[angerdan]

Someone posted in one of the lens reviews I read here a couple of days ago, that serious 35mm film photographers used to own and use three lenses in particular--a 28mm lens, a normal lens, and a ~135mm lens, IIRC--no matter what other lenses he/she might own.

1. Interesting. Do you concur?
2. This got me thinking about "the" minimum complement of lenses one might think "sufficient." Your thoughts?
3. Does anyone here prefer to travel light?
4. If so, what lens(es) do you prefer to take?

Please indicate if film or digital, and if the latter, if cropped sensor or FF.

You can generalize in wide angle, standard lens and tele.
People, shooting styles and available lenses/budget then spread the focal lengths between 24-35 and 77-135mm.

1. No, standard lenses have been 35mm, 50mm and 85mm for film. With and without autofocus.
   Especially if someone went for faster aperture primes.
2. This depends on the individual requirements, budget and expectations/compromises.
   For some people a 35mm or 50mm might be enough, others tend more towards wide angle or telephoto.
3. Depends on the kind of travel (transportation methods, luggage restrictions, duration) and goal of the journey.
   It depends on the possible motifs and light conditions. What would be the shortes and longest focal length needed and which apertures/features?
4. If i have to travel ultralight, then i only take 1-3 primes depending on requirements/expectations. Like 31+77, 50+100 or 31+100.
   So my i would always reach at least 50mm as longest focal length. Others may shift more towards wiede and ultra wide angle and less to telephoto.

All for FF (35mm) format.
I don't see any difference if you use a SLR or DSLR for this questions.

In Pentax land I'm pretty sure it's 31mm-43mm-77mm though

Yes, the limited Trinity/Triptychon


Good sources to have a n overview about focal lengths/lens types:
Template:Pentax K-mount AF lenses timeline - Wikipedia
The Crop Factor Unmasked - Articles and Tips | PentaxForums.com
pentaxforums.com/content/uploads/files/77/p1297/EqvFL_Table.jpg

---

Last edited by angerdan; 08-29-2023 at 01:44 AM.

[house]

However, zoom-with-the-feet isn't really possible in some shooting scenarios such as large and distant landscapes and cityscapes.

For me it doesn't work like that at all. I find a composition with whatever lens I have. The look will just be different so some times it's a good idea to vary "perspectives". Other times it's better to use a single focal length for the whole thing. One advantage of primes is that the look of the images will be set. Standard + tele will be the same standard and the same tele which can make a series more cohesive.

There's a common imho misdirected advice to check you catalogue focal lenght statistics before buying a prime. The thinking is that you should buy the one you use the most. There are two issues with this. 1. people tend to shoot their zooms mostly at the ends. Not because the subjects somehow magically demands it but because the gear controls the photographer not the other way around. 2.You should choose the focal length because you want photographs that the focal length enables. It's a preemptive decision.

If i have to travel ultralight, then i only take 1-3 primes depending on requirements/expectations. Like 31+77, 50+100 or 31+100.
So my i would always reach at least 50mm as longest focal length. Others may shift more towards wiede and ultra wide angle and less to telephoto.

For me ultralight is a single compact prime. Or more likely the Ricoh GR.

[Jonathan Mac]

For me it doesn't work like that at all. I find a composition with whatever lens I have. The look will just be different so some times it's a good idea to vary "perspectives". Other times it's better to use a single focal length for the whole thing. One advantage of primes is that the look of the images will be set. Standard + tele will be the same standard and the same tele which can make a series more cohesive.

This is good advice and part and parcel of using a prime - you use what you have. It might not be long enough or wide enough for the entire scene as you see it, or the "standard" shot that most people take, but unless you're way out on focal length then you'll make it work and in doing so maybe get a shot that others don't, or that you wouldn't have seen otherwise.

[pinholecam]

I almost always travel with a 3 lens kit.
Especially so if I bike tour.

Pentax allows so many so options since the days of DSLR as compared to Canikon.
This has of course shifted somewhat with mirrorless and I often also opt to use a mix of small lenses on my A7 (which of course includes Pentax lenses)

The Pentax M20 and K24/2.8 are really highly portable (as is the Voigtlander 20/3.5).
These often form the starting point of my wide angle selection, which I add a wide or normal and a telephoto.




4 lens kit used for Bali, could have left out the 14mm and still not missed anything.



3 lens kit



Used the DA15ltd a lot in the apsc days

There is of course also this option from Pentax

[que es tu]

Prime kit: DA 21mm Ltd, DA 40mm Ltd, DA 70mm Ltd.

