I typically take 3 primes and 2 cameras. Primes are 25, 40 and 85 and the second camera is just a backup. I will use one of the primes for an entire day, then switch to another prime and cover the place again. This allows me to view the place in a totally different perspective and keeps my interest of the place with new views.
Personally I would not travel to a location with only one focal length.
It's really so, so dependent on each person that while exploring the breadth of possibilities as a starting point is foundational, declaring any sort of 'best' hierarchy of approach or one vs the other in a vacuum is meaningless... sometimes what sounds nice in theory you try in practice and realize 'I loved the sound of this, it made sense, it's logical... But I don't actually like doing it/it prevents me from getting '___' when I shoot, etc, and that negatively impacts my work.' I think you have to try everything, and then hone into what allows you to pursue your curiosity relentlessly, the line of investigative discovery will streamline your process better than any comparison of technical jargon or endless pixel-peeping. What works for the greats or the loudest reviewers may not apply to you in the slightest, your real understanding begins when you start doing vs analyzing in perpetuity
We had the privilege of being allowed on the floor of the tannery amongst the vats, or rather on the wet, slippery, narrow edges of the ledges of the concrete vats lined with half treated hides, the vats being filled with noxious chemicals. One slip and we would have joined the workers along with our equipment, or worse slipped and fallen while jumping from one ledge to another with possibility of breaking our skulls.
I raise my hat to these workers submersed on a daily basis in appalling conditions in the blazing heat often without any protection for twelve hours a day.
Most are young and fit, rather than the geriatric, arthritic and frail photographers that it pains me to say who were trying their best to stay alive.
Like you, Chez, I always travel with two cameras and multiple lenses.
I have thought about this a lot, and I have come to the conclusion that I do best when I limit myself to one or maybe two lenses at a time. I have acquired a lot of gear, mainly lenses, over the years, so I do rotate what lens I am using. But my focal length preferences are very limited--24mm to 90mm at a stretch and mainly 35mm-50mm.
If I am trying to "cover" something like a travel location or a family barbecue, I will often use a zoom. But otherwise, I think I usually do better with a single focal length at a time. I am experimenting with using a Sony 24-50 zoom and a very small and light Sigma 18-50 APS-C on full-frame (effective focal length of 27 to 75) for photographing my lithe and leaping grandchildren with their parents.
For an upcoming trip to Naples and Sicily in October, I am thinking about taking two small bodies, a 24-50 and a 16-25 Sony zoom, with a Sigma i seires 24/3.5, 45/2.8 or 50/2/0, and 90/2.8. I would take the two zooms and one prime out with me each day, with each mounted on an A7CR. Travel is mostly a coverage situation for me. I may experiement with using my i Phone for the "coverage" shots and using an A7CR with one of the above five lenses for shots that aspire to go beyond coverage. I also like Chez's selection of lenses--the three Batises are wonderful and can cover a lot in a beautiful and inspiring way. I could take those three instead of the Sigma lenses.
Sometimes I think the zooms are all about FOMO on an image. But I think that in truth not getting a satisfying image has almost nothing to do with what gear you have with you. There is always an image to be had, if one can see it. To torment and inspire myslef, I sometimes wonder what Henri Cartier Bresson would have done with the various situations I have wandered through with my camera.
Of the three photographers you site, I most like Leiter, one of my all-time favorite photographers, and Sebastiao Salgado, whose photography I deeply admire and enjoy viewing but whose style is entirely removed from anything I ever try to do. Leiter always worked with simple gear and photogrpahed within a few blocks of where he lived. Some of his best shots, usually of women he was involved with, were made in his apartment. But I love his images of the city also.
Moriyama's images have never appealed to me. If you like his work, you might enjoy seeing some of Jeff Ascough's >recent< videos on street shooting where he undertakes something similar using his Leica. But I much prefer the documentary wedding work for which he is justly famous, most of it made with a limited set of Canon gear, that contains so many wonderfully beaurtiful images.
theHUN wrote:
...
Zooming with my feet forces me to explore the area around a subject, and sometimes this reveals other/better subjects.
...
This is the essence of framing. Being engaged with the subject, composing.
I have an existential crisis every time I need to choose gear for a trip. It’s generally not because I have too much stuff (I do). Zooms or primes? A macro? Backup bodies? Gah! It’s just too stressful. I know it’s just analysis paralysis. But I do it anyway.
