Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Being a Photographer > Travel

Travel This is the place you ask for travel advice, or share your own tips. Topics include destinations, sight seeing, and best / smartest ways for traveling with a camera.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 01-19-2018   #41
narsuitus
Registered User
 
narsuitus's Avatar
 
narsuitus is offline
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,345
If forced to limit myself to one prime lens on a full-frame camera, my first choice would be a 35mm and a 28mm would be my second choice.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-19-2018   #42
Jdsegra
Registered User
 
Jdsegra's Avatar
 
Jdsegra is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 22
Location matters a lot.. I personally think a 35 would be the most versatile, but I'm a 35mm guy.

My wife and I went to Iceland last summer. It was beautiful, but because of the terain, I hardly ever reached for my 21.. There were mountains everywhere. Due to the lack of trees, you could see stuff way in the distance, but it was really difficult to get an interesting foreground subject when the thing that was taking your breath away was 15-30 miles ahead. I shot much more at 50-85mm that trip.
__________________
The single fastest way to become a better photographer is to become a ruthless editor.

flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-19-2018   #43
retinax
Registered User
 
retinax is online now
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 1,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jdsegra View Post
Location matters a lot.. I personally think a 35 would be the most versatile, but I'm a 35mm guy.

My wife and I went to Iceland last summer. It was beautiful, but because of the terain, I hardly ever reached for my 21.. There were mountains everywhere. Due to the lack of trees, you could see stuff way in the distance, but it was really difficult to get an interesting foreground subject when the thing that was taking your breath away was 15-30 miles ahead. I shot much more at 50-85mm that trip.
I had exactly the same experience in Iceland. In the alps, a bit shorter will work well though.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-19-2018   #44
xia_ke
Registered User
 
xia_ke's Avatar
 
xia_ke is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Maine
Age: 40
Posts: 192
If only one lens, I always go 35mm. My favorite combo is 28mm and 50mm. I tend to go fast and light though. If I'm just leisurely hiking/backpacking, I will take additional options like second body plus a 20mm and/or 80-200mm. The latter 2 lenses though I find more useful for people shots than I do capturing the landscape.
__________________
flickr

"A good photograph is one that makes the viewer so aware of the subject that they are unaware of the print."- Kodak
"...if you find afterwards that you made a mistake, the price of the film and chemicals was...tuition!" - greybeard
"The hard part isn’t the decisive moment or anything like that – it’s getting the film on the reel!" - John Szarkowski
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-19-2018   #45
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
 
ColSebastianMoran's Avatar
 
ColSebastianMoran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,418
Wow. Great thread.

Definitely UV at altitude. A must.

Focal length greatly depends on what you are shooting. From super-wide to medium tele.

Key for me is the sky. If the sky is good, then I'll often want a medium-wide.
__________________
Col. Sebastian Moran, ret. (not really)

In Classifieds Now: Contax IIa and Nikon lenses
Use this link to leave feedback for me.

Named "Best heavy-game shooter in the Eastern Empire." Clubs: Anglo-Indian, Tankerville, and Bagatelle Card Club.
Sony E/FE, Nikon dSLR, and iPhone digital. Misc film.
Birds, portraits, events, family. Mindfulness, reflection, creativity, and stance.
  Reply With Quote

Leica M 21mm f2.8
Old 01-19-2018   #46
pepeguitarra
Registered User
 
pepeguitarra's Avatar
 
pepeguitarra is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 816
Leica M 21mm f2.8

Alquézar by carnuzo, on Flickr
__________________
It is not a photo until you print it! Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2018   #47
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
 
Phil_F_NM's Avatar
 
Phil_F_NM is offline
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Age: 43
Posts: 4,155
No one has mentioned the Mountain Elmar...

Phil Forrest
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2018   #48
peterm1
Registered User
 
peterm1's Avatar
 
peterm1 is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil_F_NM View Post
No one has mentioned the Mountain Elmar...

