Leaving stuff behind

[KevinBarrett]

I'll be going to Rome soon for a week and I think I'll go light. I think of taking just the CZ16-80 as my main lens (hoorayy, it has just arrived!!) and probably the 70-210/4 as zoom.

Then, I have to see if I can resist to also bring the 50/1.7 and the Sigma 10-20 and a tripod...

Will definitely not take the 28-135, the 28-75/2.8, the Sigma 70-300, the 135/2.8 ... hold on - what about taking the 135/2.8 as light zoom rather than the beercan? And a small 1.4TC... might have to test this out a bit! Anybody experience with that?

That was another trip in which I carried too much. I went to Rome for my honeymoon two years ago on May 11.

Definitely take your Sigma 10-20mm. The shallow DoF of the 50mm would be very nice too, and I am obliged to recommend you take it. Leave your tripod at home. The only time I used my tripod was when I purposely went out to St Peter's Square at night with the intent of finally getting use out of that albatross I'd been lugging around. The tripod just got in the way and there will be plenty of light for hand-held exposures in 99% of the daylight hours, right up to golden hour and beyond, particularly if you take your 50mm. The 135/2.8, with or without the TC, over the 70-210/4 is a fabulous idea, and I heartily recommend it.

I took my 18-70, 70-210/4, 50/1.7, cheap light tripod, and f56 flash gun. The only pictures from that trip that are hanging in my house were taken with my 50mm, wide open, no flash. Don't cart around a flash gun if you can help it. If you ever need fill-light or slow-sync (and there's so much ambient light bouncing around that city that I doubt you will), your on-board flash will be plenty.

[pakodominguez]

I'll be going to Rome soon for a week and I think I'll go light. I think of taking just the CZ16-80 as my main lens (hoorayy, it has just arrived!!) and probably the 70-210/4 as zoom.

Then, I have to see if I can resist to also bring the 50/1.7 and the Sigma 10-20 and a tripod...

Will definitely not take the 28-135, the 28-75/2.8, the Sigma 70-300, the 135/2.8 ... hold on - what about taking the 135/2.8 as light zoom rather than the beercan? And a small 1.4TC... might have to test this out a bit! Anybody experience with that?

Bossel,

I think there are basically two approach to the question 'what do I take for the trip/gig/whatever". The first one is the overload solution because you need a backup and a backup for the backup. And, just in case, that special lens...

The second approach is simplified and take just a main lens and a "complement: if your main lens is a long zoom, a normal or wide angle will help. If you take a wide to normal zoom, a small tele will be handy.

I don't know Rome (yet) but I think the 16-80 and the 135 f2.8 will be a perfect kit -and a good style exercise.

The only minus here is that you don't know yet how the 16-80 performs. If you don't have time for try it before your trip, you'll need a plan B

Regards

[pakodominguez]

Interesting question. I've been debating taking the 135/2.8 and a 1.4x TC to Italy vs. my Sony 55-200 zoom. Right now I'm leaning toward the 55-200--versatility vs. speed.

I don't know how good is your TC, but think that you can shoot the 55-200 wide open with a relative good quality, while the 135 f2.8 + TC + 1 f-stop in order to get back some sharpness... your 135m become a 200mm f5.6!

My son toured Brussels and Germany last spring using just the Canon G10 I bought him. Sometimes I'm tempted to do likewise Would sure make packing a lot easier!

Ah! another NEX early adopter....

[pakodominguez]

Interesting question. I've been debating taking the 135/2.8 and a 1.4x TC to Italy vs. my Sony 55-200 zoom.

I haven't seen the 55-200mm but is it big? I would expect it wouldn't be much bigger or heavier than the 135mm + TC, maybe lighter. In that case, I would take the 55-200mm.

The 55-200 is just a little bigger than the 135mm ,without TC, and lighter: it is a (good) plastic lens. if i recall properly, the barrel of the new SAM version is s little bit bigger.

[Andy B]

The 55-200 is just a little bigger than the 135mm ,without TC, and lighter: it is a (good) plastic lens. if i recall properly, the barrel of the new SAM version is s little bit bigger.

My Sony 55-200 weighs 295 gr vs. 365 gr for the 135/2.8 (including built-in hood). The lenses are about the same length and both take 55mm filters, although the 135/2.8 is narrower in diameter. The 55-200 has .29 magnification vs. only .16 for the 135/2.8. (The SAM version is even lighter at 210 gr. Not sure if the optics are any different.)

I had zero interest in the 55-200 when it first came out, but then I picked one up for $92US at a clearance sale. I was planning to give it to my daughter before I tried it out. Afterwards, I was so pleased with the lens I ended up selling my beercan and shelving my 100-200/4.5. It makes a great travel lens when I don't need the extra focal length of my 100-300 APO.

As far as the NEX, Pako, I share Shirley's feelings about viewfinders.

[Dusty]

Whenever I go on those once-in-a-lifetime trips, I pack heavy!

In Moscow in 1992 I had 2 camera bags and a video bag on me at all times. When was I ever going to get to see the changing of the guard at Lenin's tomb again? Or photograph Red Square and go into the Kremlin? The same for the Holy Land tour I did in '99. How I wish I had today;s digital then! 1200 pics in 10 days, and it took me 3 months to be able to afford all the developing!

If I'm heading out to the woods for a walk, I'll pack fairly light, but on a real trip - not an interesting visit to some place the wife saw on-line that's only 4 hours away - I'm packing all the stuff I can carry!

Dusty