On Mar 17, 2013, at 10:02 AM, Aahz Maruch wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013, Stan Halpin wrote:
>>
>> . . . Our day
>> in Willemstad was spent wandering the streets; no off-road tours,
>> no scenic rail or bus tours. . .
>>
>> http://photos.stanhalpin.com/p871591028
>
> Most of the shots in this series were done with 21mm and 55mm, whereas
> your previous series have mostly been the 35mm. Any particular reason?
> --
Aahz, this is probably way more than you wanted to know, but since you asked .
. . Note that I make no claims that the following analysis of my own behavior
patterns provides the "right" answers for you or anyone else. But maybe it will
help you think about what works best for you.
I have a few quirks in my approach to travel photography. One is that I usually
avoid zoom lenses, foregoing their flexibility in favor of fixed focal length
lenses because the latter are less bulky to carry and less conspicuous to use.
Second is that I have become accustomed to using two camera bodies, switching
bodies rather than switching lenses. And I anticipate which will be my main
lens, that one goes on the camera-with-grip in my hand, the other on the
camera-without-grip around my neck.
I can think of several ways to diagnose/describe my pattern:
a - I'm too lazy to change lenses;
b - I am being wise to avoid lens changes in dirty dusty environments;
c - I am being wise to pre-visualize and anticipate the shots I will be
taking;
d - I am sub-optimizing my images by failing to always chose the
precise tool for each shot;
e - I am stretching myself by sticking to one or two focal lengths and
looking for the shots that work with those lenses; or
f - I am too lazy to change lenses.
For the day in Aruba, for example, we were gong to be spending some time in the
countryside so I started the day with mid-range (35/2.8 macro) and medium-long
(77mm) lenses. I carried the 21mm and 200mm in case I needed to go wider or
longer, but never switched. When we got back into Oranjestad, there were a few
shots where the 35mm felt too tight, I couldn't back further away, but it
wasn't quite worth it to stop and change to the 21mm. The next day, the day you
were asking about in Willemstad Curaçao (knowing we were going to be in town
all day), I went with the 21mm and 55mm on the cameras and didn't carry any
other lenses. (And used the 55mm far more than the 21mm.) Once back aboard, I
put the 35mm on the body-without-grip for shots of the cityscape, sunset,
friends at the bar, etc. Could have used the 40mm but the 35mm was closest to
the front of the safe in the cabin when I did the swap.
Across all the days of the trip, across the varied venues, in round numbers my
lens usage according to Lightroom was:
12-24 = 50
15 = 5
21 = 450
35 = 1800
40 = 150
55 = 375
77 = 700
200 = 250 (some of these with the F1.7x attached)
My one regret with respect to camera/lens selection day-to-day is that in
Aruba, the one day we had some time at a beach, I did not think to carry my
WG-2 "underwater" camera for cliché shots of the beach from out in the water.
If I do a similar trip, I'll probably carry a different kit. 16-50/2.8 and
50-135/2.8 as my two main lenses and 35/2.8 macro and 77/1.8 as my two
prime-lens alternates. Rather than the PK-A200/4.0 + F1.7x, I will probably
take my DA*300/4.0 - not that much heavier/bulkier and far better performance
for the occasional bird shots. So, 5 lenses rather than 8. But I know I will
have a hard time leaving the 21mm or the 55mm behind. One reason I might change
to the 50-135 in lieu of 55 + 77 is that there were times I wanted extra reach,
I didn't have my 100mm macro with me, and the 200 was too long. So either I add
the 100mm macro into the kit or I switch to the zoom for that range, and gain
flexibility at the same time.
stan
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
