Travelling with just a prime?

V

vala

Messages
118
Edit My Images
No
Has anyone done this?
What did they think?

With regards to my active CSC thread, I've been thinking about my upcoming trip to California in Sept and the feasibility of just taking a prime. A few years ago I went to China and travelled from Beijing to HK, and there I used a 10-22 and 28mm. I was very happy with the pictures I took and tbh very rarely would a longer FL been nicer to have.
Which is making me think could I use a CSC with just a 35mm for example...
 
I do it whenever I travel. The last couple of years I've only taken an x100(s) with ne as well
 
vala said:
boyfalldown - what lens did you take?
Click to expand...


I was taking just a 35mm, until I got the Fuji thats fixed at 23 (35mm field of view). Taking the fuji tends to mean I get a much friendlier response to
 
boliston - do you use an APS-C or FF sensor body?
boyfalldown - when you used a 35mm lens was this on an APS-C or FF body?

Did either of you found it hindered your shots you were capturing?
 
vala said:
boliston - do you use an APS-C or FF sensor body?
boyfalldown - when you used a 35mm lens was this on an APS-C or FF body?

Did either of you found it hindered your shots you were capturing?
Click to expand...


Full Frame for me. Never hindered me, but I tend to look for photos that work at 35mm.
 
We've taken primes only when travelling and never proved any issues. We're into city life etc, but worked just as well when up in the alps.
 
Catching Salmon - thanks for your reply.

I'm seriously considering going with a prime option (possibly 35mm) to go with my future CSC purchase.
 
No problem, we took a 35mm, 50mm, 10-22mm, none at the same time and had a great time each time. Never once had that feeling of missing opportunities.
 
It's completely personal though, some people love shooting with all kinds of focal lengths all the time. Others are more than happy with one.

In the past I've always just taken one DSLR and a 24-70. In future I will probably only take my x100s - much less intrusive, and lets you get on with enjoying being in the place rather than being there to take photos.
 
I'm astounded really that many people think that they must take a bagfull of lenses (with overlapping focal lengths) wherever they go. I think it may be a sort of avoidance technique. The essence of photography isn't in what you possess!

Yes, go out for an extended period with one lens. Lose yourself, and find yourself. Forget regret. Technique (though it often helps) and possessions in themselves are no substitues for passion.
 
I usually only use one lens, something around 40-50mm with a wide aperture.
 
droj said:
I'm astounded really that many people think that they must take a bagfull of lenses (with overlapping focal lengths) wherever they go. I think it may be a sort of avoidance technique. The essence of photography isn't in what you possess!

Yes, go out for an extended period with one lens. Lose yourself, and find yourself. Forget regret. Technique (though it often helps) and possessions in themselves are no substitues for passion.
Click to expand...

I agree with this wholeheartedly. I used to lug all of my gear on holiday ( much to my wife's annoyance ) but this year I took my xf1. Wifey thought I'd gone mad.

I enjoyed it so much more and took some great shots so I made the right decision.
 
droj said:
I'm astounded really that many people think that they must take a bagfull of lenses (with overlapping focal lengths) wherever they go. I think it may be a sort of avoidance technique. The essence of photography isn't in what you possess!
Click to expand...

Find the book England Observed by John Gay. Superb documentary images of England in the 40s, 50s and 60s captured with just the normal field of view of a Rolleiflex. This book is my antidote to wanting to get new gear.


Steve.
 
Before I started this thread I near enough sold on the idea due to my past experience and also what lens stays mostly on my DSLR (28mm 1.8). However reading through the post being made it's just confirmed it. Something like a 35mm on a CSC will be similar to what I currently have just without the bulk.
 
Before I started this thread I near enough sold on the idea due to my past experience and also what lens stays mostly on my DSLR (28mm 1.8). However reading through the post being made it's just confirmed it. Something like a 35mm on a CSC will be similar to what I currently have just without the bulk.
 
One DSLR body and a 24-70 offer so much more than a CSC with a 35mm prime. Why wouldn't you just take a decent zoom.

I went to Newcastle and would have missed the Quayside view, millenium bridge with just a prime, I used 24mm. 70mm all within that weekend and it was great.
 
Last edited:
droj said:
I'm astounded really that many people think that they must take a bagfull of lenses (with overlapping focal lengths) wherever they go.
Click to expand...

Me too. Use one focal length for long enough and the pretty much the only pictures you see are the ones that lens will make.
 
I did three days in NY with a 35mm on a FF. Enjoyed only having that one lens and made me think a bit more about the shots I was taking.
 