Part of it is that Oz is a long way from everywhere else. Even Perth is 5 hours flying plus 2 driving. A trip is an event, not a long weekend. That thought gets into my head and off I go down the rabbit hole. At home I’ll just sling a camera over my shoulder and head out. That’s preferably be a 43 but a 50 is fine. Sometimes a 70 or 90 as well. When I was working I had defined work kits. If I shot a wedding it was bag *a* and if it was for a financial report bag *b* etc. Travel is harder. Mostly because I don’t always do the same type of travel. But really because I must just like a crisis.
My general rule is to take the largest sensor that will get the job done. So I’ll roll up with a Hasselblad or a GFX or both. For specialised trips like hiking, wildlife etc, I’ll choose something more nimble. That part is easy. It’s almost always what lenses? What sized tripod? Which filters (I like using filters)?
The next trip is to Botswana and I’m in crisis about which wide zoom to take. It’s 90% wildlife so that makes it mostly easy. Long lenses and a pair of A1ii’s. But what about Victoria falls? I have three days with helicopter flights and bush walks around the falls and maybe some portrait opportunities. Do I take the 20-70 for size and weight or the 28-70 for the f2 aperture? Do I take the 20-70 and sneak in a Q3-43? I’ll have a 300 2.8 and a 400-800. Do I bother with a 1.4x so I can shoot 420/f4 at dawn? 70-200 or the fabulous 50-150? ARRRGH!
Only once in 50 trips have I regretted a gear choice. I know it’s daft. I know I need just the basics and the less I carry the happier I’ll be. Two bodies and three lenses is almost always what I actually end up shooting, unless it’s specialised. But I still manage to do this crap every trip. Every single trip. Fortunately, once I’m actually on the plane I just let it go and work with what I have.
I truely envy those who can shoot a single lens and be content. I’ve certainly tried it. Even did a three month stint once to really try. Hated it. Mostly I know I’ll be OK with a 21, 43 and a 90. But I still have this urge to pack a few zooms, every damn trip….
johnvanr wrote:
I do too. Hence, I have too much stuff. Can never take it all anywhere.
I go to a few places here in Vienna at night to have a smoke and often take a camera, picking different ones each night. Even then, I sometimes wish I'd brought another camera or a zoom because of something that happens in front of my eyes. And that's a place a few minutes away from where I live and I can go back to all the time.
That's totally different for me, as I'm not into PJ street type work.
It's been decades since I spent years in Europe so I don't know the customs vs. laws there now.
I'd probably limit gear in public to get less attention, but that's just me.
flash wrote:
I have an existential crisis every time I need to choose gear for a trip. It’s generally not because I have too much stuff (I do). Zooms or primes? A macro? Backup bodies? Gah! It’s just too stressful. I know it’s just analysis paralysis. But I do it anyway.
Part of it is that Oz is a long way from everywhere else. Even Perth is 5 hours flying plus 2 driving. A trip is an event, not a long weekend. That thought gets into my head and off I go down the rabbit hole. At home I’ll just sling a camera over my shoulder and head out. That’s preferably be a 43 but a 50 is fine. Sometimes a 70 or 90 as well. When I was working I had defined work kits. If I shot a wedding it was bag *a* and if it was for a financial report bag *b* etc. Travel is harder. Mostly because I don’t always do the same type of travel. But really because I must just like a crisis.
My general rule is to take the largest sensor that will get the job done. So I’ll roll up with a Hasselblad or a GFX or both. For specialised trips like hiking, wildlife etc, I’ll choose something more nimble. That part is easy. It’s almost always what lenses? What sized tripod? Which filters (I like using filters)?
The next trip is to Botswana and I’m in crisis about which wide zoom to take. It’s 90% wildlife so that makes it mostly easy. Long lenses and a pair of A1ii’s. But what about Victoria falls? I have three days with helicopter flights and bush walks around the falls and maybe some portrait opportunities. Do I take the 20-70 for size and weight or the 28-70 for the f2 aperture? Do I take the 20-70 and sneak in a Q3-43? I’ll have a 300 2.8 and a 400-800. Do I bother with a 1.4x so I can shoot 420/f4 at dawn? 70-200 or the fabulous 50-150? ARRRGH!
Only once in 50 trips have I regretted a gear choice. I know it’s daft. I know I need just the basics and the less I carry the happier I’ll be. Two bodies and three lenses is almost always what I actually end up shooting, unless it’s specialised. But I still manage to do this crap every trip. Every single trip. Fortunately, once I’m actually on the plane I just let it go and work with what I have.
I truely envy those who can shoot a single lens and be content. I’ve certainly tried it. Even did a three month stint once to really try. Hated it. Mostly I know I’ll be OK with a 21, 43 and a 90. But I still have this urge to pack a few zooms, every damn trip….