Phil Forrest
:^) I was considering mentioning it doing so would have been in jest too (I assume yours is) given how hard it is to find them (and to buy them no doubt, given they are collectors items). I have seen exactly one in 30 years and that was probably 20 years ago in a private (not for sale) collection of Leica LTM lenses in a display case of a camera store specializing in Leica in Melbourne Australia. Besides I have no idea how one might perform in practice.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2018   #49
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
 
Phil_F_NM's Avatar
 
Phil_F_NM is offline
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Age: 43
Posts: 4,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by peterm1 View Post
:^) I was considering mentioning it doing so would have been in jest too (I assume yours is) given how hard it is to find them (and to buy them no doubt, given they are collectors items). I have seen exactly one in 30 years and that was probably 20 years ago in a private (not for sale) collection of Leica LTM lenses in a display case of a camera store specializing in Leica in Melbourne Australia. Besides I have no idea how one might perform in practice.
I've seen one in my life as well. That was back in Camarillo, California in early 2004, if I recall correctly. It was a small lens, surprisingly so. Pretty light too. It was in the same estate sale load that I saw an original 8.5cm Summarex with caps, hood, the whole meal deal.

Phil
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2018   #50
JB-Dancer
Registered User
 
JB-Dancer is offline
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 51
Peter M and Phil,

10.5cm f6.3 Mountain Elmars.
Not as scarce as you think,here are 4 available now.

See:- http://www.leicashop.com/vintage_en/...6-3-105mm.html
__________________
Regards,
JB-Dancer



  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2018   #51
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 31,573
Quote:
Originally Posted by robert blu View Post
I do not like to change lenses frequently....so my most used in the Alps are my 50 and 35.

here 50 on M 7



and here is the equivalent of 35 ( it's 24 on aps-c sensor of the Leica x1)



This is th CV 12/f 5.6 on the Bessa R



On the other side if you like details this is the 75 cv always on the Bessa R



At the end it depends a lot on you photographic style. In your case I think 35 + an alternative wider or small tele could be the ideal solution.

Gear can be heavy...do not forget

robert
Robert: Thank you for the posted images (and Thanks to all who have posted here), and for your tips. I am tempted to use the newly purchased 16mm/8 plus 35/1.4 and maybe a small and light 90/4 thrown in too. That would be 3 small lenses. I know that heavy equipment removes all fun from walks.
__________________
- Raid
________________

http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2018   #52
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 31,573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob-F View Post
Raid, I have used a 24mm lens extensively in the Rocky Mountains, and the San Juan Mountains of Colorado. I have seldom found a use for anything wider. But the trick is that you must include something interesting in the foreground. The distant mountain ranges will appear too small if it is to be the main subject. But if there is something of interest in the foreground, then it works.

And as always, the 35mm lens must always be in the bag, as well as frequently on the camera.

Let me see if I can scan some chromes soon to illustrate my point.
The 16/8 could be on the M8 for a 21mm view while the 35 could be on the M9.
__________________
- Raid
________________

http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2018   #53
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 31,573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin View Post
Raid,

When I used to photograph the Colorado mountains, I used 28mm, 50mm and a 135mm in my film days. Later on digital, In used a Sony R1 with a zoom lens with the equivalent 24-120mm. I found that more than adequate, and I often shoot at the wider end. So I'd suggest that you choose your prime lenses within that range.

I often shoot at around 12,000- 14,000 ft. above sea level. With digital, I often didn't use a polarizing filter, but at those elevations, the sky will naturally be rendered darker than shooting from sea level. So if I used a polarizing filter at all, I likely would not turn it to its maximum power. I had made the mistake when I used film in my younger days---the strong action of the polarizing filter that I used almost turned the sky black.

Panoramic shots are very suitable for that type of landscape. However, if you used a polarizing filter, you'd better re-adjust the strength of your polarizing filter after a shot or two. Otherwise you'd end up with very uneven skies on the horizontal plane. I'd say that you should use a tripod when you need to make those adjustments along the way.

