Minimalist lense choice for travel

Hello,

What lense would you recommend for:

* ski traverse of a week through the Italian Dolomites (OMD with the prime attached)

* travel to Katmandu, short trekking in Nepal of the beaten track and a tiger safari in India

I have an OMD with the 12 and 45 mm primes and an E420 with the 14-42 and 40-150 kit zooms. I really like the 45 mm for mountain landscapes and the 12 mm for social pictures indoors and outdoors. I use the 12 mm as walk around most of the time. I hope to buy the upcoming oly 40-150 fast zoom for sport and wildlife, but this one won't be available before the Nepal/India trip. Most of the time i take no spare lense on a trip.

Would a 17 mm prime be an advantage over the 12 mm for adventure travel/mountain scenes? Before buying the 12 mm, i checked the flickr groups of th 12, 17 and 9-18. I concluded that the results of the 12 mm on flickr really stand out and went for the 12mm.

I would use the 12 mm in Kathmandu streets and the 45 mm in the dolomites on the ski 's and on trek in Nepal. For a panorama i would stitch when needed.

What can be expected of the current mFT 40-150 and 70-300? Is there much difference with the results of my FT equipment in daylight? Since i use my primes, i am underwhelmed by the image quality of my FT lenses...

I use to travel light. My current camera bag is a lowepro dashpoint 30. My ski backpack is a 30 liter mountaineering backpack stowed with gear,clothes and snacks for 5 days... For a second prime, i have to trade in 3 snickers :-(.

Thanks for your advise,

Steven

Thin_Ice wrote:

Hello,

What lense would you recommend for:

* ski traverse of a week through the Italian Dolomites (OMD with the prime attached)

* travel to Katmandu, short trekking in Nepal of the beaten track and a tiger safari in India

I have an OMD with the 12 and 45 mm primes and an E420 with the 14-42 and 40-150 kit zooms. I really like the 45 mm for mountain landscapes and the 12 mm for social pictures indoors and outdoors. I use the 12 mm as walk around most of the time. I hope to buy the upcoming oly 40-150 fast zoom for sport and wildlife, but this one won't be available before the Nepal/India trip. Most of the time i take no spare lense on a trip.

Would a 17 mm prime be an advantage over the 12 mm for adventure travel/mountain scenes? Before buying the 12 mm, i checked the flickr groups of th 12, 17 and 9-18. I concluded that the results of the 12 mm on flickr really stand out and went for the 12mm.

I would use the 12 mm in Kathmandu streets and the 45 mm in the dolomites on the ski 's and on trek in Nepal. For a panorama i would stitch when needed.

What can be expected of the current mFT 40-150 and 70-300? Is there much difference with the results of my FT equipment in daylight? Since i use my primes, i am underwhelmed by the image quality of my FT lenses...

I use to travel light. My current camera bag is a lowepro dashpoint 30. My ski backpack is a 30 liter mountaineering backpack stowed with gear,clothes and snacks for 5 days... For a second prime, i have to trade in 3 snickers :-(.

Thanks for your advise,

Steven

The m.zuiko 14-150 is extremely versatile and a decent lens, but not fast. I don't own the Panny 14-140, so I can't really comment.  You might consider the 12 prime plus a 14-150...that would cover a lot of focal lengths.

The Oly 12-40, Pany 12-35, and Pany 35-100 are really the only native zooms that will get you close enough to prime quality. One of those and a Pany 20/1.7 (tiny and fast for low light situations) sounds like a good kit for what you're doing.

Thin_Ice wrote:

I really like the 45 mm for mountain landscapes and the 12 mm for social pictures indoors and outdoors.

Well there you are then.

If I were taking an M43 camera, I'd take a single, wide-range zoom lens, like the 14-140. But I wouldn't take an M43 camera; I'd take a fixed lens camera, like the Oly Stylus 1 (or near equivalent).

For a minimalist solution just take one lens. However, on trips like these, I would prefer a little more versatility.

1. J. Pilcher's idea with the Ricoh GR is very good: it gives you an excellent moderate WA, good for street and landscape photography. And if you want to take the Olympus camera, this might come in handy as a back up.

2. With your 12mm and 45mm plus the Ricoh you seem equipped for everything except wildlife in open country and for birds.

3. If you want to rely on one camera only, you might want to get 20mm or a 25mm or just use one hight quality zoom lens instead of the primes. For hiking I would prefer the 12-35 because it's size advantage to the 12-40.

Peter.

If I really wanted to travel with a minimum number of lenses in the smallest possible package, I'd choose these two:

• Panasonic 12-32mm f/3.5-5.6 for all outdoor captures. This lens has very good IQ and is super tiny.
• Olympus 17mm f/1.8 or Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 for low light situations or when shallow DOF is required.

threepin wrote:

i have the oly 45 but for either the dolomites or the himalaya i prefer wider.

From my experience, it depends:
people or other subject in the foreground + huge mountain in near background => 12 mm.
Mountain scene in the distance => 45 mm or telephoto, but boring most of the time.

Do you have a rough idea of the proportion of pictures of your treks were on the wide/middle/tele end of your zoom?

depending on the trek and the month of the year a 30 liter pack may be a wee bit small

we did the dhaulagiri circuit this late year and a 45 was just right.

For the trek i will take a 30-50L. Weight and volume are less critical on foot than on ski's. And there is always the possibility to hire a mule and support the local economy. Thanks for the hint anyway!

have fun - 2 very beautiful places

Thank you for the good advice!

I will forget about the long telephoto and stick to my FT gear untill the fast tele's arrive.

I won't buy another camera. I want to capture my family, our adventures and sports with 1 camera and a selection of fine lenses.

The fotographer in me wants the 12-40 or voigtlander 17/25mm... The mountaineer/father in me won't find any free place to put this gear in his backpack...

Steven

Olympus 75mm

ulfie wrote:

If the OP really wants minimalist, s/he should choose just one lens. For that I'd recommend either the Oly 17/1.8 or Panny 20/1.7. Versatile, small total package, and well above average IQ.

Yes, one (prime)lense please?!?

In the reply's there are relatively little arguments for the 17mm. Without doubt, this is a no-brainer for streetfotography. I've read that even there the trend is to go somewhat wider?

What do you guys think about the 12 mm as a single prime lens choice for mountain + culture travel? Anno 2014 there is room for cropping in post and the digital teleconverter... My focus is on covering the story in decent IQ, not on perfecion in photography.

In nepal i can also take the 45 mm with me. If I will need to switch to ofthen between them, a 12-35 mm makes sense. Then i will have to trade off the f1.8 versus the versatility of the zoom.

Steven

ulfie wrote:

If the OP really wants minimalist, s/he should choose just one lens. For that I'd recommend either the Oly 17/1.8 or Panny 20/1.7. Versatile, small total package, and well above average IQ.

I'd second that !  Zooms can be handy but are slower and lumpy.

Thin_Ice wrote:

Hello,

What lense would you recommend for:

* ski traverse of a week through the Italian Dolomites (OMD with the prime attached)

* travel to Katmandu, short trekking in Nepal of the beaten track and a tiger safari in India

Steven, your problem is screaming GM1 kit in an all weather bag. I wonder how no one suggested it yet. I want those snacks I just saved you.

My ski backpack is a 30 liter mountaineering backpack stowed with gear,clothes and snacks for 5 days... For a second prime, i have to trade in 3 snickers :-(.

Hi

The problem with the GM1 is going to be battery life IMHO. I would just use some snap wrap around the body to keep dust out and some sort of cloth tube or bandage around the lens if it were me taking one.