I visited South Korea with my daughters in 2024 and will now return with my wife and one daughter. I was happy with the photo albums resulting from this trip. I shot an M11 Monochrome, 21mm Super Elmar, 35mm APO and an X2D with 25mm & 38mm lenses. I generally leave one body in the hotel. Anyway, I will be returning to exactly the same cities as previously, Seoul, Gyeongju and Busan and I wanted to shoot many of the same locations, but come away with differing images. So, I’m faced with taking one of two kits. First, the Sony A7R6, 24mm f/1.4GM, 16-35mm f/2.8 GM2 and the 50-150mm f/2.0 GM with the expectation that the long heavy zoom would do 80% of the work. Second option is the X2D2 and 20-35mm f/3.2-4.5 E, 35-100mm f/2.8-4 E lenses. My sense of things is that I will have a better chance of returning with a different look with the Sony kit. I’ve never traveled with zoom lenses and I’ve never carried such a large/heavy lens daily for hours as I would with the 50-150mm lens. Anyone travel and walk 10-12 miles per day with a heavy zoom in hand and which kit is most likely to provide a different view of the destinations? Oh.. I tend to shoot wide open, except when I want more depth of field, or slightly better resolution/contrast, but all lenses great wide open.
Zoom lenses don't have to be heavy, you're just looking at heavy options. I travel with almost nothing BUT zooms, and I can't see lugging my 35-100 for 10+ miles a day. That's what my Z 24-120 is for.
To me there is almost never a use case to take both a 16-35 and 24-105 or whatever similar combo, as 24 is very wide to begin with and I can stitch if I want wider.
My thoughts. Heavy, large zooms and travel where you’re doing a lot of walking simply do not mix; and moreover can literally destroy the joy of the trip.* That said, I too travel mainly with zooms and additionally one or two smaller primes.
Given you feel the bulk of your shooting will be in the 50 to 150 ranges, I would instead take: Sony A7R6, 20-70/4, 70-200/4 and then add a faster prime in the 24 to 50 range you like to shoot in.
In my case I would take my Viltrox 50/2 air and 26/2.8 pancake, as combined they weigh less and take up less bag space than say the 24/1.4 — but here, each to their own. Next, I tend to enjoy shooting wide, so I would add my Tamron 12-20/2.8; though I respect it’s unnecessary for folks that don’t regularly shoot wider than 20 or 24. Regardless, that particular Tammy is relatively compact and lightweight for what it is. I would probably carry those three zooms during the day unless I knew in advance I wouldn’t need the wide or tele, and leave whichever behind in the room. If I know it’s going to be an arduous walking day, then it’s just the camera with 20-70 and a spare battery in my pocket. At night is when I tend to go minimalist, so I generally pick one of the primes, throw the camera over my shoulder and head out for whatever.
* Several years back I was on a group day bus and walking tour of Munich — my wife and I tend to do these first time in a new city to get the lay of the land and see the bulk of the major sights. This was film days when I shot Nikon. I got off the bus at the first stop with my F3HP and a Vivitar 35-105 zoom, and a shoulder bag with film, 20mm and a fast 50. Another guy got off with 2 complete Domke Journalist bags, one over each shoulder. He was shooting the same Nikon, but had two of them, 2 zooms, probably the 35-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8, and about 6 different primes between the two bags. He stayed in the cafe after the lunch stop while we all continued on.
The only reason to choose such a heavy zoom is to shoot it at f/2.0. My goal is to come away with very different images. I have 21/35/85 Loxia and Sigma 17mm f/4/ 24mm f/1.4 GM, 40mm G, 90mm Sigma where all of these are compact, but most not fast. The Loxia are relatively fast.
I think that the remarks above concerning weight is a valid one. The Hasselblad option is the lighter, but not fast option.
I bring the 50-150 on every trip. I am returning today from a month away with it(and many other lenses). I don't find it to be particularly heavy tbh. And I live in Seoul, and have walked with it for hours there too. It is my favorite lens and has been since I bought it.
If you want special and different, go for the 50-150. Don't just tag a ton of focal lengths with a combination of other zooms.
