Lens choice for walking holiday?

ChrisR

ChrisR

I'm a well known grump...
Suspended / Banned
Messages
11,730
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm planning ahead for once... we're going on a group walking holiday in Cornwall in June, including inland and clifftop walks and I'm planning to take at least one of my Pentax MX film cameras. I realise that on a group walk it's not possible to stop and spend enough time to set up a shot properly, but I want to be able to get some reasonable shots (*). I can't carry a load of gear either; I'm planning on taking one camera and one lens each day (perhaps a second lens at the most). And a spare film, of course! Part of the weight restriction is that carrying the camera has to work; my 85-210 Tamron is ruled out because of its weight at 700 grams, which means the (light weight) camera is badly unbalanced. I reckon 400 grams is the most that will really work in these conditions.

Focal lengths currently available: 135mm f/3.5, 100mm f/4 (macro), 85mm f/2, 50mm f/1.7 or f/1.4, 35mm f/2, 28mm f/2.8, 24mm f/2.8, 19mm f/3.8 (very soft at the corners).

My feeling at the moment is that the 35mm f/2 is perhaps the most versatile lens for the job from this lot.

I have one other zoom, a 24-50 f/4 Pentax-F, but it's moderately heavy, hard to focus and a bit soft. I'm considering selling it and replacing with a different zoom, something like 28-70 or 35-80. There's a Tamron Adaptall-2 28-70 in my watch list at the moment, quite affordable, and a slightly more expensive Pentax-M 35-70. However the latter weighs in at 470 gm and I'm ruling it out (unless I could try it in a shop and work out whether it's really too heavy). The Pentax-M or Pentax-A 24-50 zooms on fleabay at the moment are £150-ish, too expensive at the moment, I think.

So, watcha think?

(* my usual technique is to lurk at the back, shoot the view sideways or behind, then walk fast to catch up. Not sure how that's going to go with some of the steep paths!)
 
35mm F/2 would be my choice.

Not too wide nore too restrictive for landscape shots.

Basically on FF 35mm covers what you actually see with both eyes open so to judge what will fit in the frame is imo very easy.

In addition, if the pentax 35mm is similar to the nikon 35mm then using hyperfocal focusing methods is a dream when time to focus and judge dof etc is limited by time and conditions.......I can't recall off hand but focus set at about 5 meters offers acceptable focus from about 2.5m to infinity (I may be thinking more of the 28mm but you get the idea?!)

Lastly but definitely not leastlly ( does that word exist :thinking:), weight and size of a 35mm are ideal for travelling light and on an MX body, possibly not much bigger/ heavier than some p&s cameras
 
Depends on you "see" your subjects. I favour normal or slightly long focal lengths, so I'd take either one of the 50s (choice depending on optical performance) or the 85mm or the macro. My minimal OM outfit was 21mm and 90mm macro. If I anticipated flowers by the path I'd go macro (and double up for sea views); otherwise I'd take a 50mm.

Your choice of film speed and weather conditions could affect the choice.
 
It's tricky, isn't it? The 50s haven't been calling to me for some time. I only used the 28 and 35 at the Lakes last year, but I had plenty of freedom to find viewpoints that worked. On a clifftop path I can see that both a wider view (the 35, say) for the sweeping bay or the 100mm for either distant rocky bits or pathside flowers. That 100mm lens is a cracker; I've got some spring flower shots with it I'll be putting up when I can get the scans loaded, that look excellent from the previews. Maybe the 35 on the camera and the 100 in the backpack is the way to go!

EDIT: good point about film speed... it'll be either Portra 400 or Ektar 100, I think. With limited shooting opportunities a film might last several days. But I do expect to have my monopod and portrait/landscape QR head...
 
Last edited:
Get a mule and take everything .
 
... or maybe drive a truck? ;)

I will be able to take more gear to the location, it's choices for the walks that are bothering me. Interesting that no-one has suggested a zoom (other than me)... and I'm not really that keen!
 
Well I'm usually an old Pentax screw lens user but have accumulated the Pentax 24-35, 35-70 and 75-150 and a Ricoh camera ;) the 35-70 A is tiny as it's just slightly larger than the 24-35mm M........the 24mm-35 M is quite a good lens but without looking at my shots again IIRC the 35-70 A wasn't outstanding.
From your list I'd take the 24mm, 35mm, 100mm or 135mm, but a handy combo in the future keeping lenses to a min would be:- 24mm and a VG 35-70mm zoom.... my Tamron 09a (35-70) and SP1 01a (35-80mm) give good results but are quite large and heavy.

