# Travel photography/Full systems

* Travel photography Film • Full systems • Video recording • Wildlife photography • Drones
For travel, you want a camera body plus a set of lenses that covers most or all of the types of photo you want to take at a price that does not break the bank and a weight that does not break your back. This is often achievable, though usually some compromises are involved.
We cover simple systems that will suit many travellers in the main travel photography article. This article gives suggestions for a more elaborate system based on a camera with interchangeable lenses. Take these suggestions a bit sceptically since all the choices here depend on your personal preferences and priorities in rather complex ways.
An old adage is that to get the best system at any price point, you should spend around two thirds of your budget on glass and only about a third on the camera body. Many users today, though, do more-or-less the opposite, buying a good body but, initially at least, getting only the cheap kit lens that comes bundled with it. Many are quite happy with such a purchase, but most will sooner or later add more lenses.
Certainly lenses are a better long-term investment than digital bodies. Plenty of lenses made in the 20th century are still giving fine results, many could still be sold for a large fraction of their original price, and a few classics fetch more today than they sold for new. However, while older digital bodies may still give good results, they usually sell for far less than their original cost. Semiconductor technology changes fast; newer bodies will generally have both better sensors and better in-camera image processing.

## Brands and systems

Competing manufacturers almost always use lens mounts that are incompatible, so customers are often locked in to a single brand. Sometimes a group of companies produce products for a common mount — Panasonic, Olympus and Leica for μ43, or Panasonic, Leica and Sigma for L-mount — but you are still locked in to that mount.
Third-party companies such as Tokina, Sigma, Tamron, Voigtlander, Samyang and Zeiss offer lenses for more than one mount.
There are three main types of interchangeable-lens camera in use today — rangefinder, single-lens reflex (SLR) and mirrorless — and current models of all three are digital. See the main travel photography article for discussion. To a great extent SLRs drove rangefinder cameras out of the market in the 1950s, but Leica still make rangefinders, they still have enthusiastic users, and they still take some fine pictures. In the early 2020s it looks as though mirrorless are driving SLRs out in much the same way, and Pentax seems poised to be the brand that will survive in an SLR niche market.
It can be difficult to choose which brand to commit to. All make some fine products, but which one is right for you?
* A digital Leica rangefinder would perhaps be the most prestigious choice; everyone agrees they are a superb product. However the rangefinder design is arguably obsolete and prices are high.
    You might consider a mirrorless L-mount Leica instead, or get a camera from another member of the L-mount Alliance and put some Leica glass on it.
* Canon and Nikon were among the top brands in film SLRs. Sony was not a player in those days, but later they bought Minolta who were. In 2021 the three largest camera vendors were Canon, Sony and Nikon in that order, and some would claim these are the only brands to consider. Others would dispute that, in some cases quite hotly.
* Pentax were also a top brand in film days, but have not had as large a market share in DSLRs. This may be changing; everyone else is now concentrating on mirrorless products; Pentax are the only major player still fully committed to DSLRs. DSLRs still generally have better viewfinders than mirrorless cameras and work better with older lenses but, as of 2024, it is too early to tell how this strategy will work out for them.
* As mirrorless cameras became important in the 2010s, the leaders were Sony's APS-C NEX line and the μ43 format used by Olympus (also a major player in the film era, called OM Digital since 2021), Panasonic and Leica. These are still available in the 2020s, and may be quite attractive for travellers because they are lightweight and some are moderately priced. Some also handle video shooting well.
* By the 2020s, large sensors became cheaper and full-frame mirrorless became important. Arguably these should now be the first choice if budget permits, you can accept their weight, and you do not already have a lens collection for another mount. Sony, Canon and Nikon all now offer cameras of that type.
    Panasonic, Sigma and Leica have formed the L-mount Alliance for full-frame mirrorless; all three have both cameras and lenses and, since they all use the same mount, you can mix brands.
* For some users, a full-frame DSLR might be a better choice since they work directly with older lenses that require adapters on a mirrorless camera. Canon, Nikon and Pentax all offer those, and there are many fine older lenses available for any of them. Only Pentax has in-body image stabilization in a full-frame or APS-C DSLR, which may be essential for some uses.
There are also vendors not mentioned above, perhaps most notably Fuji who have no full-frame offerings but do have both APS-C and medium format cameras. Ricoh, who now own Pentax, is also a player.
Used lenses are widely available and hold their value very well. Brands change their lens mounts periodically to add new features (and to encourage users to buy new lenses, no doubt) with varying degrees of backwards compatibility. See mixing systems below for discussion.
Besides compatibility between camera bodies and lenses, you might also consider compatibility with yourself. It's better to have a camera that fits your hands well and that has controls and menus that let you easily make the adjustments you want; being easier to use will make it more pleasurable, and you'll probably get more use of the camera as a result. It may be worth visiting a store where you can hold the actual cameras you're considering in your hand and try using them.
Size and weight have a sort of compounded effect. A larger heavier camera/lens combination is harder to hand hold so more likely to need a tripod; it also requires a larger sturdier tripod. Then you may need a larger carrying case; the combination is more of a problem for airline baggage allowance, and less likely to fit in hand luggage. It is also more strain on you, especially if your style of travel involves a lot of walking or difficult ground. Because of this, heavier stuff is much more likely to be left at home or in your hotel, so not available when you actually need it; even a cell phone in the hand is worth two Hasselblads in the hotel. On the other hand, some photographers find a larger camera easier to handle and a heavier camera may be more stable.