I personally like to combine it with a 12-24, or my q3m.
You know yourself, your setting and your intent much better than we do. I've walked 10+ miles with heavy zooms. That was back in my D800 days and that was the turning point for me and travel kit. I'm now down to several RX100's for my 3 to 4 month annual trips. Occasionally I'd pack an OG A7 (light and small) + the 35ZA as I love the results. But that body went to MPB a few days ago.
If what you want to accomplish requires a heavy zoom, go for it. If, after a day with the zoom, you feel its too much, you have options for a lighter carry. I would recommend a good comfortable bag/sling/pack.
I thought of one more point to consider. Of course firstly you as the the OP already own the 50-150 -- and you probably already know if you can live with the weight and size schlepping it in addition to your other gear for 10+ miles per day. And if the added weight is a trivial matter for you, you're done.
I would then only ask firstly, what aperture do you regularly use when traveling with that lens? If under f4 most of the time, then the added isolation of f2 could be significant; and of course renders the 70-200/4 irrelevant. OTOH if you are at f5.6 or f8 a lot of the time like I am when traveling, diffraction becomes the great lens performance leveler, and here the optical performance difference between the two lenses merges to become virtually irrelevant by f5.6. Finally, also relevant for you to decide is if the 50-70mm range or 150-200mm range is more valuable to you?
Regardless on whatever you decide, have a marvelous trip!
I am curious...why do you find that you stick to 5.6/8 when traveling? For landscapes I can understand...but for cities too?
Jack Flesher wrote:
I thought of one more point to consider. Of course firstly you as the the OP already own the 50-150 -- and you probably already know if you can live with the weight and size schlepping it in addition to your other gear for 10+ miles per day. And if the added weight is a trivial matter for you, you're done.
I would then only ask firstly, what aperture do you regularly use when traveling with that lens? If under f4 most of the time, then the added isolation of f2 could be significant; and of course renders the 70-200/4 irrelevant. OTOH if you are at f5.6 or f8 a lot of the time like I am when traveling, diffraction becomes the great lens performance leveler, and here the optical performance difference between the two lenses merges to become virtually irrelevant by f5.6. Finally, also relevant for you to decide is if the 50-70mm range or 150-200mm range is more valuable to you?
Regardless on whatever you decide, have a marvelous trip! ...Show more →
Jack Flesher wrote:
I thought of one more point to consider. Of course firstly you as the the OP already own the 50-150 -- and you probably already know if you can live with the weight and size schlepping it in addition to your other gear for 10+ miles per day. And if the added weight is a trivial matter for you, you're done.
I would then only ask firstly, what aperture do you regularly use when traveling with that lens? If under f4 most of the time, then the added isolation of f2 could be significant; and of course renders the 70-200/4 irrelevant. OTOH if you are at f5.6 or f8 a lot of the time like I am when traveling, diffraction becomes the great lens performance leveler, and here the optical performance difference between the two lenses merges to become virtually irrelevant by f5.6. Finally, also relevant for you to decide is if the 50-70mm range or 150-200mm range is more valuable to you?
Regardless on whatever you decide, have a marvelous trip! ...Show more →
Well, I’m not claiming that the weight isn’t significant, but I have a very good 25L backpack with waist straps and I can always revert to 24mm GM. The weight is insignificant when on my back, but as mentioned above, the lens, like many of the newer Sony lenses, isn’t that heavy for what it is and what it does. I have pretty much decided to either take the Sony kit as mentioned, or go for the Hasselblad. Both are great options.
I think that both the longer focal lengths, given that my longest South Korean lens in 24mm was 35mm, and the f/2.0 are both departures from what I used previously. I’m a bit of an odd one in that my favorite focal length for travel was 21mm. It was also the biggest challenge. Last year I traveled in Japan and traded my 21mm for a 75mm f/2.0 APO at Map Camera. I’ve never really used a 75mm, or longer for travel. I found that forcing the issue and using the fast 75mm made me see everything in a different way. This experience and viewing the images of one of this forum’s members convinced me to purchase the fast zoom.