Botswana is tougher than some places due to the small aircraft. I've done nearly two dozen African safaris and take varying amounts. Once I took all this to Kenya: 24-70, 70-200, 100-400, 200-400/4, 500/4, three TCs, and four camera bodies (2 were big pro bodies). It was definitely too much and it practically killed me although I was younger back in the DSLR era.
Now I focus more on capturing 95% the best on each project rather than having gear to capture 99%, which may not be practical or necessary anyway. I think that is a good policy anywhere.
I found that zoom lenses make me lazy, and got rid of them a while ago. On a recent trip to Sicily I shot probably 90% of all photos with a 35mm lens. The remaining 10% with a 28mm (24mm might have been better), and an 85mm. All of them 2.8. Never felt I missed out on a shot. And my shoulder definitely prefers carrying less weight.
mapgraphs wrote:
This is the essence of framing. Being engaged with the subject, composing.
But I approach my subjects, compositions, framing etc… totally different if I have a 24mm lens versus and 85mm lens. I use the 24mm to get very intimate with the subject, getting right into their space if you would. With the 85mm, I’m more stand blackish and looking more to isolate the subject. That’s why I love multiple lenses and given the lens on the camera, I approach my photography differently.
I just finished a a 4-5 year period where all I really shot was 35mm lenses on rangefinders. Multiple different 35mm lenses, but pretty much just that one focal length. You know, the less is more mantra, really learn that one focal length, learn to use your feet, blah, blah, blah. And all that contains an element of truth. Recently though I've been dabbling with some different focal lengths, back to 50mm (still my least favorite), and widening out to 28mm and 21mm ect. Heck, even been seeing shots recently for a short tele. It's fun to experience something new, learn a new way of seeing, or return to something. By and large I think creative types like variety, and that can come in many varieties from traveling to different places to using different type of gear. Really, no one correct answer, long as stuff is used to create decent photos. No believer in gear that sits on a shelf or acquired for some theoretical use -- done some of that myself. One caveat is that when you're out in the field taking pics, then, for me, less is generally more. So my own theory is that it's ok to have a lot of equipment for variety, long as you actually use it in some meaningful way, but don't overload yourself on any given day. At least that's my current thinking. Anyway, photography has never been an end it itself for me; always just a means to an end.
johnvanr wrote:
True. But when does one make the choice? Before going out? At post-production. David Allen Harvey once shot Formula 1 with his Leica M kit. That's an obvious prior choice, for example. Not sure I could do that.
In some regard, it depends on how you "travel" with your gear.
By that, I mean are you taking out a single body, with a single lens and no bag, just in your hand or on a strap.
Or, do you take out a bag with multiple bodies / lenses, or just a small bag, etc.
Generally speaking, I have a small bag with two different bodies, and a different focal length for each body ... so, it's a bit like "Missiles or Guns".
Sometimes that combo might be 24 / 50 or 24 / 85. Other times, I might want to roll with 35 / 75 or 35 / 85. Those are my most common combo's that cover a lot of ground, without packing a lot of gear (or lugging large zooms).
Other times, I may go out with a single body, single lens for a "walkabout". For those, I'm considering not so much what I "might run into" ... rather, how do I want to engage the world. I've gone out with everything from UWA to supertele for a walkabout.
Oddly enough, even when I carry multiple options ... I wind up sticking with mostly one lens, until I decide to shift how I want to engage things. Noting again, that the decision is NOT about what I might run into, but knowing how I want to engage. I'm not switching focal lengths because of what I run into. I'm switching focal lengths, because I want to engage differently.
For those who only shoot with a single focal length ... it isn't about the subject matter that has them making that determination. Rather, it is because the DON'T WANT to engage their world any other way. Learning to understand how YOU WANT to engage the world will be key to getting your carry / FOMO streamlined.
For me it's about fully knowing my vision and how I will ultimately present my vision of life and the world as I see it. That along with the way I compose, process and print hopefully translates to a personal way of seeing. Like DeCarava once said:
"You should be able to look at me and see my work. You should be able to look at my work and see me."-Roy DeCarava
chez wrote:
I typically take 3 primes and 2 cameras. Primes are 25, 40 and 85 and the second camera is just a backup. I will use one of the primes for an entire day, then switch to another prime and cover the place again. This allows me to view the place in a totally different perspective and keeps my interest of the place with new views.
Personally I would not travel to a location with only one focal length.
I do like that approach, but still find myself opting for a zoom quite often.
