Is one single 50mm F1.4 on FF enough for a light travel lens kit?

[engrmariano]

just want to share my experience... off course, these is my personal preference...

-HK & SYD, we brought 550D + kitlens and 5D2 + 24-70. most of our shots was taken 18mm on 550D (widest) and 24mm on 5D2 (widest)...

-from my last travel to Caribbean, we brought 550D + kitlens, 5D2 + Sigma 85 1.4, & LX5. most of our shots was taken with kitlens at 18mm (widest) and LX5 at 24mm eq. (widest)...

-this CYN, we'll be heading to Melbourne, and im planning to bring 550D + 10-22, 5D2 + 50 1.8 and LX5...

 

[edutilos-]

I am personally not a big one for landscaping, I'm just wondering if a 50mm alone is enough to capture most things while travelling?

Do state your opinion if you feel that I'd regret using a single prime over a zoom. Thanks.

If you really want a single prime, something in the 35mm - 40mm range will be much more versatile when it comes to shooting.

 

[chewraisins]

50mm is a little too tight for my liking especially when travelling.

I like it wider so Canon's EF24mm f2.8 is on my cam most of the time when I'm travelling. I've got the 24-70L too but I usually choose not to bring when travelling coz of the size and weight (gotta carry stuff for the wifey too ).

Usual lens setup When travelling:
EF24 f2.8 + CV40 f2 (which I just sold and miss very much :cry

Cheers,
Andrew

 

[jamestyemk]

Hi all, not sure if this is the best sub-forum for this, but I'm threading on rather grey areas.

Basically would like to seek expertise of experienced travellers here.

I am personally not a big one for landscaping, I'm just wondering if a 50mm alone is enough to capture most things while travelling?

Situation: I am considering upgrading to FF to maximize my 135L. Yet, I'm trying to keep my budget down and travel light too. Admittedly, I'm one who loves sharp and large aperture primes. (35L is way too expensive for me).

Could use some recommendations for lens set ups. =) Thanks.

Do state your opinion if you feel that I'd regret using a single prime over a zoom. Thanks.

Looks like quite a lot to consider; purpose of the trip, how photo-worthy is the destination, ...

Myself not that frequent traveller either, but learned from each trip to plan for the next. In my earlier trips, tend to bring almost everything, except dry cabi - the just-in-case mentality. I did find moments for the use of each lens brought along; macro, telephoto, wide, low light...but end of the trip after recovering from the body aches, self-analysed that the rare use of most of the equipment didn't justify bringing them along. Subsequently bite the bullet to scale down, and had been surviving since Yes, there will still be situations where I wished to have brought this or that lens/accessory along, but no deep regrets, ultimately.

On a modern FF with fabulous noise control, I think u need not restrict yourself to a fast 50mm lens. A mid-range zoom, say 24-85, 24-105 or 28-135 (since u r not into landscapes) should be versatile enough.

 

[rainwhisper]

I have been using 5D for about 2 years. IMHO, 50mm F1.4 is not a kit lens but it is sufficient for most my short trip needs. You can consider taking 24-105mm F4, it is not super heavy compared to the 24-70mm.

 

[evilorgi]

Actually for travel, would prefer 24 or 35mm. Its not only taking Landscapes per se, but also of street/expansive feel to tell a story. 50mm on FF is pretty tight but still can take pix, just not as useful. But then you said too expensive.
24/35 FL 1.4 works extremely well for my travel needs.

yes i agree with you that 50mm on FF might be tight in some situations. but if 50mm suits your style of photography, why not. however i would advise that for traveling a wide angle would be more appropriate. 24/35L together with 135/200L. these 2 will be good compliment in my opinion...

 

[clioboy]

FF on 35L or 24-105

tat is really all u need imo

 

[nottipiglet]

I think a lot of opinions here are based on crop cameras. A 50mm on FF is like a 30mm on crop. It is wide enough for most purposes. In the days of our fathers... people just walked around with a 50mm.

Just last weekend, I went to Universal Studios with only my Sigma 30mm f/1.4 on crop (which is almost the same as 50mm on FF). Not very flexible, but workable. I wished I had my 17-55 with me though.

So, I think a 50mm would be sufficient for most shots. However, you will probably feel a bit tight at times. I do not agree with those who advice you to bring a wider lens, like 35mm f/2. I'm sure these people crop like crazy for most of their shots... which is not ideal.

 

[sinned79]

If I am travelling, I would usually bring a zoom lens because you often don't know what you are going to take next. In fact, the bigger the zoom range the better.

that's when i feel so L L :bsmilie: anyway i always resist the urge to do zoom shoots but sometimes really L L cos i dun have any zoom lens. :sweatsm:

 

[mfbatzap]

it really depends on your style i guess.. try out with a 50mm 1.8 and see whether it suits you?
IMO, 50mm on FF is almost to WYSIWYG!

when i went to japan, most shots were taken with 17-40L and there were times when I needed zoom which i used my 100mm macro. I brought 50mm 1.8 just for low light and coz it's damn light.. haha

 

[clioboy]

that's when i feel so L L :bsmilie: anyway i always resist the urge to do zoom shoots but sometimes really L L cos i dun have any zoom lens. :sweatsm:

hehhe..my partner will roll her eyes when i furiously swap lens when i need a longer focal range during our travels..:bsmilie:

now quite good at swapping lens quickly. ;p

 

[edutilos-]

I think a lot of opinions here are based on crop cameras. A 50mm on FF is like a 30mm on crop. It is wide enough for most purposes. In the days of our fathers... people just walked around with a 50mm.