Your last suggestion is appreciated and I’ll definitely do that.
bwcolor wrote: Jack Flesher wroteI thought of one more point to consider. Of course firstly you as the the OP already own the 50-150 -- and you probably already know if you can live with the weight and size schlepping it in addition to your other gear for 10+ miles per day. And if the added weight is a trivial matter for you, you're done.
I would then only ask firstly, what aperture do you regularly use when traveling with that lens? If under f4 most of the time, then the added isolation of f2 could be significant; and of course renders the 70-200/4 irrelevant. OTOH if you are at f5.6 or f8 a lot of the time like I am when traveling, diffraction becomes the great lens performance leveler, and here the optical performance difference between the two lenses merges to become virtually irrelevant by f5.6. Finally, also relevant for you to decide is if the 50-70mm range or 150-200mm range is more valuable to you?
Regardless on whatever you decide, have a marvelous trip!Well, I’m not claiming that the weight isn’t significant, but I have a very good 25L backpack with waist straps and I can always revert to 24mm GM. The weight is insignificant when on my back, but as mentioned above, the lens, like many of the newer Sony lenses, isn’t that heavy for what it is and what it does. I have pretty much decided to either take the Sony kit as mentioned, or go for the Hasselblad. Both are great options.
I think that both the longer focal lengths, given that my longest South Korean lens in 24mm was 35mm, and the f/2.0 are both departures from what I used previously. I’m a bit of an odd one in that my favorite focal length for travel was 21mm. It was also the biggest challenge. Last year I traveled in Japan and traded my 21mm for a 75mm f/2.0 APO at Map Camera. I’ve never really used a 75mm, or longer for travel. I found that forcing the issue and using the fast 75mm made me see everything in a different way. This experience and viewing the images of one of this forum’s members convinced me to purchase the fast zoom.
Your last suggestion is appreciated and I’ll definitely do that....Show more →
I get all of that. I have traveled with MF -- in my case PhaseOne. I personally didn't find the juice worth the squeeze over the wider focal range I got from full-frame zooms. I too enjoy a few key primes depending, and back when I shot Leica, the 75/1.4 was one of my night street favorites and I favored the 21 over the 24 as my wide. In primes now, I have the smaller versions Samyang 18/2.8 (and like it better even than 20 or 21mm), Viltrox 26/2.8 pancake (loe the size and look it renders), Viltrox 50/2 (tiny and weighs nothing) and Samyang 75/1.8 (small and light for a longer f1.8 lens) and all are remarkably good optically. Plus they're so small and lightweight, I can bring all 4 along with my 3 above mentioned zooms in my camera carryon pack, then leave whichever of that kit back in the hotel room depending on what I'm planning to photograph that day. FWIW I also include the 1.4x extender for the 70-200 just in case, but again this is me...
I think my main "discovery" *for me* (and so I respect not everybody is the same) was that while traveling, I almost never shoot during the day below f4 even inside a dimmer interior like a church or museum, and instead prefer living with the effects of higher ISO to gain some DoF. Nighttime or street shooting out with a prime is different, and for me that's when the faster apertures come in handy for either low light or shallow DoF effect. IOW, I will carry a few faster primes and keep my zooms smaller and lighter weight. The shortfall of my kit, is there have been occasions I've missed not having the added flexibility and f2.8 speed of the faster 24-70 as my one lens night/street option. Hence, If I knew I was traveling to a city with a lot of night life and neon lights, I might just cowboy up and haul the 24-70/2.8 GM ii instead of the 20-70/4. Conversely, as respects the 70-200's, I've never really felt under-gunned by f4 even with the 1.4x TC attached. I have carried 2.8 versions in the past and they almost always got left in the hotel room and so I never had it when I could have used it, but again, that's just me...
Getting away from Lens A, B & C vs D, E & F. If nothing else, you've been there and know your gear.
I find that my photography and "travel" mix changes if with others. Traveling with others means maybe the local itinerary and time spent choices are a group effort.
In a nutshell? Don't take too much, plan too much, be flexible. Enjoy what you can. My wife isn't a photographer. She wants me to enjoy the trip and see what we came to see, not have my face in the camera all day. I try to keep my photography from driving things too much.