After a while using primes you start to 'see' in that focal length and mentally know what compositions work. To that end I've never missed a zoom when I've left one at home. I did used to take my 28-70 F2.8 away with me but got fed up with the weight and bulk of it swinging around all day. Each to their own though, I much prefer travelling light either with a compact or primes, others prefer the flexibility of a dslr and zooms.
 
Its a personal choice - I've done Paris and Italy with basically just a 35mm equivalent (24mm f2.8 on D7000 in Paris) and my old Sigma 35mm f1.4 on a D600 in Italy and loved it - certainly made me think about my shooting a bit more.

Sold it and now have a 24-70 f2.8 that I'm sure would do a cracking job as well but for travel I think I'd be more tempted to take a prime
 
It for me would depend on the targets, destination (California is hardly specific (affluent area safe less affluent less safe etc)) and lighting. Vistas 35mm or equivalent. People 85mm. But given the size of the nifty you are duty bound to. Why then not take a fast low end tele to save the luggage space. Or having just read Kelbys book and he opts for the 18-200 leaving the expensive glass home. More detail on where you are heading and what you are shooting might produce more accurate comment ;-)
 
Thanks for the replies.
The size and weight is what is off putting to myself when travelling with multiple lenses (or just a zoom).
The whole point of me making the switch from DSLR to CSC is just that, the size and weight.
With regards to a prime, it's the lens that was on my DSLR the most the last time I went away travelling and to be honest spends it life being my most favoured lens.
Having had options on me before I do find I would tend to use the prime.
A reason for this thread was once my DSLR equipment is sold I will limit myself to just 1 lens and the body. I guess deep down I think this is the right choice (CSC and a prime) but as the option of other lens won't be available to me I just wanted reassurance.
 
X100 - I'm heading to San Francisco, LA, Vegas and San Diego. Might be making a trip to Tijuana but that'll be decided whilst I'm out there.
 
I already have a 24/2.8 and 50/1.8 for my new D610 and I'm debating about adding a Nikon 70-200/4 to it to make a lightweight travel kit which would cover most things - worked it out earlier and it would weigh 2.1kg for all 4 items which is pretty bloody good I think.
 
I generally take the D800 plus my 24-70 lens and a couple of filters in a small beg. Exception to the rule was in June this year went to the Fjords on a cruise, I thought maybe I might need my 70-200 lens and I found these to much to carry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
ST4 said:
Which limits you to a particular style, take the pictures you want, not what your gear choices limit you to. For travel to a city a zoom just opens up so many doors.
Click to expand...
i guess my "style" seems to fit 28mm best - have tried a 50 & 35 but just seem to prefer the "look" of a 28
 
I am just not the sort of person who takes holidays just for say sitting on the beach or by the pool,i always have planed my holidays around photographer,so i take the gear i need :)
 
vala said:
itsdavedotnet - do you use a 35 or 85 on a APS-C or FF body?
Click to expand...
full frame. Crop would be far too long on those lengths.

As someone else said, you do start to 'see' in focal lengths. I also don't really like the physical size of the 24-70, either for travel or for photographing people - it's very invasive. I use it when I must but for much of my work stick to primes.
 
vala said:
X100 - I'm heading to San Francisco, LA, Vegas and San Diego. Might be making a trip to Tijuana but that'll be decided whilst I'm out there.
Click to expand...
Nice trip. San Fran is a life study for a photog. LA never been.... Yet. Vegas hmm off camera flash in the bag as fill lighting. San Diego I never broke from the night life so can't help.
As far as a prime it was the X100 (35 equiv) that rekindled my interest in photography ergo depleted my bank balance. There are plenty vistas in the four Stateside cities for sure (hope you get a cloud wrapped Golden Gate Bridge ). I witnessed a lovely misty morning there minus my camera (had a georgeous companion at my side to offset the loss and heighten the memory so all was not lost).
 
swiftflo said:
I generally take the D800 plus my 24-70 lens and a couple of filters in a small beg. Exception to the rule was in June this year went to the Fjords on a cruise, I thought maybe I might need my 70-200 lens and I found these to much to carry.
Click to expand...

Proper set up, D800 24-70. Great for travel. Tripod and a couple of filters, everything you need and it goes in a small rucksack
 
Last edited:
Jayst84 said:
It's completely personal though, some people love shooting with all kinds of focal lengths all the time. Others are more than happy with one.

In the past I've always just taken one DSLR and a 24-70. In future I will probably only take my x100s - much less intrusive, and lets you get on with enjoying being in the place rather than being there to take photos.
Click to expand...

Agree'd, it worked for us, each to their own though!
 
I have just been to San Francisco and to be honest I need 2 lenses, my 17-70 and my 70-200 just so varying a place. Just loved it
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top