Just last weekend, I went to Universal Studios with only my Sigma 30mm f/1.4 on crop (which is almost the same as 50mm on FF). Not very flexible, but workable. I wished I had my 17-55 with me though.

So, I think a 50mm would be sufficient for most shots. However, you will probably feel a bit tight at times. I do not agree with those who advice you to bring a wider lens, like 35mm f/2. I'm sure these people crop like crazy for most of their shots... which is not ideal.

Nope, I looked for 24/28mm when I wanted to use a walkabout prime.

Of course, no focal length is magic. Many photographers have different favorites. As long as they're in the right hands, most common focal lengths can be used to make pictures that are excellent. So why 40mm? I'd say that the 40mm focal length is special precisely because it's not special. Purely by convention, 50mm has long been considered the "normal" focal length for 35mm photography. Early WA's were 35mm. Many photographers have made a choice between these two focal lengths as their own "normals." Many, like myself, have switched back and forth. The truth is, neither of these common focal lengths are quite "normal" for 35mm. 50mm is just a touch long, and 35mm is just a touch wide. Using the diagonal of the format as the standard, the true normal would be about 42mm (curiously, that's about exactly a 28mm lens on an APS-C digital sensor). The various oddball "intermediate" focal lengths (38mm, 40mm, 43mm, and 45mm), although much less common, are actually closer to a true normal for the format.

Try it, you'll get what I mean.

http://photo.net/columns/mjohnston/column70/index.html

 

[Anthony Lee]

Nope, I looked for 24/28mm when I wanted to use a walkabout prime.
Try it, you'll get what I mean.

http://photo.net/columns/mjohnston/column70/index.html

I used to love both my 28mms on APS-C and when I switched to FF it was more difficult to find good 40-45mm FL. I tried to re-adjust to 35mm and at one point owned four 35mmf2s. There is a good OM 40f2, but very difficult to come by. Shud try the CV 40f2 ondeday. Fortunately, I use only manual focus lenses and they are pretty small, so I can afford to have 24, 35, 50, 100 ( add up to less than 1 kg) in my bag. The key is, each is less than 250gm and it's definitely much lighter and obscure around your neck when you are sight-seeing.

 

[blurry80]

I opted to bring 17-40 and 50mm 1.4 for my seoul trip. when i just need to record scenery, city scapes the wide end gives the image that extra character.
when i needed the pic to pop i'll change to the 50mm 1.4. I'm using a photorunner bag lens switching is very fast.
Didnt bring a flash on the entire trip.

 

[An drew]

that's when i feel so L L :bsmilie: anyway i always resist the urge to do zoom shoots but sometimes really L L cos i dun have any zoom lens. :sweatsm:

Go get a zoom lah. Don't be such a purist.

 

[spartacus.ret]

On a modern FF with fabulous noise control, I think u need not restrict yourself to a fast 50mm lens. A mid-range zoom, say 24-85, 24-105 or 28-135 (since u r not into landscapes) should be versatile enough.

i think that f/4 is slow.

and when you're nothing can substitute a good big aperture when you're already at iso 6400 and still not getting enough light.

 

[sinned79]

Go get a zoom lah. Don't be such a purist.

dun want lah too many lens liao :bsmilie:

 

[gundamseed84]

Well I think it depends on what you intend to take photos of during your trip. 50mm on FF can be sufficient as sometimes I travel with 35mm on crop body. For nice vast landscape what I will do is to do pano shots shooting portrait manner and stitch. Portrait and food shots 50mm works too.

One situation might be say if you want to shoot in the middle of a night bazzar (street shots) then 50mm might not be wide enough and can't really do a pano shots since people are moving.

If you have the lens, try go to town one day with just your 50mm and try a variety of photo shoots to see if you are comfortable with it or not.

 

[KangS]

Really depends on what you want to shoot, and your preferred style.

Personally, the most often used lens when I travel is my Sigma 12-24mm on my 5DmkII. Mainly because I like 'expansive' takes on landscapes and the very up close and personal shots with people.

There are of course conditions which will require you to shoot from a distance so, it really depends.

For a single prime lens solution? I would think the 35mm would be more flexible. But if you're adapt at stitching software, then a 50mm would be better. Tested with photoshop, 50mm tends to get much better results with stitching compared to focal lengths below that.

 

[2100]

Just last weekend, I went to Universal Studios with only my Sigma 30mm f/1.4 on crop (which is almost the same as 50mm on FF). Not very flexible, but workable. I wished I had my 17-55 with me though.

So, I think a 50mm would be sufficient for most shots. However, you will probably feel a bit tight at times. I do not agree with those who advice you to bring a wider lens, like 35mm f/2. I'm sure these people crop like crazy for most of their shots... which is not ideal.

Not really lah....I have the Sig 30/1.4 on crop (45mm), I also shoot at 24/35. Generally I do not crop for all my shots be it for commercial or for leisure trips 99.8% of the time (2 out of 1000, serious)....ie I do shoot quite a fair bit, esp compared to hobbyists, of course no bearing on quality LOL!. Anyway that's pretty much how you get better in photography also. But I'd guess, a lot would be unable to use say a 24/1.4 properly....use it like how you'd use a 35mm onwards and you are pretty much dead unless its intended to be that way. There's also a 24/2.8 and why its there.

Heck just get a 550D and 17-50/2.8 tammy, cheap and good and you get veedio too.