I think that I also consider depth of field and deal with the higher ISO, but also the IBS of these camera are quite helpful.
Regarding getting overly involved with the photography over family, I think that it might be the other way around. My daughter just returned from her month in Japan (graduation present), where she spent much of her time indoors shopping.. or more accurately window shopping. So, with the return to South Korea she will be primarily shopping and doing the dermatology/beauty detour and my wife will accompany her. I’ll be the abandoned one. So, I’ll have plenty of free time to take photos.
Excellent channel and some of his other videos look interesting.
Thanks
Posted this in Loxia thread:
I’ve been regularly using Grok 4 as a means of doing searches and analyzing issues. I don’t take the output at face value and many times need to correct the assumptions, but this one threw me a bit of a curve ball.. for baseball cultures.. I provided a list of all of my Hasselblad X2D2 and Sony FE lenses. I recently purchased the 20-35mm E and 35-100mm E XCD lenses..and then the A7R6 was announced where I have sold most of my Sony equipment short of small lenses. I purchase camera equipment these days to help me copy film images, or for travel. I have an opportunity to return to South Korea with my wife, who has never been to South Korea. My previous month trip covered Seoul, Gyeongju and Busan with an X2D and a 38mm v lens. My photographic intent was to return to the exact same locations, but come away with very different looking images. I decided to pickup the 16-35mm GMII and 50-150mm GM and my 24mm GM for low light. My intention was to challenge myself with shooting mainly the long zoom at f/2.0. I added all of my other XCD and FE lenses and listed them for Grok 4 and to my amazement the suggested kit was to take the Loxia 21, 35 and 85mm lenses. It made a strong argument regarding all the characteristics of these Zeiss lenses and recognized what I was attempting to do with my selection. Other than inclement weather, there is a good argument that the A7R6/Loxia make the best counter to the X2D/38v of my first trip…. Wow, lenses that i forgot about and running counter to thousands spent recently. As Phillip mentioned in a previous post.. more with less.. simplify.
But, why do you always want more depth of field? Sometimes it gives extra perspective from surroundings, but sometimes backgrounds of the subject are bland or ugly... Especially since this is a return trip, it gives them the opportunity to do more than just show everything.
Jack Flesher wrote: bwcolor wroteJack Flesher wroteI thought of one more point to consider. Of course firstly you as the the OP already own the 50-150 -- and you probably already know if you can live with the weight and size schlepping it in addition to your other gear for 10+ miles per day. And if the added weight is a trivial matter for you, you're done.
I would then only ask firstly, what aperture do you regularly use when traveling with that lens? If under f4 most of the time, then the added isolation of f2 could be significant; and of course renders the 70-200/4 irrelevant. OTOH if you are at f5.6 or f8 a lot of the time like I am when traveling, diffraction becomes the great lens performance leveler, and here the optical performance difference between the two lenses merges to become virtually irrelevant by f5.6. Finally, also relevant for you to decide is if the 50-70mm range or 150-200mm range is more valuable to you?
Regardless on whatever you decide, have a marvelous trip!Well, I’m not claiming that the weight isn’t significant, but I have a very good 25L backpack with waist straps and I can always revert to 24mm GM. The weight is insignificant when on my back, but as mentioned above, the lens, like many of the newer Sony lenses, isn’t that heavy for what it is and what it does. I have pretty much decided to either take the Sony kit as mentioned, or go for the Hasselblad. Both are great options.
I think that both the longer focal lengths, given that my longest South Korean lens in 24mm was 35mm, and the f/2.0 are both departures from what I used previously. I’m a bit of an odd one in that my favorite focal length for travel was 21mm. It was also the biggest challenge. Last year I traveled in Japan and traded my 21mm for a 75mm f/2.0 APO at Map Camera. I’ve never really used a 75mm, or longer for travel. I found that forcing the issue and using the fast 75mm made me see everything in a different way. This experience and viewing the images of one of this forum’s members convinced me to purchase the fast zoom.