J2323 wrote:
It's really so, so dependent on each person that while exploring the breadth of possibilities as a starting point is foundational, declaring any sort of 'best' hierarchy of approach or one vs the other in a vacuum is meaningless... sometimes what sounds nice in theory you try in practice and realize 'I loved the sound of this, it made sense, it's logical... But I don't actually like doing it/it prevents me from getting '___' when I shoot, etc, and that negatively impacts my work.' I think you have to try everything, and then hone into what allows you to pursue your curiosity relentlessly, the line of investigative discovery will streamline your process better than any comparison of technical jargon or endless pixel-peeping. What works for the greats or the loudest reviewers may not apply to you in the slightest, your real understanding begins when you start doing vs analyzing in perpetuity...Show more →
Of course, it's personal. That's why I said this isn't about the best. It's about gathering impressions from others to inform others. Personally, as I've also said, I'm all over the board. Unlike some, I don't think I can really change that. I think I will always adjust to what I expect and not be able to narrow down a particular style or kit, no matter how attractive that sounds.
For example, when I do street, I look for so many different triggers: shades/tones, color, isolation, layers, action, faces, etc. I sometimes wish I could focus on one thing, but it's not me, I guess. Likewise, when I think about capturing a place, I try not to use too many preconceived notions and I don't want to narrow a place down to those notions or my prejudices. That can also mean to not take the typical gear.
flash wrote:
I have an existential crisis every time I need to choose gear for a trip. It’s generally not because I have too much stuff (I do). Zooms or primes? A macro? Backup bodies? Gah! It’s just too stressful. I know it’s just analysis paralysis. But I do it anyway.
Part of it is that Oz is a long way from everywhere else. Even Perth is 5 hours flying plus 2 driving. A trip is an event, not a long weekend. That thought gets into my head and off I go down the rabbit hole. At home I’ll just sling a camera over my shoulder and head out. That’s preferably be a 43 but a 50 is fine. Sometimes a 70 or 90 as well. When I was working I had defined work kits. If I shot a wedding it was bag *a* and if it was for a financial report bag *b* etc. Travel is harder. Mostly because I don’t always do the same type of travel. But really because I must just like a crisis.
My general rule is to take the largest sensor that will get the job done. So I’ll roll up with a Hasselblad or a GFX or both. For specialised trips like hiking, wildlife etc, I’ll choose something more nimble. That part is easy. It’s almost always what lenses? What sized tripod? Which filters (I like using filters)?
The next trip is to Botswana and I’m in crisis about which wide zoom to take. It’s 90% wildlife so that makes it mostly easy. Long lenses and a pair of A1ii’s. But what about Victoria falls? I have three days with helicopter flights and bush walks around the falls and maybe some portrait opportunities. Do I take the 20-70 for size and weight or the 28-70 for the f2 aperture? Do I take the 20-70 and sneak in a Q3-43? I’ll have a 300 2.8 and a 400-800. Do I bother with a 1.4x so I can shoot 420/f4 at dawn? 70-200 or the fabulous 50-150? ARRRGH!
Only once in 50 trips have I regretted a gear choice. I know it’s daft. I know I need just the basics and the less I carry the happier I’ll be. Two bodies and three lenses is almost always what I actually end up shooting, unless it’s specialised. But I still manage to do this crap every trip. Every single trip. Fortunately, once I’m actually on the plane I just let it go and work with what I have.
I truely envy those who can shoot a single lens and be content. I’ve certainly tried it. Even did a three month stint once to really try. Hated it. Mostly I know I’ll be OK with a 21, 43 and a 90. But I still have this urge to pack a few zooms, every damn trip….
EB-1 wrote:
That's totally different for me, as I'm not into PJ street type work.
It's been decades since I spent years in Europe so I don't know the customs vs. laws there now.
I'd probably limit gear in public to get less attention, but that's just me.
EBH
Europe is just like the US in that regard: in some places, it's not smart to lug a lot of stuff around. In other places, you're perfectly fine.
I sometimes think I'm messed up by my early interest in photo journalism, with its focus on being ready for whatever comes your way. So, for a long time, my gear interest revolved around f/2.8 zooms. That's not true in general anymore, though, because I hate carrying a lot of gear.
RustyBug wrote:
In some regard, it depends on how you "travel" with your gear.
By that, I mean are you taking out a single body, with a single lens and no bag, just in your hand or on a strap.
Or, do you take out a bag with multiple bodies / lenses, or just a small bag, etc.
Generally speaking, I have a small bag with two different bodies, and a different focal length for each body ... so, it's a bit like "Missiles or Guns".
