[vinceloc]

For europe, i'd suggest you travel light. From your present inventory, I'd bring the Tammy 10-24mm (street & landscapes) and the 50/1.7 (lowlight, street & other deliberate subjects). Then I'd buy a DA50-200mm WR. Cheap, very light and won't break the bank. Long lens landscapes and abstracts are great (just think of the fishing boats docked beside mediterranen shores!)

[Tuner571]

Well, as others members have said I would go for the 28-75mm zoom. This lens pretty much covers your wide end and will allow you to take amazing landscape photos. It will also allow you to get up close when you need too so I would recommend that lens for your trip.

Hope you have a great time,
Cory

[jct us101]

Something else to consider if you are going to get the 28-75mm though is that it is a fairly heavy lens. I don't know if you wan to lug something like that around the whole time you're sightseeing and such, but sometimes people can get fairly irritated with having a heavy camera and lens on their shoulder all day.

[SpecialK]

I would NEVER consider going to europe without an ultra wide. It is just too useful.


I would leave all longer glass at home unless you have some specific wild life objectives in mind, but for me, travelling to europe is all about visiting cities and looking at landscapes, so you don't really need a tele, but youo will appreciate the ultra wide

You can never go too wide.
The 10-24 and the 28-75 should actually do it around cities. And a 6" mini tripod.

[GeneV]

If the only reason you are travelling and seeing other parts of the world is to get perfect pictures, then there is something wrong about your priorities, in my humble opinion. (Unless that is your one reason for the trip -- but I don't think we are talking about a professional travel shooter here.)

I've been too far both ways--too obsessed and bringing too little. After my most obsessive trip, I found I saw much of my vacation for the first time on my slide projector. The priorities were indeed wrong, but the shots are nice.

[RioRico]

I'm sorry, but stuff DOES happen outside those ranges. Very interesting stuff.

And the only way to get all of that in adequate quality is to carry six lenses.

Someone traveling on their first and what may be their only trip to a different world will regret losing many good shots because they hadn't the right lenses.

I must say that this is a terrible attitude. If the only reason you are travelling and seeing other parts of the world is to get perfect pictures, then there is something wrong about your priorities, in my humble opinion. (Unless that is your one reason for the trip -- but I don't think we are talking about a professional travel shooter here.)

My first European trip (Germany) was a month-long military exercise, and I had cameras because that was my job. My second trip (Italy) was three weeks spent slowly on the Amalfi coast, and my cameras were inadequate -- too much of what I saw is only memory and journals, word-pictures. On most of my Mexico / Central America journeys, either driving or shuttling, I had at most a 5mpx NightShot P&S with 4x Zeiss zoom (equivalent to 34-136 FF, 22-90 APS) -- and I especially felt limited at the long end, more so than the wide (where I could stitch-up panos as needed). And I lost many good shots. For my last Mexico/etc multimode trip I had the K20D, fisheye- and super-zooms, fast 24 & 50 & 85 & macro tubes, 500mm mirror, flash, tripod, the P&S with IR filters -- and I used it all, and felt no remorse, and was much happier for having the right gear.

I don't do 10-day 10-nation tours. I like to find a village and stay a few days or weeks or months. I'll use the superzoom for the first day or two, then use specific lenses for hours at a stretch, in rotation. Each forces me to see what's there differently. I'm not a pro shooter now; my driving force isn't to accumulate reams of perfect pictures; but I try to approach what I see with a professional attitude, that what amazes my eyes deserves the best possible rendition. Again, it's a matter of personal taste, style, vision. Were I doing a 1-year world tour out of a rucksack, I might take only a superzoom P&S with macro attachment, and a 135 P&S backup. Were I intent on poster- and calendar-quality city- and land-scapes, I'd take my 6x6 and 6x9 fixed-lens folders and bags of 220 film. I have these options. I'm happy with them.

[Clinton]

If I was going to Europe and wanted to travel light, the combination of the DA* 16-50 and DA* 50-135 would be irresistible.

I'm pondering this question myself though as the 50-135 doesn't fit in our holster bag, and it's the most common lens on our body. It's just a little bulky.

[GeneV]

For my last Mexico/etc multimode trip I had the K20D, fisheye- and super-zooms, fast 24 & 50 & 85 & macro tubes, 500mm mirror, flash, tripod, the P&S with IR filters -- and I used it all, and felt no remorse, and was much happier for having the right gear.

* * *

Were I intent on poster- and calendar-quality city- and land-scapes, I'd take my 6x6 and 6x9 fixed-lens folders and bags of 220 film. I have these options. I'm happy with them.

Either of those options is legitimate, and I have and still do use them. Bring this stuff along, and you may find a use for it, though you may not use it often. I have done trips, hikes, events, etc. where my primary focus was photography, and there is nothing wrong with that. It is not what I am doing in a few weeks, though, and it is probably not what most people do. My approach to travel is usually similar to yours (stay a while), but I think Lowell's approach to travel photography is more similar to mine.

