Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/10/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]<SNIP> >The trip to the >Mosquito Coast where the photo of Weldi was made, I only had the 35 and >Noctilux with me on the two M6's around my neck. Everything else was >packed in the dry bags in another canoe that arrived two days after I >did. I worried the whole time about what I might be missing, but it was >actually freeing in a way not to have to make choices. Did you find that >to be true when you limited yourself to a 50? Someday when I retire, I'll >travel with just the Noctilux! What a luxury. Leically, Tina Tina Manley, ASMP http://www.tinamanley.com - ------------------------------ It is very freeing, although at the outset it seems like a bad idea to be "without......" On a few 'distant' excursions I had an R4s a 28/2.8 and 180/2.8. Easy. Much easier than 50/75 which is something to think about, judgment. It's refreshing to not have to make a choice - use the 28, and if you really needed a 35, TOO BAD! Not to say this isn't often the case, but it should have less weight. The 180, well it's TOO close, I wanted it like this should've brought the 135... The subject is too close and only got the 180? Shoot something else! Or take it as it is. The visual world is not such that 35 and 50 is a choice between photographing a room and photographing a city. Of course their IS a choice and it DOES matter. Bring one or two instead of six or seven and the choice is minimized, and then it doesn't matter much anyway. The missed shots...that's always the case in one way or another. eno