Your last suggestion is appreciated and I’ll definitely do that.I get all of that. I have traveled with MF -- in my case PhaseOne. I personally didn't find the juice worth the squeeze over the wider focal range I got from full-frame zooms. I too enjoy a few key primes depending, and back when I shot Leica, the 75/1.4 was one of my night street favorites and I favored the 21 over the 24 as my wide. In primes now, I have the smaller versions Samyang 18/2.8 (and like it better even than 20 or 21mm), Viltrox 26/2.8 pancake (loe the size and look it renders), Viltrox 50/2 (tiny and weighs nothing) and Samyang 75/1.8 (small and light for a longer f1.8 lens) and all are remarkably good optically. Plus they're so small and lightweight, I can bring all 4 along with my 3 above mentioned zooms in my camera carryon pack, then leave whichever of that kit back in the hotel room depending on what I'm planning to photograph that day. FWIW I also include the 1.4x extender for the 70-200 just in case, but again this is me...
I think my main "discovery" *for me* (and so I respect not everybody is the same) was that while traveling, I almost never shoot during the day below f4 even inside a dimmer interior like a church or museum, and instead prefer living with the effects of higher ISO to gain some DoF. Nighttime or street shooting out with a prime is different, and for me that's when the faster apertures come in handy for either low light or shallow DoF effect. IOW, I will carry a few faster primes and keep my zooms smaller and lighter weight. The shortfall of my kit, is there have been occasions I've missed not having the added flexibility and f2.8 speed of the faster 24-70 as my one lens night/street option. Hence, If I knew I was traveling to a city with a lot of night life and neon lights, I might just cowboy up and haul the 24-70/2.8 GM ii instead of the 20-70/4. Conversely, as respects the 70-200's, I've never really felt under-gunned by f4 even with the 1.4x TC attached. I have carried 2.8 versions in the past and they almost always got left in the hotel room and so I never had it when I could have used it, but again, that's just me... ...Show more →
iPhone Pro (or other equivalent phone) + insta360 x6. You’ve already been to these places and this combo will give you a completely different look while being extremely light and portable at the same time.
shadow9d9 wrote:
But, why do you always want more depth of field? Sometimes it gives extra perspective from surroundings, but sometimes backgrounds of the subject are bland or ugly... Especially since this is a return trip, it gives them the opportunity to do more than just show everything.
I don’t. It’s a main reason I carry a couple fast primes. But I tend to use framing to deal with distracting backgrounds more often than DoF, and tend to use shallow DoF to impart a mood. The biggest issue for me with specifically travel and fast zooms is their size and weight over a lengthy trip. I’d rather give up a stop (or 2) that I can live without for the convenience of less weight; or give up zoom flexibility for even shallower DoF with primes. To this latter point, sometimes I do travel with just 3 or 4 faster primes depending on my mood. I could probably manage with a 28-70/2 to replace 3 faster primes and gain the additional zoom flexibility, but have not yet gone down that road. I’ve actually considered trying it next big trip depending. A lens like the Sony 50-150/2 or Tamron 35-150/2-2.8 is too large to appeal to my travel gear preferences.
I usually always try to keep the background in the image. It gives the image context. If you blur out the background, the image could have just been shot in your back yard.
Thanks for the feedback. I settled on taking the A7R6/Vertical Grip, 24mm f/1.4 GM, 16-35mm f/2.8 GMii and the Loxia 85mm f/2.4. I’m leaving a bit of micro-contrast at home, but I think this is the best coverage for night and day, dry and wet. I’ll also take UV and Pol filters. It all fits nicely in the bottom compartment of my 25L Nomatic backpack. I’ve only traveled with lenses longer than 35mm on two occasions, so I’ll make a special effort to use the 85mm.
Not if the image is from Seoul or Busan it won't...and it isn't like only one object is in focus and everything else blurred and unrecognizeable.
With a place as busy as seoul, it is really nice to be able to isolate a little. Otherwise, it gets samey. chez wrote:
I usually always try to keep the background in the image. It gives the image context. If you blur out the background, the image could have just been shot in your back yard.