Macro lens in London: for the serious photographers on this list: would you leave a favorite lens at home to make your camera bag lighter?
 

I'm trying to finalize my kit for London and I've hit a snag. I'm taking a wide-midrange zoom, a fisheye, and a couple of teleconverters. Now I'm thinking about taking my macro lens, because I have room for it and i didn't think I would. I put it in the bag and it makes it significanly heavier, and I'll have to lug it around everywhere for a week. But I'm afraid that I'll regret it if I leave it at home, since it's one of my most-used lenses.

I can kind of cover the macro with all the other stuff I'm bringing, but this macro lens is such a great piece of glass...so what would you do? I've already had one friend tell me to bring as little gear as possible. Any and all input would be appreciated!

What is the mid-range and the teleconverters?

I'd personally probably take the macro over an extra teleconverter -- or instead of the fish eye. I love using a macro especially in all the gardens . . .

Last year I had my usual burden of photo equipment. In Wales my shutter broke beyond immediate repair.
I got home, no pictures, and not many feelings of regret. I did not have to walk around lugging that stone and I actually had more fun.

I think travel photography can become something of a COD.
I have thousands of slides I never look at.

Leave the macro.

Take the videocam.

And the cannoli...

Janis, the mid-range is a 28-75mm. The TCs are 1.4x and 2x. I don't know how much I'll really use them, but they weigh next to nothing and I figured I could stack them if necessary. I've found the fisheye to be quite a versatile creative tool, plus I can de-fish in Photoshop, making the lens a very useful ultrawide. I wouldn't be caught without one in a city. :)

You're right about the gardens; that's what I'm thinking of for the macro. I figured I could just use the 1.4x TC for that, but I'm not impressed with my test shots from it.

Bob Brown, your point is well taken. That is what I'm worried about. Maybe I'll take Janis' advice and leave one of the TCs at home. What do you mean by COD?

How would a macro shot of an English flower be different than a flower any where else in the world?

London only? Are you planning to turn this into a phototrip or do you want to experience citylife?

I'ld leave the macro at home. Fisheye could be nice and together with a good super-zoom and a small tele you'ld do just fine. Travel light and your shoulders will thank you at the end of the day...

Hi S,

I am reminded of the gentleman I met on a train one evening. Along with his wife, younger daughter, older daughter and SIL and their infant, all with associated luggage; he had a complete Hasselblad system.

Take all of the lenses you think you will need.

((I))

Sorry, but I have to ask...are you going to visit London or to photograph it?

If the purpose is to visit (and actually experience) the city, consider unburdening yourself from the big camera kit entirely, taking a compact all-in-one digital camera, and trying to see the city other than through a viewfinder.

But for serious photographers, this is probably heresy ;-)

I can't speak to the intricacies of the various pieces of equipment and the advantages or disadvantages of which ones to take. However, I can relate to you as a serious photographer.
A previous poster asked.,.."are you going to visit London or photograph it?" My answer would be, "Both." A good part of my experience is the taking of the photographs. Do I spend too much time looking through the viewfinder? I think not, knowing that when I return home, I will look at the photographs over and over again! And, as the years pass, I still review the albums and the vividness of the trip remains.
I don't think that a non-serious photographer can really relate to your dilemma.
When people say, "But a postcard is a better [or prettier] showing of the site/sight," I respond, "But, it wasn't my moment!"
I say all of this to "justify" my recommendation: Take whatever equipment you feel will enable you to capture the best memories of your trip!

It's difficult for me to read the words "serious photographer" in the same sentence as the words "fisheye" and "zoom." No serious photographer I know uses such things.

For the sake of creativity and tastefulness, a macro lens far outweighs the usefulness any fisheye might offer.

I do not define a serious photographer by the words he/she uses, but rather by the results of his/her work!

I didn't acquire lenses so I could leave any of them home. I bought them so I could make the pictures I want to under a wide range of lighting conditions and viewpoints. The weight of my camera bag is inconsequential.

But sunny16, why would you leave one of your most-used lenses at home anyway?

Thanks for the responses so far! I think HowardR nailed it WRT the issue of whether I'm going to London to experience it or to photograph it. I'm doing both!

Robespierre, your point is well taken about not leaving one of my most-used lenses at home. That would probably be a bad move. I'm thinking about leaving one or both of the TCs at home instead.

NYCFoodSnob, I'm sorry I'm making things difficult for you this morning. I suggest you expand your horizons and try meeting other photographers who don't take themselves so seriously. ;)

No need to apologize to me, dear. I like people who make me chuckle.