Using the Pentax 24mm-35mm I couldn't go further back because of a bush that would be in the way.... anyway test shots 24mm and 35mm


 
Last edited:
@ChrisR If the Tamron Adaptall-2 zoom that your looking at is the 28 - 70mm f3.5-4.5 44A then I've got one of them and it's a very good general purpose lens, not overly large/heavy, sharp at practically all focal lengths and apertures above f5.6. There's a test report with data reproduced from the magazine Modern Photography here: http://www.adaptall-2.com/lenses/44A.html
 
Checking my 35mm lens in preparation for this trip, and I noticed a couple of "dust spots" on the front that wouldn't shift with a blower or a microfibre cloth. I had a look through the lens, slightly away from the light, and these spots are actually small round areas. I suspect they are fungus! Oh dear, the first fungus I've seen on my lenses.:runaway:

What to do? I've heard of leaving the lens in the sun, but sadly we don't seem to have much right now. Is there anything one can do to clean it off?:help:

I'm not sure what effect it's likely to have. There did appear to be an abundance of other marks on the lens, when viewed through it. I guess this would reduce contrast a bit. I was trying to remember which lens I used on which camera for the Lakes trip last year; I suspect the 35mm was used with black and white film, and a 28mm for colour. I remember thinking the black and white shots were underwhelming... Maybe a Vivitar 28mm is the better complement to the 100mm!
 
Don't worry about it for ruining optical performance, but you could try lighter fluid or Isopropyl with a cotton bud to remove stubborn spots.
 
i always thought fungus was more "whispy" like single strands of cotton wool rather than circular. Could it just be pitting of the glass?
 
ChrisR said:
Checking my 35mm lens in preparation for this trip, and I noticed a couple of "dust spots" on the front that wouldn't shift with a blower or a microfibre cloth. I had a look through the lens, slightly away from the light, and these spots are actually small round areas. I suspect they are fungus! Oh dear, the first fungus I've seen on my lenses.:runaway:
Click to expand...

I traded in a couple of lenses to Ffordes last year and was horrified to be told that they were both suffering from fungus. They were both canon L series lenses and very carefully used, with absolutely no inkling that they might have a problem. Where it showed up very clearly was by shining an LED light from the front and viewing the lens at full aperture from the rear, and I was amazed at what showed up that wasn't visible from the front. Even if you just buy a couple of those cheapie stick-up LED lights for cupboards at a couple of quid you'll be able to use them. I hope it isn't too bad!
 
I had another go with a cotton bud, and the "fungus" seems to have come off... and the SMC coating still seems to be there! So it's going in the bag on the colour film camera, with the 50/1.7, 85/2 and 100/4, and the 28/2.8 on the b&w camera. That's if there's room in the car; my wife's thinking of taking two suitcases!
 
Unless you have a real need for that extra 15mm I'd be tempted to leave the 100mm behind unless it's a macro of course.
 
RaglanSurf said:
Unless you have a real need for that extra 15mm I'd be tempted to leave the 100mm behind unless it's a macro of course.
Click to expand...

Yes, a lovely macro. F/4 is a bit of a pain, but that lens should allow me to get some distant interest as well as path-side flowers. If pushed I'd probably take it instead of the 85 for this kind of thing. But I'll know more once we've done a walk or two!

Thanks for your help, everyone.
 
So, we're back, along with 6 and a half rolls of exposed film, 4 Ektar 100 and 2 Portra 400 (exposed the wrong way round, really: started on the Ektar, turned out to be gloomy, then when I ran out and moved to the Portra it brightened up!). The "half" roll is FP4+, more later.

The "colour" Pentax performed flawlessly (AFAIK, rolls not sent off yet). The first day was forecast murky and damp, and I took the "black and white" Pentax, loaded with the FP4+. IIRC I took about 20 shots with it, as the weather steadily deteriorated to continuous rain. Then, the shutter noise changed completely. It soon became clear the mirror was not flipping up out of the way, so that was it for that day. Back at base and with the lens off, the mirror flipped up for B, and for longer settings, but when I tried using it again today, batteries dead and still that "no mirror" sound. :( I think I'll rewind the film and check out all the shutter speeds, but it looks like yet another CLA. :( :( :(

Meanwhile, the 35mm stayed glued onto the other Pentax almost all of the time (turns out it really is too hard to get a different lens out from the bottom of a daypack with lunch and a parka jammed on top, while trying not to hold the group up too much). It felt really fine, and the field of view was perfect almost all of the time. I'd have liked to have had that 100 mm semi-macro more easily accessible for a couple of shots, but I was very happy with the choice. Thanks, folks...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top