Sometimes that combo might be 24 / 50 or 24 / 85. Other times, I might want to roll with 35 / 75 or 35 / 85. Those are my most common combo's that cover a lot of ground, without packing a lot of gear (or lugging large zooms).
Other times, I may go out with a single body, single lens for a "walkabout". For those, I'm considering not so much what I "might run into" ... rather, how do I want to engage the world. I've gone out with everything from UWA to supertele for a walkabout.
Oddly enough, even when I carry multiple options ... I wind up sticking with mostly one lens, until I decide to shift how I want to engage things. Noting again, that the decision is NOT about what I might run into, but knowing how I want to engage. I'm not switching focal lengths because of what I run into. I'm switching focal lengths, because I want to engage differently.
For those who only shoot with a single focal length ... it isn't about the subject matter that has them making that determination. Rather, it is because the DON'T WANT to engage their world any other way. Learning to understand how YOU WANT to engage the world will be key to getting your carry / FOMO streamlined. ...Show more →
I recently traveled from Europe to the USA. There, I was in NYC and in Utah. I brought different kits for those different places, but like you, once there, I often found myself using the same lens over and over. I have the feeling I used to change lenses way more when I was younger.
It is highly depend on what you want to shoot. A single focal just won’t do if you shoot landscape but could be totally fine for street.
A single 24-105/120 will do for me in 95% but I never really enjoy using it. Ultimate flexibility sounds great on paper but always end up with less thought on composition by not changing to optimized perspective.
I faced similar struggle as Gordon to select gear for travel on not only which body to bring but also focal length and speed of the lenses simply because I also have too much gears. One day, I know I will truly trim down to 2 body 3 lens total on everything. This basically means give up on gear and find fun on photography itself. (It is hard though as each brand just have some unique body and lens attract me.)
Like many here, 3 lens two body work the best: 28ish 50ish and 90ish. Though I always bring more lens such as 21 with me just in case but end up using 3 focal 99% of time. I heavily use stitch to cover some composition need. It is not perfect and I wish I have a zoom sometime but like anything in life, there is no perfect solution.
It is not only about end result but also enjoyment. I feel this works for me the best.
chiron wrote:
I have thought about this a lot, and I have come to the conclusion that I do best when I limit myself to one or maybe two lenses at a time. I have acquired a lot of gear, mainly lenses, over the years, so I do rotate what lens I am using. But my focal length preferences are very limited--24mm to 90mm at a stretch and mainly 35mm-50mm.
If I am trying to "cover" something like a travel location or a family barbecue, I will often use a zoom. But otherwise, I think I usually do better with a single focal length at a time. I am experimenting with using a Sony 24-50 zoom and a very small and light Sigma 18-50 APS-C on full-frame (effective focal length of 27 to 75) for photographing my lithe and leaping grandchildren with their parents.
For an upcoming trip to Naples and Sicily in October, I am thinking about taking two small bodies, a 24-50 and a 16-25 Sony zoom, with a Sigma i seires 24/3.5, 45/2.8 or 50/2/0, and 90/2.8. I would take the two zooms and one prime out with me each day, with each mounted on an A7CR. Travel is mostly a coverage situation for me. I may experiement with using my i Phone for the "coverage" shots and using an A7CR with one of the above five lenses for shots that aspire to go beyond coverage. I also like Chez's selection of lenses--the three Batises are wonderful and can cover a lot in a beautiful and inspiring way. I could take those three instead of the Sigma lenses.
Sometimes I think the zooms are all about FOMO on an image. But I think that in truth not getting a satisfying image has almost nothing to do with what gear you have with you. There is always an image to be had, if one can see it. To torment and inspire myslef, I sometimes wonder what Henri Cartier Bresson would have done with the various situations I have wandered through with my camera.
Of the three photographers you site, I most like Leiter, one of my all-time favorite photographers, and Sebastiao Salgado, whose photography I deeply admire and enjoy viewing but whose style is entirely removed from anything I ever try to do. Leiter always worked with simple gear and photogrpahed within a few blocks of where he lived. Some of his best shots, usually of women he was involved with, were made in his apartment. But I love his images of the city also.
Moriyama's images have never appealed to me. If you like his work, you might enjoy seeing some of Jeff Ascough's >recent< videos on street shooting where he undertakes something similar using his Leica. But I much prefer the documentary wedding work for which he is justly famous, most of it made with a limited set of Canon gear, that contains so many wonderfully beaurtiful images....Show more →
I don’t see documentary wedding work on Ascough’s site. I only know him from recent YT videos.