Granted, most of the mountains in Switzerland are not as high. I remember the one that I visited (Mt. Titlis) was just a bit over 11,000 ft. But you still should have a strong UV filter for that.

Tin
I will have my iPhone8 plus with me for panorama shots. The Hologon is a new lens to me, and if my (local) practicing with it works out well, I will take it with me on the trip for vast mountain scenes that deserve such a lens (which of course is also lots of enjoyment for me).
__________________
- Raid
________________

http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Using Nikkors
Old 01-23-2018   #54
wes loder
Photographer/Historian
 
wes loder's Avatar
 
wes loder is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Weisenberg Tep, PA
Posts: 259
Smile Using Nikkors

Here are three images taken by my wife and I in the Summer of 1972 when we were doing spec photography in the Gros Ventre Range in Northwestern Wyoming. The first shows us on the summit of Sheep Mountain. 28mm W-Nikkor on Nikon SP. Second image shows the Jackson Hole and Teton Range from Sheep Mountain. Third image is same view as second image but using a 400mm Tele-Nikkor on a Nikon F. I found that a range of lenses all could produce good mountain photography.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2018   #55
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 31,573
You were brave to haul along a 400mm lens! I chicken out at my age now. I used to bring with me the Canon 500/4.5L and the Canon 300/4 plus other lenses. Times change.
__________________
- Raid
________________

http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2018   #56
Dralowid
Michael
 
Dralowid's Avatar
 
Dralowid is offline
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil_F_NM View Post
No one has mentioned the Mountain Elmar...

Phil Forrest
I touched on it in post 40 but there were no takers. I don't have one anymore but from memory it was a fine and light little lens.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2018   #57
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 31,573
It is these days an expensive lens too.
__________________
- Raid
________________

http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2018   #58
Bingley
Registered User
 
Bingley's Avatar
 
Bingley is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sacramento, California
Posts: 5,803
You might check out the photography of the late Galen Rowell, who traveled extensively in the Himalayas, Alps, and U.S. mountains. He shot Nikon film SLRs and often used a 24mm lens paired with a modest telephoto, like 85mm.

When out hiking in the Sierra Nevada mountains in CA, my kit is usually a Leica IIIc with a 28 and 50, and a pocket camera (Rollei 35 or Olympus XA) for color film. But I can see the utility of swapping the 50 for 75 or even a 90, depending on where you're going.
__________________
Steve

FS: Pentax MX, Voigtlander Ultron 40/2.0 SLII in Pentax K-mount, Takumar 100/2.8 and 35/3.5 lenses: See my ads in Classifieds

M3, M2, R2A, IIIc, IVSB2, & T, and assorted LTM & M lenses
Minolta XD11, Pentax ME Super, and assorted MD Rokkor and Takumar lenses, Rolleicord III, Rolleicord Vb, Rolleiflex Automat MX-EVS

My Flickr
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2018   #59
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 31,573
Galen R used the Nikon 75-150 cheap (but very sharp) zoom and the 24, as you said, Steve. I have several of his books.
__________________
- Raid
________________

http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2018   #60
DwF
Registered User
 
DwF's Avatar
 
DwF is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Washington State
Posts: 1,207
With my Fuji, I carried the 55-200 for landscapes with mountains and realized that shooting at about 100mm was good. Of course if I was in the mountains a wider angle lens would be in order. This is with my 90mm Elmarit f 2.8 on the Fuji XE 2 taken at sunset on New Years Day 2016. Mount Baker and Bellingham Washington

