]

I think the XR-7 needs a Ricoh P 50 1.7 or 55 1.2 instead, right?

The standard kit lens would have been an XR Rikenon 50/1.7 or 50/2. Mine came new with Pentax-M 50/1.7 and I could not have been happier.


Steve

[cyberjunkie]

Nope, your XR7 is yearning for a Rikenon 45/2.8 pancake (highly regarded and fairly rare) or a Pentax M 40/2.8

The Rikenon 2.8/45mm is the only 40mm-ish pancake I never tried. I always thought it was the same as the Chinon with same focal/speed.
Is it true, or the two are different animals? It's not easy to judge from the pictures.
Btw, the Chinon version is exactly the same as the Revuenon (which is the version I own).
Both are Cosina-made, only difference the beauty ring (yellow lettering on the Chinon).
According to my experience the performance of the various pancakes is quite similar, Pentax included.
I like to have the choice to use such petite lenses, a pity the body of the K-1 is so huge

[stevebrot]

The Rikenon 2.8/45mm is the only 40mm-ish pancake I never tried. I always thought it was the same as the Chinon with same focal/speed.
Is it true, or the two are different animals? It's not easy to judge from the pictures.

I don't have a clue.


Steve

[pres589]

From a glance, to my uneducated eye, they seem to be the same with a different trim ring.