Thanks to all for your comments.
(To clarify one point: it is true that the purpose of the trip (for
my wife anyway) is to see the sights and enjoy and explore a new
place. However, much of my pleasure in travel is the challenge of
capturing images that will go beyond postcards in representing the
essence of a locale. So, the purpose is not photography but
photography is nevertheless an important part of the trip.)
To summarize, everyone who has commented agrees with the principle
that fewer lenses is better. Now, we know that this is not true as a
general conclusion, but for the particular case of a non-photo
tourist trip, less is more. Some advocate a few primes, more advocate
a mix of one good zoom plus a prime or two to cover additional FOV's,
and some would opt for the two-zoom solution.
Sasha's comment about reviewing past trips to see what has been used
is an excellent one. In fact my brother (and fellow Pentaxian) told
me the same thing when I discussed this dilemma with him last week.
So, I pulled up the Lightroom data...
On my Venice trip two years ago my "primary" camera was a K10D, my
secondary was a *ist-D. This time both cameras are the same (K20) and
some of the lenses are different so the data doesn't exactly apply,
but for what it is worth, here is the profile:
Primary (K10)
14 89 images
16-45 37 images
21 985
50-200 638
43 351
77 721
100 73
Secondary (*ist-D)
14 0
16-45 166
21 8
50-200 71
43 72
77 73
100 19
Conclusions that might be drawn:
• On this trip I used my secondary camera relatively little.
• When I did use the secondary, it was mostly with the wide zoom.
• The 21mm was the most used lens overall (and at the times I had
that on my primary, the 50-200 was probably on my secondary).
• The 77mm was the second-most used lens (and at the times I had that
on my primary, the 16-45 was probably on the secondary).
• The long zoom was used more than the wide zoom.
What surprised me most when going back and looking at the data was
the relatively light use of the 16-45 and the heavy use of the 21.
Consolidated, rank-ordered data:
21 993
77 794
50-200 709
43 423
16-45 203
100 92
14 89
My tentative travel kit, based on your comments and on this data:
1. Outdoor, streets and scenics: P = 50-135, S = 21
2. Indoors, churches and such: P = 77 , S = 16-50
3. Evening walking-around kit: S = 43 [unless I cannot resist the
temptation of the new 55/1.4!]
4. The 14 and 100 will stay home. As will the 50mm's and the 135.
I'll probably stick in the AF1.7x as Bob Sullivan suggests. Although
I have been pondering the possibility of taking the 14 and leaving
behind the 16-50...
[ P = primary, with vertical grip; S = Secondary, no grip.]
Thanks again to all for your good comments and suggestions.
Even you Joe! I am not sure if you were serious with your suggestion
of the X70, but that was an option I had considered.
stan
On Mar 21, 2009, at 1:38 PM, Joseph McAllister wrote:
So much has been thrown your way by now, your brain is probably
reeling. I know mine is.
Go for a X70 and carry nothing else but a half dozen 8 gig SDHC
cards. Shoot HD movies when appropriate. Spend more time at the
computer post-processing than the length of your vacation. :-)
http://www.pentaximaging.com/digital-camera/X70/
On Mar 21, 2009, at 09:45 , Sasha Sobol wrote:
Hi Stan,
I would carry 21mm, 50-135mm and one other prime (35mm, or 43mm in
your case).
OT: I would also think what filters you want (polarizer for sure, uv
for protection, may be even graduated nd?) It is good then your
lenses can share some filters.
I I were you I would scan through your recent photos and try to
identify most used (and valued by you) cases: focal length, aperture,
etc.
Joseph McAllister
Lots of gear, not much time
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