As for expanding horizons, I don't know a single art director who considers ultra-wide angle images particularly useful. But, to each his own. Planning a trip into space, are you?

And most amateurs know that zoom lenses aren't as sharp or distortion-free as fixed-focal but I'm sure, as a serious photographer with expanded horizons, you already knew that. Happy shooting!

Oops, I forgot, at 10G a day, if I don't take myself seriously, who will?

I think Robespierre has made a good point
As for some of the other comments......hey, that's easy. Ignore the ones that you don't care for!

The nice thing is that the rest of us don't have to take folks seriously.

Take what you want... If you meet someone as rude as some of these posters, use the heavy lens to hit them in the head.

I am actually downsizing and not taking my zoom this trip, but that is because my bag will now be full of permission slips, health forms, and other data required to chaperone 8 kids around Europe who aren't related to you!

From another photographer who both photographs and visits London:

Take both! If it gets to heavy, leave it in the hotel safe for the day. Then, when you realize you could have gotten so many shots with it, bring it back out the next :)

I have recently gotten into photography not just for the joy of it, but also as a business, selling prints of my photos. As such, I need more than the 'generic point and shoot', as I need photos with enough resolution to print up to size. Also, stock photography requires particular sizes as well.

NYFoodSnob, Food ain't the only thing you're snobby about, evidently :P

Remember that galleries with snobby art directors that care about terminology aren't the only venue for photography.

Hi sunny! Let me approach this from a slightly different angle. Are you using a standard type camera bag? If so, you might want to look into a LowePro backpack camera bag. They make a number of different sizes. This has the enormous advantage of being a lot easier on your shoulders and back, even with an extra lens in there.

To answer your actual question: I might, but Phil Flash never would. That's the difference between us -- he's the pro.

The fisheye might never produce something that will be sold for publication or in a gallery, but it CAN be a lot of silly fun.

Well I'm with those of you who say you go to London (or anywhere) to BOTH see the city and photograph it. Not to be insulting to anyone, but frankly if you ask a question like "are you going to see the city or photography it" you clearly don't have a clue about photographpy.

But therein lies the problem. You want to have the equipment you need to get the kinds of shots you want, but there is a limit to how much weight most of us can comfortably carry around. Because of that, I usually compromise and leave some of my equipment at home. If I were you sunny, I'd probably leave the macro lens if it adds significant weight as I think you could get most of what you want with the other lenses you listed. You can't get good shots if you are so tired from lugging a very heavy bag that you can't walk around. In most cases I find going back to somewhere to get the light just right makes more of a difference to a good shot than any specific lens. And therefore I do a LOT of walking. And therefore the weight I'm carrying has to be reasonable.

<i>&quot;The nice thing is that the rest of us don't have to take folks seriously.&quot;</i>

That's absolutely correct.

CarolA, if your comments were directed at me, I didn't think I was being rude at all and I don't appreciate the false characterization. The word &quot;serious&quot; like &quot;love&quot; means something different to every individual. I was merely responding to sunny16 with honesty and caustic playfulness, trying to enlighten him/her and encouraging him/her to consider another expanded horizon.

I had no idea this topic would spark such a big discussion! Thanks for all the great responses!

Marilyn, I would love nothing more than to carry a camera backpack, but the problem with those is that I can't get to my gear easily, (without putting them on the ground) making it harder to shoot. For this trip, I'm carrying the Lowepro Stealth AW 100, which is pretty small.

NYCFoodSnob, I'm going to take you at face value and assume you're honestly trying to help. In which case, I'd like to tell you that

a) zooms have come a long way in the past 20 years. Surely at 10G/day you know that. ;) The zoom I'm carrying is a brand new design with excellent color saturation and bokeh and very little barrel distortion (and that is correctable in Photoshop).

b) re. the fisheye, I'm sure that you and most people are imagining the typical fisheye effect, but the people on Pbase who use this lens have done some pretty interesting things with it, as opposed to your typical fisheye shot. Go here and click on the More link to flip through the collection:
http://tinyurl.com/dpbda

Getting off my soapbox now...:)

You mention a 28-75 and Photoshop so I assume you're shooting with a digital SLR. That assumption being made, depending on the camera- 28mm isn't all that wide.
What system/body are you using?

You're right, LunaTech. I shoot a Pentax *istD, with a crop factor of 1.5. So my 28-75 is actually a 42-112.5, and the 15mm is really a 22.5, and it looks slightly less distorted on the digital than it would on a film body. I'll therefore have no coverage between 22 and 42mm, but my DH is bringing a 20mm, so I'll just borrow his if I really need to.