__________________
DwF DwF’s Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-20-2018   #61
danross
Registered User
 
danross is offline
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 3
I would suggest 35mm, I do a lot of climbing/shoots with it a lot. Last time was on holidays in Greek mountains, also used 35 mm, for me it’s the most suitable lense for mountains shooting. I am in love with Greece: with its beautiful nature, reach history, friendly people, cats everywhere. Thinking of buying apartment in Athens to live few months in a year there and get some money out of renting during high season. Probably will be able to do wedding/honeymoon photo shoots, there are lots of newly married couples in Greece.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-20-2018   #62
peterm1
Registered User
 
peterm1's Avatar
 
peterm1 is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by wes loder View Post
Here are three images taken by my wife and I in the Summer of 1972 when we were doing spec photography in the Gros Ventre Range in Northwestern Wyoming. The first shows us on the summit of Sheep Mountain. 28mm W-Nikkor on Nikon SP. Second image shows the Jackson Hole and Teton Range from Sheep Mountain. Third image is same view as second image but using a 400mm Tele-Nikkor on a Nikon F. I found that a range of lenses all could produce good mountain photography.
Golly these are nice images. On a side note, what film stock I wonder. My gut says a slide film due to the way it has held its color and it overall look. In which case perhaps Kodachrome? This is one thing I do miss from shooting digital as I for one have never been able to emulate the Kodachrome look digitally.
  Reply With Quote

Mountain Elmar 105/6.3
Old 02-21-2018   #63
JB-Dancer
Registered User
 
JB-Dancer is offline
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 51
Mountain Elmar 105/6.3

Quote:
Originally Posted by raid View Post
It is these days an expensive lens too.
Yes it is, forget it.
Look for the Soligor 105/4 (M39) or the same lens also can be found as the Seastal f. Leica M39 105/4 OJASI.

Either of these two lenses can be obtained for about $110 in good condition.
David Murphy had one of these lenses See:-https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33860
and it also appears on http://forum.mflenses.com/soligor-te...tm-t72862.html
and http://forum.mflenses.com/soligor-lt...l1-t39104.html
__________________
Regards,
JB-Dancer



  Reply With Quote

Old 02-21-2018   #64
wes loder
Photographer/Historian
 
wes loder's Avatar
 
wes loder is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Weisenberg Tep, PA
Posts: 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by peterm1 View Post
Golly these are nice images. On a side note, what film stock I wonder. My gut says a slide film due to the way it has held its color and it overall look. In which case perhaps Kodachrome? This is one thing I do miss from shooting digital as I for one have never been able to emulate the Kodachrome look digitally.
Kodachrome 64. Still love its colors. WES
That was the year after Kodak replaced Kodachrome II with Kodachrome 25, which I did not like due to its raw colors. But Kodachrome 64 seemed to give the same colors as the old Kodachrome II plus a gain or an F-stop or so.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-21-2018   #65
BillBingham2
Registered User
 
BillBingham2's Avatar
 
BillBingham2 is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ames, Iowa, USA
Posts: 5,926
Something rings a bell about UV-A vs UV-B (L-37 and L-39 from the old Nikon filters, I think). There is a difference and I think it has to do with how high up you are. I'd say look into it.

Bringing something long (say an old Vivitar Series-1 450mm solid CAT lens) depends upon the clarity of the air that/those days. Another option is a 300mm and a 1.5 or 2.0 X teleconverter as speed is not your biggest issue.

B2 (;->
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-21-2018   #66
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 31,573
I want to keep my camera equipment to a minimum and light. I want to enjoy walking around with my family and with friends without having to worry about hauling around big and heavy lenses.
__________________
- Raid
________________

http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-21-2018   #67
peterm1
Registered User
 
peterm1's Avatar
 
peterm1 is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by wes loder View Post
Kodachrome 64. Still love its colors. WES
That was the year after Kodak replaced Kodachrome II with Kodachrome 25, which I did not like due to its raw colors. But Kodachrome 64 seemed to give the same colors as the old Kodachrome II plus a gain or an F-stop or so.


Wonderful Wes, thank you. As people here may recall one of my photographer heros is Saul Leiter. Who famously used out of date film initially because he was a struggling artist and it was cheap, but later I think because of how it looks. And I read that he specially liked Kodachrome. http://www.photohistories.com/Photo-...of-kodachromes

OK this is a long way from shooting on mountain tops but that's how discussions evolve I guess......... However I should I suppose try not to hijack this thread so perhaps I will leave it here with a couple of shots by Leiter that also have for me that Kodachrome look.


  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:28.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.