My point, for my uses, really goes to the superzoom. As discussions do, it has taken on a life of its own. I do and will take with me a long lens and an ultra wide. I just don't think those need to be on my camera (or my neck) at all times stacked into a single lens. The performance of the 18-250 is almost exactly like combining the 18-55 I with the 50-200. I have the 18-55 I & II and the DA 50-200 and the DAL 55-300. It makes more sense to me to split the focal lengths and weight in half. More often, now I have a DA prime on the K-x, anyway.

The reality is that I keep putting a K135/2.5 or M 75-150/4 or M 200/4 in the bag for reach, and these DA zooms spend too much time parked in a drawer. Distant landscape or architectural shots already tend to look hazy and unsharp from the atmosphere and from hand-holding, and they often need a lot of lens snap to work. The long kit lenses (and superzooms) are good, but even in the well-regarded 55-300, I miss the clarity and speed of these old primes.

[rparmar]

I don't do 10-day 10-nation tours. I like to find a village and stay a few days or weeks or months. I'll use the superzoom for the first day or two, then use specific lenses for hours at a stretch, in rotation. Each forces me to see what's there differently.

That sounds cool.

In this day and age with baggage restrictions being what they are I am happy with the following: DA12-24 (since wide is essential in European cities), FA77 (to get longer shots and for speed), macro adapter for the latter (to get close).

That's it: two lenses and an adapter plus maybe a polarising filter. I generally take the FA43 as well, for lowlight interiors where the FA77 is too long. It can always sit in a pocket.

I have given up on monopods and tripods. They are fine for a staged shoot but I am not hauling them all over.

Very few shots would escape this small kit and I don't sweat it if they do.

[GeneV]

That sounds cool.

In this day and age with baggage restrictions being what they are I am happy with the following: DA12-24 (since wide is essential in European cities), FA77 (to get longer shots and for speed), macro adapter for the latter (so get close.

12-24 is definitely my next modern lens purchase. I've been using the roughly equivalent FOV with the Sigma 17-35 on film, and I can't get enough of it. A superzoom after my heart would be something like a 12-150.

[Marc Sabatella]

I'm sorry, but stuff DOES happen outside those ranges. Very interesting stuff. Stuff happens in the distance; or details are just beyond our reach.

True, but in my experience, the stuff that happens in the distance while traveling isn't usually any more interesting than the stuff that happens in the distance at home, and is far less interesting than the stuff that happens right around you while traveling. Looking at my own usage of my lenses while traveling, I use pretty much the whole range up to around 70mm and then it starts dropping rapidly. So having 50mm for my max wouldn't bother me as much as I might have thought a few years ago.

But I'd be lost without the 24-50 range, as I do the majority of my shooting there.

My simple travel kit would be either my DA15, M28/2.8, and DA40, or 18-55 plus the 40. But really, I have no problem also carrying my DA70 and/or M135/3.5 with me. Total weight of all these lenses is no more than that of a couple of zooms other might suggest. The way I shoot, I don't actually change lenses all that often, either, plus I'm good about changing while walking, so it doesn't particularly slow me down either. YMMV.

EDIT: a quick tally suggests the total weight of my 15, 28, 40, 70, and 135 is about 850g. Leaving the 135 at home would cut that to under 600g - less than that of the 16-50 alone. A 28-75 plus 10-20, 10-24, or 12-24 weighs over 900g. 18-55 plus 40 comes to barely over 300g.

[rparmar]

A superzoom after my heart would be something like a 12-150.

I doubt that would be possible, but who knows! I would be happy with 12-100mm.

[GeneV]

True, but in my experience, the stuff that happens in the distance while traveling isn't usually any more interesting than the stuff that happens in the distance at home, and is far less interesting than the stuff that happens right around you while traveling. Looking at my own usage of my lenses while traveling, I use pretty much the whole range up to around 70mm and then it starts dropping rapidly. So having 50mm for my max wouldn't bother me as much as I might have thought a few years ago.

But I'd be lost without the 24-50 range, as I do the majority of my shooting there.

My simple travel kit would be either my DA15, M28/2.8, and DA40, or 18-55 plus the 40. But really, I have no problem also carrying my DA70 and/or M135/3.5 with me. Total weight of all these lenses is no more than that of a couple of zooms other might suggest. The way I shoot, I don't actually change lenses all that often, either, plus I'm good about changing while walking, so it doesn't particularly slow me down either. YMMV.

EDIT: a quick tally suggests the total weight of my 15, 28, 40, 70, and 135 is about 850g. Leaving the 135 at home would cut that to under 600g - less than that of the 16-50 alone. A 28-75 plus 10-20, 10-24, or 12-24 weighs over 900g. 18-55 plus 40 comes to barely over 300g.

You are roughly in the same place I started and will probably remain. I may take more along in the luggage, but I will probably be walking around with the K-x and some DA ltds, or the kit plus a DA and/or M prime for some speed or reach. I'm usually not huge fan of the look of people shot with a long tele, though your shot of the pianist with the M 200/4 is changing my mind.

[GeneV]

I doubt that would be possible, but who knows! I would be happy with 12-100mm.

Actually, 12-100 is what I started to post.