So, a hypothetical about NX lenses

I was wondering what others thought here. If you were travelling through say 5-10 countries, could only take 1 body 3 lenses and your filters. And you couldn't take the 50-150 or 16-50 2-2.8, which 3 current NX lenses would you take? Samsung only, no Samyang.

1 prime, 16-50 & 50-200?

Would you bother with the big telephoto or the PZ? Interested to see how others rate the current lenses if you really had to choose.

12-24, 30, 45 is what I take now although I'd probably like to do a 10, 16-50pz, 45. I don't typically bother with long zooms on trips but I suppose a 50-200 would come in handy for castles and stuff if in an area like that.

It's a good question.

LIGHTWEIGHT choice

Without any doubt the absolute is the 12-24.

If you shoot handheld video you will need  16-50 PZ

And for me probably the next would be the 45mm F1.8.

Alternatively a HEAVY choice.  12-24, 16-50 f2 and 50-200.

12-24 would do 50 % of my shots  16-50 ….45% and 50-200 5%.

16-50 would do 100% of my Video.

Although with a tripod along every lens will do video.

Interiors in my opinion need at least 12mm,  16mm won't do it.

My choice is:

12-24 (obviously most travel city shots are made on wide angle)

30 if I'm going to travel alone or 45 if not for portraits.

And the third one is... 10 fisheye. Why? I dont think that long telephoto is a must have for travel. I dont know what to shot with it really, except some birds or so. 85 - no. 60 - well, its a great lens but its the same story as with 50-200: there's just nothing to shot with it while travelling. And 10 can be useful for unusual landscapes or architecture shots.

Pretty lightweight total.

There is nothing hypothetical. During my last holidays, the NX bag contained the NX30 with 16-50 PZ, 12-24 and 50-200. Holidays without a tele lens? No way! Even if it's a bad one, like my 50-200 OIS I, I need one for landscape or in town. For birds, 200mm is mostly far too short!

bourdieu_boy wrote:

16, 30, and 45 is what I take.

Since the op is taking my Samyang 12mm away, this is what I would take, also.

TJL LTFF wrote:

bourdieu_boy wrote:

16, 30, and 45 is what I take.

Since the op is taking my Samyang 12mm away, this is what I would take, also.

16/50 PZ and 50/200 and Samyang 12mm for the open fields.

As the op discarded the Samyang, then the 45mm but would be less useful...

Because they are so small, I'd take 4 lenses: 12-24, 16-50 PZ, 30 f/2, 50-200. The 16-50 and 30 are small and light enough to not make much space or weight difference.

My only issue is I'm the weirdo that has been travelling most of my life so already pack light. I would usually bring a few lens but only bring the camera and lens I need on a given day.

I love the 30 it really is a nifty lens. I like the 18-55 as I've had it for years. Then I'd likely want my 50-200.

But really if I were going to travel and wanted serious pictures, I'd take the 16-50 and 50-150 and the 30. I'd bring my NX1 but I'd have a smaller body like the NX3300 which the 30 would likely live on. I'd go out with my small bag with the NX3300/30mm in one slot and the NX1 and one other lens in the other. Total weight is very low and my small bag zips open so I can use it to carry souvenirs

(I own the first gen of this http://store.lowepro.com/ca/shop/mirrorless/passport-sling-iii-ca )

I'd take the 16-50pz, 50-200mm and 30mm then probably spend most of the time wishing I'd brought the 45mm and 60mm as well..

I agree, the 50-200 is essential. I think my III is reasonably sharp, I wish the focus was faster though. It's on the short end for birds, but it's workable, it's not all that much shorter than a 400 on FF (just ~100mm different). I guess that from the Samsung lenses I own I would go for 30mm, 50 - 200mm, and probably the 16-50 PZ. If I had the 12-24, then I would probably take that instead of the 16-50. If I was going for a particular kind of photography my answer may change. For instance, if I needed quick AF I would take the 45 instead of the 30.