Zoom: DA 18-135, I have used this as my only lens for several multi day backpacking trips, and weeks long vacations and never found it lacking!

[James O'Neill]

Someone posted in one of the lens reviews I read here a couple of days ago, that serious 35mm film photographers used to own and use three lenses in particular--a 28mm lens, a normal lens, and a ~135mm lens, IIRC--no matter what other lenses he/she might own.

Interesting. Do you concur?

This got me thinking about "the" minimum complement of lenses one might think "sufficient."




Your thoughts? Does anyone here prefer to travel light? If so, what lens(es) do you prefer to take?

When I started film photography in the middle 1980s, 28mm was the default wide, and 135 was the default tele. I wouldn't judge the seriousness of a photographer by their choice of focal length, but there was probably a time when most serious photographers owned those three even if those weren't their go-to lenses

Right now I shoot mostly with the K1. I have a 12-24 zoom and a film-era 28-300 zoom which get little use. I have a macro, a 90mm Tamron - I like the optics of it even if the AF version doesn't have the satisfying solidity of the old MF version I had for years. Most of my pictures are taken with 4 primes, The DFA*85, the SMC 77, SMC 43 and DFA 21 ltd.

I went to shoot a few weeks ago with my hard-case, K1, K5IIs as backup, the 2 zooms, those four primes, sundry accessories. And my back let me know I had over done it. So last week I look a lighter bag, K1 and the 3 limiteds. It's a pretty good combination and no back ache. Not sure I'd say that was the combination for everybody - 43 to 21 is bigger step than ideal, but I do like that lens and there isn't a 24 or 28 I like as much.

[ChrisPlatt]

I don't like lugging around a heavy bag of photo gear.
My usual kit is one 35mm film camera body and just a couple of small lenses.
A 35mm lens is always included, plus a short telephoto, between 85mm - 105mm.
I might add a 50mm, 24mm or long telephoto lens if I anticipate the need.

The 35mm focal length accounts for 75%+ of my photos, so if it's one camera/one lens, 35mm it is.
When I really want to travel light I will take only a truly pocketable camera with fixed 35mm lens.

Chris

---

Last edited by ChrisPlatt; 09-04-2023 at 03:48 PM.

[Wasp]

Back in the film days (late 80s) my first proper kit consisted of:

• Pentax LX body
• SMC Pentax M 28mm f/2.8
• SMC Pentax M 50mm f/1.7
• SMC Pentax M 100mm f/2.8
• SMC Pentax M 200mm f/4
• Pentax AF280T flash

For me, a 135mm was just too short for things like sport photography. The above kit served me well. It was expanded with:

• Pentax Super A body
• SMC Pentax A 50mm f/2.8 macro (replacing the 50/1.7)
• SMC Pentax M 20mm f/4
• SMC Pentax A 400mm f/5.6
• Pentax AF400T flash

The above kit was very minimalist compared to what I rock these days.

[Theov39]

I travelled for 6 months with only a DA 40 XS and a DA 18-135 WR, living out of a backpack. These suited most of my needs.

Interesting. I was wondering if I can get away with something similar for travel. What sort of situations would you use the 40mm lens in as opposed to using the zoom?

[robgski]

What sort of situations would you use the 40mm lens in as opposed to using the zoom?

IIRC, the two most common situations were:
1. When I wanted a very compact combo.
2. When I wanted the wider aperture for either lighting conditions, or a shallower DOF.

[onlineflyer]

For several decades my kit was comprised of 4 lenses, as follows: K 30/2.8, M 50/1.7, Sigma 135/2.8, and Vivitar 90-180/4.5 macro. When I traveled, I took all four lenses along with my KX film body. While the Vivitar is rather large and hefty, I found it indispensable for longer tele and macro shots. In fact, it almost got me shot by a Mexican soldier while I was trying to get a picture of El Presidente's yacht cruising off the coast of Ixtapa.

Today, I'd take a 20-40 Limited, Sigma 70/2.8 macro, 135/2.8 and DA 300/4. I just fell I'll always have a need for a macro and the extra reach of a long tele lens. Then again, that's just me.

[zapp]

Viewfinder marks in rangefinder cameras defined what lenses were available. The rest is history and depends on your needs and preferences. Lenses outside of the 28/35-135 range are not standard for general work, but sometimes you want those special lenses. And before someone asks, it s not about focal length but perspective or viewing angle.
Today we have too many options and should limit ourselves more often.