Thanks for the replies. I've discounted the A35-105 on two counts: the size/weight and the fact the focus ring 'clunks' (probably due to the 'macro' setting it drops into as you focus closer) - takes away the magic somewhat. I also have a K135/2.5 but that's larger/heavier than the M135/3.5 and needs a separate hood.

I'll be shooting.a mix of landscape, chapel interiors (hence the fish-eye) vistas and general travel/holiday shots.

Hi All,

I'm looking at possible lens combinations for travel for my LX, last time I used FA20-35/4, FA43/1.9 & M135/3.5 but since then I've acquired a K24/2.8 & K17mm Fish-Eye and dug out my A35-105/3.5.

I'm thinking of swapping the FA20-35 (f/4 is close the limits of split-image black-out) for the 24 & FE, and swapping the M135 for the A35-105 (I need to check the weight of it first). This reduces my reach - 135 has been useful but the zoom may be more versatile (but it's bulky and hefty). Another option is an FA28-80/3.5-4.7 instead of the A35-105 & 24 (but again, this is a heavy/slow lens).

I have nothing longer than 135 that isn't a big/heavy long zoom (apart from an SMC-Tak 150/4 which is likely to be too cumbersome to use). I'm happy using a 2x teleconverter but I doubt it would suite these lenses.

Any thoughts or suggestions based on the above?


John.

Fantastic shots. I always struggle to find the right viewpoints when surrounded by typical 'big city' architecture, you have managed to find some excellent viewpoints.

It's easy to blame you gear and assume that a new 'magic' piece of kit will give you better results. All things being equal, It should (unless you're already optimum) but longer (probably slower & heavier) lenses require more careful handling. In many situations, you're better cropping after shooting rather than trying to get the best out of an unmanageable lens.

You don't mention if you're APS-C or FF, but 300mm on APS-C is already a 450 equivalent. Lenses this long during the film days were always serious pieces of kit (unless going for a mirror). Canon will sell you a 100-400 (with IS as you won't have SR) but it's still 2k (and is only slightly longer than 300 - less that it sounds if you're pushing the limits).

I'm used to seeing gates hinged on the left and bolted/chained on the right (no idea if this is actually likely). In this case it's immaterial as each image suggests travelling in different directions towards the gate (i.e. both suggest you could be travelling on the left).

I saw a review of the 35/1.4 - apparently CaNikon bodies also struggled with focussing - only the 'cross-type' sensors had any hope of working (any they're mostly clustered in the centre of the frame). It also stated that no camera manufacturer would make such a lens due to problems with focussing - if an independent lens doesn't focus on a body it's not the body manufacturers fault - but you'd expect a $$$ CaNikon lens to focus on a $$$$ CaNikon body.

The FA20-35/4 should be a much better focal length range, size and cost for most users compared to the 15-30 (which only really makes sense when paired with the 24-70). I simply don't understand why everybody suddenly wants a 15mm lens (it was an extremely rare & expensive focal length until DSLRs arrived). I'd prefer a fish-eye for ultra-wide as it works better in confined spaces (where I use lenses this wide most).

I prefer the original 'top' image, although in this case they both work as the bottom one could have been taken from the other side of the gate.

Composition is such a personal thing, but the best book I've seen on it is 'The Image' by Michael Freeman.

The last time I saw a Fuji promotion, it was buy an XPro body, receive two lenses free.

Put another way, how many K-1 owners are going to be buying 28, 35, 50, 85 & 105 primes at £3-400 each when you can buy the 28-105 zoom? OK, the 28, 35 & 50 should be affordable and useful - the FA 35/2 & 50/1.4 are still available new (along with the 43/1.9 Ltd). 85mm are hugely expensive as only f/1.8's are available and 105mm seem to have dropped off the radar. The only FA24mm lens was a huge f/2 version which is hard to find and very expensive - how could it be more affordable designed new today when prime buyers are more of a minority?

I prefer primes and spent a fortune building a set, but the current preferred lenses are a wide zoom 15-30 or thereabouts, 28-70/2.8, 24-205/4, 70-210/4, 70-210/2.8 & 100-400 or similar depending upon budget. Pentax have to prioritise these lenses as they're the first (and often only) ones the 'new believers' expect to be available.

Some Canon shooters prefer SMC-Takumars and dodgy adapters to the current EF primes (even though a 40 year old SMC-Tak 85mm f/1.8 costs more than a brand new EF85/1..

If it was today, it would be a P6x7 & 45mm lens for the wide-shot and the 165/2.8 for the portraits. This is my current 'carry-around' gear that fits in a small Lowepro rucksack.