Well, as a paid photographer for 35 years and a studio owner for the last 31 of them, I suppose I qualify as a “serious” photographer.
I do know that John and Jane public would most likely be stunned at how basic and simple real studio equipment is. The rule of thumb, when working quickly and efficiently, is the fewer peripherals to contend with the better. It is also obvious that pro’s learn to work with what they have at hand. A single fixed-focus (or zoom) lens, a tele-converter, if you must, and a set of screw-in close-up filters should be more than adequate.
I also teach classes and seminars on photography and I’m often amazed at how much extra junk people pack around with them trying to create the aura of being a “pro.” Actually, you’re setting yourself up as a target for simple theft or a not so simple mugging, plus you’re dragging all that extra weight around for what generally turns out to be minimal use.
When I travel to Europe I drag along my oldest Nikon F 35mm camera, a 50mm lens (the oldest I own), the afore mentioned 3-X converter and screw in filters for the up-close and personal stuff, and a hefty insurance policy.
The idea of dragging along serious studio equipment, or for that matter a medium format rig, to me is ludicrous. I know people who shoot automatic cameras and still believe they have to bring along a hand-held light meter. (Except for the digital cameras, everything in my arsenal is manual and I haven’t seen my light meter in 20 years. I know it will sound smug, but if your eye isn’t as good as a meter, you should be carrying a point and shoot.)
Also, I wouldn’t dream of checking in even my basic old equipment with my luggage but neither can I imagine dragging a full kit on board as a carry-on.
In the end of course it’s up to you what you take along, but remember most of it will likely be an albatross. You’ll worry about it when you pack it with you and likely worry about it if you leave it back at the hotel (unless they have a safe and there’s enough room to pack all your gear inside it).
When it comes to traveling with camera equipment, never pack what you can’t afford to lose.
By the way, I would rank London as perhaps the most “photogenic” city in the world, at least among those I’ve seen so far. Have fun, take lots of pictures, and don’t obsess about what you’ve left at home. Learn to adapt and you’ll become a better photographer for it. After all, most of the really great photos, including the lion’s share of Pulitzer Prize winners, were made with equipment that today would seem quaint, and often under the worst of circumstances. Great photographs are often made by great photographers. The tools that they use are merely incidental.

&quot;Great photographs are often made by great photographers.&quot;

beautifully said.

As I watched my mother go from a novice to a serious photographer her equipment got less and less and the pictures got better and better....

You might consider the Pentax smc P-DA J 16-45mm F4.0 ED/AL.

I carry a 16-35 on my Canon and that accounts for 80% of my shots.

Yeah, the 16-45 is a great lens, but I only buy full-frame lenses. If there were a full-frame version, I might consider it; my DH swears by Canon's 17-40mm.

If its that difficult a decision, leave a pair of shoes home and fill the space with the lens you need .
Easy.....job done.

Muck

Take them all

Muck

Sunny, I'm sure by now you've figured out that there's no consensus on this. I've caught up, off and on to see how the thread wandered, as I too have wondered whether to leave things behind or not. In the end I've taken things that I barely used (in my case, a tripod) and wished for things I'd left behind (again, the dang tripod!)

The difference, I think, is in planning - and I'm normally a non-planner when it comes to travel itself. With the photography though, if I'd thought about it, I would have realized that what I wanted to shoot in Ireland was all wide open landscapes that didn't really require a tripod. In Budapest, the buildings are amazing at night, but for me, the shots at night are pointless with a hand held.

Anyway - the point, and I do have one, is that this seems to be an issue of what kind of photography to you plan to enjoy in London? If you're eager to do some macros, it would be silly to leave the lens behind. So then the question might really be about gardens or entomology?

On the tangents, I add no more expertise than most. But NYCFS, you're right in that &quot;serious&quot; is going to mean different things to different people. Me, I didn't take it as &quot;professional&quot;, which is a whole other realm.

Some of us do seriously enjoy the activity as a hobby, and care about the results, but not in a way that necessarily has to please laymen, much less art directors (not even on the radar). I participate in an amateur travel photog site that I enjoy, and some of the participants there are very very good. Of course, I'm not one of those! Oh, to be a budding Steve McCurry.

What I have seen though is that there are a lot of distinct interest leanings within that already small interest group of travel photography. Most do not gravitate to staging, design or location planning because, while serious, do not have to produce results to meet other's financial expectations. Because of that, serious amateurs seem more free to pursue experimentation and what interests them personally. The divisions I've noticed seem broken into: portrait, architectural, macro, street photography (Henri Cartier-Bresson style), abstract (including pushing the edge of exposure, distortion, etc), and landscape.

