Photography is an expensive hobby to start. Before you’ve build up a sufficiently complete kit, there’s always this vague need to acquire more “stuff”. I’ve gotten as far as having focal range from 10mm to 210mm covered with several lenses. I’ve also got a flash, some filters and a tripod. A subset of this kit is my lightweight, manual focus film gear, centered around a 1985 vintage Nikon FG.
Anyways, I’ve got a 50mm lens on the camera. I could use the zooms too, but the weight generally gets a bit much for casual work. In fact, I’d like the film kit to be a lot more portable than my regular digital kit. This means no more than 2 or 3 small prime lenses. The usual lens question comes up: which ones? There is only one way to find out without buying and trying everything, and that is to use what you’ve got and see how is it being limiting.
I went up Table mountain on a day hike the last weekend, and did some shooting. I found that I’d like to go a bit wider than the 50mm. Much wider in most cases. Something in the 20-28mm range would be ideal. Alternatively, it would be nice to have something significantly longer than the standard lens for isolating parts of scenery, such as details of plants or a particular rock formation.
This reminded me of Thom’s lens recommendations: He suggests a 20mm f/4 and 100mm f/2.8 for a light kit. There is also some importance attached to having a common 52mm filter size.
Some research shows that the 20mm f/4 is pretty rare on the market. However, the f/3.5 AI-S one does seem quite available. In addition, the newer 24mm f/2.8 AI-S that focuses to 20cm is also decent, as is the current AF version. The 24mm f/2 is better, but pretty rare. The 28mm f/2.8 AI-S is good, better than the simpler AF version. The amazing is that all these take 52mm filters, and most of them weigh between 200g and 300g.
These guys were mostly designed in the 70’s. There’s a general theme of soft wide open and sharpening up quickly as aperture closes. They are not much better (if not worse) than modern classics as the AF-S 17-35mm f/2.8D, but are lighter, smaller and much, much cheaper.
I’ll be looking out for one of these guys, along with the 100mm f/2.8 (I think I know where I’ll find one of those). If I do decided to go for the lightweight hiking kit idea, I’ll add a few filters (I’m thinking a polarizer, a 3 stop ND and some sort of an orange filter for the clouds).
The one thing that also popped up on the hike was that without high ISO film, I’ll need a tripod for a lot of shots. So… about those carbon fibre Manfrottos…