[Silent Street]

I thought immediately of my lightweight, "bare minimum" 2-lens kit — often taken into areas where a lot of hard physical exertion is required, so I can certainly do without oodles of kilograms hindering/slowing movement, so I take the 45mm f4 and the 75mm f2.8AL. The 90mm f2.8 is a stand-by, but only taken once so far.

[civiletti]

I carried a 55mm, 90mm, and 165mm with the 6X7. A 45mm later replaced the 55mm. 165mm is not very long on that format.

[rdenney]

What’s terrible choice to have to make!

Last time I traveled with the 67, I took 35, 45, 55, 75PC, 105, 135, and 200. I actually used the 45 and 200–conditions were rainy and sleety, and I didn’t make many photos. But I might have used any of them.



The previous trip, I used the 35, 45, 75, and 135, but that was before I had the 200.



My advice is that if you need close focus, the 200 won’t help you. But with the 135, you can simply find compositions that work with it. Unless you are bringing a stout tripod, the 135 will be more forgiving, too.

Rick “who has a 300 in the mix now ” Denney

[gofour3]

45mm f4 and the 75mm f2.8AL

Hard to leave the 75/2.8 at home! I'd even just take it alone and skip everything else.

Phil.

---------- Post added 23-03-18 at 08:04 ----------

Last time I travelled with the 67, I took 35, 45, 55, 75PC, 105, 135, and 200

That must have been fun to carry!. Hopefully it was a driving trip with not a lot of walking.

Phil.

[rdenney]

Hard to leave the 75/2.8 at home! I'd even just take it alone and skip everything else.

Phil.

---------- Post added 23-03-18 at 08:04 ----------





That must have been fun to carry!. Hopefully it was a driving trip with not a lot of walking.



Phil.

Ha! I carried it across two large and one small airport. But when hiking, one leaves some lenses back in the hotel room.

Rick “not a trip into the back country” Denney

[tuco]

I have the 45, 55, 75, 90, 105, both 165s and a 300 EDIF. For me the two lenses that have floated to the top of walking around lenses after many years of using them all for that roll is the 55/4 and 105/2.8 for what it's worth.

[johnha]

Thanks for all the replies. I'm still undecided and have started to experiment with 45/75, 45/135 & 45/165 - although the differences in weight are starting to seem less significant than the usefulness of the lenses. A more pressing question is a bag to put it in - I usually carry a body, prism and 45/165 in a Lowe-pro backpack (along with my meter, film, lens hoods etc.) making quite a large bag. I can fit a body, prism and any two of the lenses in a much smaller bag - I have a smaller bag but it's probably not sturdy enough for the weight - I need to look for one.

I don’t have a direct answer to your 45/135/165 question, but I noted your acquisition of the 35/4 Fisheye. I purchased one of those pretty much on a whim and it is becoming one of my more-used lenses for the 67. I recently travelled to Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks this past summer with the 35/4 and the “middle” 55/4. All my shots were landscapes and turned out to be equally divided between the two lenses; I had expected to use the 55/4 much more than the fisheye, but it wasn’t the case.

I haven't used the Fish-eye much yet, but I was surprised how different it seems to work compared to my fish-eye for the 35mm format. Maybe the larger viewfinder doesn't squash everything up as much, maybe the larger format compensates somewhat for the lens properties.

I would go with the 45/165 combo. If you need closer focusing then you can add either an extension tube that can be used on either lens or a closeup attachment for the 165/2.8

The 35/4.5FE is also a great replacement for the 45/4 sometimes.

I hadn't thought of using an extension tube with the 165 - I will try that out. The FE feels a bit heavy and the front element feels a bit (very) vulnerable to go travelling with - however I will try it out.

After travelling all over the world with this system, I seemed to like lenses that are not widely spaced in field of view (FOV). You might find the 45/ 165 combination to be too widely spaced in FOV. A lot depends on YOUR shooting style tho. The 45/135 may work better.

This is a difficult question. I don't feel I can cover all the bases with two lenses (sometimes I will be able to carry a third). It feels like I should go wide & tele as opposed to wide and mild-tele. The 45 will get me the wide, but there always seems to be something when travelling that would benefit for more reach than a mild-tele (obviously a long-tele isn't really an option).

John.

---

Last edited by johnha; 04-03-2018 at 04:38 PM. Reason: Adding more quotes...