A side note for those who might be interested, I've mentioned this site before:

www.trekearth.com

It's not a website for uploading photo albums, and honestly, there's quite a bit of amateurish amateur photography, but also a number of pretty talented people who do provide and look for feedback to improve their work. If nothing else, it's amazing the number of countries represented by active members. Reading some other languages, esp French, might come in handy but most there can write in English. A recent photo I had up had responses from France, Poland, Malaysia, Canada, Japan, Iran, USA, India, Philippines, Portugal, Sierra Leone and Brazil. What did we do before the internet?

<i>&quot;But NYCFS, you're right in that &quot;serious&quot; is going to mean different things to different people. Me, I didn't take it as &quot;professional&quot;, which is a whole other realm.&quot;</i>

I didn't take it to mean &quot;professional&quot; either, Clifton, but the words &quot;Macro&quot; and &quot;serious&quot; pulled me into sunny's thread and I responded as a &quot;professional&quot; reader. It's as simple as that. I sincerely wish sunny16 a very successful and rewarding shoot experience.

I try my best to avoid these photography threads because photographers are worse than hairdressers; everyone thinks they know it all. I simply know what I know.

DiAblo's post made me chuckle because I belong to a small circle of professionals who love and honor the power of the 4x5 camera (sunny16, see www.toddeberle.com and allow enough time for the slide show with each icon to progress). When your eye is trained for perfection through years and years of hard work and analysis, you just get to the point when settling for second best won't do.

I understand what DiAblo wrote and to each his own. My love and admiration for 35mm, speed, and convenience has passed. I firmly believe there's no right or wrong, just plenty of choices.

The macro lens happens to be one of my favorites. I love shooting food, barware, elegant table settings, architectural details, and, of course, flowers. I couldn't imagine photography without my macro, my tripod, and my shutter release cord. Just keep telling yourself, no pain no gain.

Thanks sunny, for starting this thread, and to others for their interesting contributions, especially for the website references. sunny, after years of being where you are, I've learned that I've the luxury of having only myself (and my wife, who's easy) to please. That realization has been both liberating and, because I'm my own worst critic, incredibly frustrating. I've almost come to look at photography as the quest for the Holy Grail (Image). Has anyone ever found it?

What this all has to do with your question, I've no idea. But I like Clifton's advice.

Now, where's that bottle of chardonnay?

I think if you don't take your favorite lens, you will spend a lot of your vacation thinking that you should have brought it along.

Plan a trip to Kew Gardens - then you can justify bringing it along. :)

Well, I've certainly learned a lot from this thread! Clifton, you hit the nail on the head...I'm exactly the kind of photographer you described. I liked that website you posted, too.

I think the only solution to my dilemma is to go out shooting both days this weekend: once to shoot flowers with everything but the macro, and once with the macro in the bag to see if I can carry it around all day. I don't know how else to decide. :)

Let us know how it comes out sunny, with the walk through. Oh and share a peek at how the London shots come out, since you're shooting digital and all. Almost bought a istD since I used to use an old old manual film Pentax for years. I'm curious how they come out (and want to see London again!).

If you are going to Kew Gardens, do not leave the macro at home. I'd vote for taking all of them, if you can.

I have a bias. I also haul a 2 1/4 X 2 1/4 Mamiyaflex just because I MIGHT see a shot that only a larger format will accommodate!

For some reason, photographers who use the excuse that we really care about the craft complain about carrying all that dead weight, but we do it anyway. My wife quickly tells me to stop whining.

Bottom line is I would hate to be in London and realize the lens I need is back in Houston!

Go for it. And here's hoping for perfect light for you.

Jim

Here's another advantage, sunny, if you need to rationalize taking the lens. It's what we call The Phil Flash Travel Diet. You get to eat everything you want, desserts, wine, the whole enchilada, but you walk around all day with a 30 lb. camera bag/pack. Voila! No weight gain!

LOL, Marilyn! I like that solution!

For those who care, I tried hauling the macro along with the rest of the kit on Saturday, and it's going to have to stay home. I didn't notice the weight so much when I stopped to take pictures, but while I was walking, I really felt the weight! And the shots I took with the teleconverters were acceptable. On the other hand, the rest of the lenses really proved their worth. So, I'm all set now!

Thanks for helping me think this through, everyone. :) This has been a very educational thread.