Headed to Italy in August, what lenses should I add?

I bought a body-only xt10 in February and have been loving it. Skipped the kit lens and went with the 14mm 2.8 as my first lens because I do a lot of hiking here in western michigan. Next purchase after reading tons of reviews was the mitakon speedmaster 35, and have LOVED the portraits it produces. However, I'm headed to rome/florence/milan/naples in august, and I have about a $1000 budget to get 2 lenses, both through the fuji educational program. Which two should I be getting?

Optimus Primes wrote:

I would spend all the money on one lens......the incredible 10-24 ! Perfect as a one lens solution for travel.

Hmm.. even though I already have the 14? The two big reasons I went with the 14 were that below 14 on the 10-24, it seems like theres a bit of distortion that I wanted to avoid, and also the 14 is faster, since I'm really interested in taking low-light shots handheld.

Hi,

just add the 23/2 and spend the rest in the restaurants when you are there. The 14/2.8 is just perfect for architecture and the 23 and the 35 that you already have will cover the rest.

If you want to go the prime route, there's an old rule stating each next (prime) lens should be approximately double the focal length of the previous. 14x2 = 28 so that means either 35 prime or the 27 pancake. You could go on with a third prime like the 56, 60 or 90.
Still, travelling with a zoom is more convenient so why not get the venerable 18-55 and round out your package? Or the XC 16-50 if you want things as light as possible.

2 years ago I went to Europe with two lenses, the 18-135 and the 18f2 for interiors. Early in the trip I dropped my camera (xpro-2) which survived but the lens was toast. So I here  was on a bucket list trip with only a wa prime, and one that's not too well regarded among the pixel peepers.

So I used what I had and got wonderful results. I could crop like crazy and still get excellent 13x19 prints. Your camera presumably doesn't have the 24mpx sensor but you should still be able to crop quite a bit.

I have the 10-14 and like it a lot but I doubt you'll need wider than 14. Someone suggested adding the a 23mm lens... I think that's a great choice.

I'm going to Israel in June and will probably that the 18-135 (now repaired, and again, a much better lens that it gets credit for). I suspect I'm going to live with the 18 most of the time.

Thanks for the replies everyone! I've definitely had the 23 f/2 on my radar for some time. However, Fuji offers the 16-55 red badge for $900 educational pricing. I've heard it's heavy, but when I checked it out at a local camera store it didn't seem too bad. Should I stick to fast(er) primes, or look to head this direction? I also found that I can rent the 16-55 for about 200 bucks for the 18 days I'll be gone, but I suppose the only thing that makes me pause is that I could KEEP the 35 f2, 23 f2, or 50 f2 for only 100-150 bucks more.

I'm surprised that none of the other photographers who have actually been to Italy has commented yet. If you expect to photograph the landscape you will need a long lens to pick out the compositions. Actually anything up to and including the 100-500mm. Obviously this is not within reach but perhaps checkout the used columns for (say) 50-230 XC since light won't be at a premium. A used 18-55mm or 16-50 XC or, if you can afford it, the superb 16-55mm f2.8. The 14mm and std zoom will be great for the villages, towns and cities.

My last Italy trip I used 12mm and shortish lenses in Venice up to 500mm in the countryside. Obviously you can't cover everything on a budget so perhaps add the 2 XC zooms (used) to your 14mm and cover most opportunities.

Vic

The 14 should cover your wide needs for architecture.

What do you want to shoot, that you have not been able to with the lenses you have?

For me, as a travel-kit, a 2- or 3-prime setup works nicely. A wide (in the 12-18mm range), a more or less normal lens (in the 25-40mm range), and sometimes I add a longer lens or a more specific portrait/indoors lens (e.g. a 35 1.2 or 50 1.5) Small primes have the advantage of added discretion.

Since you already seem covered in the wide with the 14, and for normal & portrait with the Mitakon, the next lens to consider would be (for me) something like the 90, or if you're more into zooms, the 50-230 or 55-200. But on the other hand, the 2 lenses you have already make a powerful package.

Re. the comment in this thread about accidents with gear: If you have a mishap, lookup local photo-stores and electronic discount shops; many have Fuji stuff on stock. Even without a mishap, a new lens can make a cool souvenir 

I'm heading to Europe this summer. I'm planning on taking my X-H1 with 16-55 f/2.8  and X-E3 with the Rokinon 12mm f/2. This would cover personally 90%. I'm hesitating about a long-focal. I have a Tamron 90mm f/2.8 (Nikon mount) that I might take; it will act as a macro in case I need it or long prime (it will be a 135mm FF equiv.

Vic Chapman wrote:

I'm surprised that none of the other photographers who have actually been to Italy has commented yet.

You're more patient than me.

I never can understand these types of posts...  "I'm going to <fill in blank>.  What lenses should I take?"

And the answers are usually all over the map, from focal length to zoom range to quality to weight, etc.  Which I expect.  The point being that each person shoots differently and will need or want different lenses.  I don't find I would necessarily bring any different lens kits whether I was going to Rome, Florence, Venice, Athens, London, Paris, Barcelona, Stockholm, Malta, etc.  It's what I feel like carrying at the time.

To me, these types of questions are simply thinking out loud.  In the end the person knows what lenses they should bring.  The problem is usually what NOT to bring so you don't haul lenses you won't use.

When I look at my travel photography from Europe, Mediterranean, New Zealand, Singapore, the US and other places in Adobe Bridge I find I shoot between 17mm to 120mm in full frame terms.  That's roughly 11mm to 80mm in APS-C.  I have traveled with just the NIkon 24-120 lens.  I usually get a cluster of shots around 24mm (the widest the lens goes and the rest are spread out throughout the range.  Sometimes I'll bring along the 17-35mm.

I traveled to Scandinavia last fall with Fuji bodies and brought the 14mm Samyang with tilt/shift adapter and the Fuji f/2 trio of 23, 35, and 50mm.  Relatively small and light kit.  I'm leaving for a week in Maine tomorrow and will probably bring the Fuji 16-55 f/2.8 and the 55-200 f/3.5-4.8.

If I was advising an APS-C shooter what lenses to bring to Europe I'd tell them to cover the range from 16 to 80mm.  If they can do it bring something wider than 16mm.  If you've still got extra room bring something that goes out to 140 to 200mm (although I find I personally don't use this length much for traveling unless I'm shooting a bit of wildlife.).

I did Italy a few years ago... most of the same places you listed... with a single camera (Sony RX-100) and a 28-100 equivalent zoom lens. That was right inbetween my DSLR years and my Fuji mirrorless years.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/96356688@N06/albums/72157648777471448

I often wanted something a little wider for some of the interior shots like churches and other historic sites, and your 14 (21 equivalent) would be perfect. Then I would suggest the great 18-55 zoom... great travel lens with OIS that would likely stay on your body most of the time.  Then add something a little longer, like the 80 macro or maybe even the a long zoom like the 55-200 or even the smaller CX 50-230.

Good luck and have a great time...

Michael Carroccio
San Antonio, TX USA
http://michaelcarrocciophoto.us

I appreciate all of the well-thought out replies. Everyone has added a lot of very insightful perspective that only experience can provide, which is exactly what I was looking for. It's great to see the different opinions as well.

At this point, What I'm thinking to do is maybe go for the Fuji 23 f/2, and add in the deluxe Lee Filters Seven Five filter kit. that still keeps me under a thousand, and since I love to take landscape photos, this should really improve my ability to create. I very well may end up renting that 16-55 though, I just keep coming back to it! The only bad part about that is that I may NEED to buy one afterwards, Lol!