## Bodies

The first thing to choose is the body; that will constrain all the later choices of lenses. Of course, one factor in choosing the body is what lenses are available for it, and body choice may be dictated by a desire to use existing lenses or because you want a particular lens so you get a body that supports it.
There is a wide choice of interchangeable-lens bodies available, sometimes described as "consumer", "enthusiast" and "professional", though the categories overlap. Features that appear mostly on the higher-end bodies include:
* larger sensors
* more flexible controls
* weather-proofing
* more bits of color information for each pixel
* more measuring points on the sensor for better control of exposure and autofocus
* compatibility with more lenses
* larger battery and/or an external battery, good for a long day of heavy shooting
* rotated grip and controls for shooting portrait orientation
* dual memory cards, not so much for extra capacity as for backup so a card failure cannot wipe out hours of work
* higher frame rate for bursts of shots
* larger buffers and/or faster transfer to memory cards, so they can take more shots in a burst
A pro may need these features, and be able to justify paying for them; for example, most pros shooting a wedding or the Big Game want dual memory cards for safety. An "enthusiast" may want some, but the rest of us do not need most of them and should not pay for them.
Depending on your interests and budget, you might consider used equipment. For any brand, a used high-end body often gives a better price/performance trade-off than a new body. Some of the price reductions are amazing; Canon's first full-frame digital camera, the EOS 1 Ds, was $8000 in the late 1990s, and their first "consumer" full-frame model, the EOS 5D, was over $3000 in 2005. Today either can be bought used for under $500, and older low-end or mid-range bodies are often dirt cheap.

### Sensors

A key design decision for a digital camera is the size of the digital sensor. See the main travel photography article for a description of common types of digital camera, with some mention of sensor sizes.
Sizes in common digital cameras range from 48 mm$^2$ in some compacts, through Micro Four Thirds (μ43) at 243 and APS-C at 300-odd, up to 864 mm$^2$ in a full frame camera (sensor is 24 by 36 mm, same as a 35 mm film frame).
This article does not attempt to cover medium format digital cameras. Those have sensors 33 by 44 mm (1452 mm$^2$) or larger, and are for expert photographers with a large budget. Few travellers need them, and any that actually do probably know more about photography than nearly all of our writers. Medium format film cameras are discussed in our Travel photography/Film article.
The days of focusing exclusively on megapixels are largely gone, thanks to advances in technology. Even low-end cameras today have sensors with 10 MP, which is more resolution than a 4K television (which is only 8.3 MP), so prints can be blown up at least as large as your television. (And be honest, do you actually have any photos that large in your house?) Photos shared on social media are at most 4 MP and usually less, so if that will be your primary application, there's no point in paying for extra megapixels.
Many cameras today have around 20 to 25 MP, which is certainly more than adequate for travel photography. At 200 dots per inch, which is about what the human eye can resolve at one meter distance, a 24 MP (4k by 6k) image can be printed at 20 by 30 inches (about 50 by 75 cm). 16 to 24 MP images routinely get used on billboards or enlarged to massive wall-sized prints in museums.
Moreover, there are trade-offs in the size of the sensor and how many millions of pixels are crammed into it. Larger pixels give better dynamic range (the range between the dimmest shadow and the brightest light where they can show any detail) and they require less light, which is essential in low-light situations and useful when you want to use a fast shutter speed for a stop-action effect.
Advantages to larger sensors are:
* More flexibility in the design decisions; any of these are possible:
** more pixels of any given size, giving higher resolution
** larger pixels for any given resolution, giving better dynamic range and better low light performance
** a compromise that balances both benefits
    Many manufacturers offer a choice of resolutions to buyers. For example, Nikon's full-frame DSLRs range from 20 MP in the top-of-the-line D5, mainly for pros, to 45 MP in the D 850, a high-end "enthusiast" camera. Panasonic have two nearly identical mirrorless full-frame cameras, the 24MP S1 and 47 MP S1R.
* Captures a wider image for the same focal length, making wide shots easier
* Narrower depth of field (more blurring of objects outside the focal plane) at the same aperture
* Generally only used in top models designed for pros
Advantages to smaller sensors are:
* Captures a narrower image for the same focal length, making long telephoto shots easier
* Lenses are generally smaller and lighter
* Deeper depth of field (less blurring of objects outside the focal plane) at the same aperture
* Can use lenses designed for full frame cameras without cropping or loss of quality
* Easier to implement some types of image stabilization
* Available in a range of models from entry level to professional
This is not a case where one is objectively better than the other; there are pros happily working with everything from μ43 to medium format. Your choice of format is as much about artistry as it is about practicality or price.
An alternative is to use film instead of a digital sensor. See Travel photography/Film for discussion.
Nearly all digital sensors use the Bayer pattern — pixels arranged in squares with filters in front of them so each gets mostly one colour: two green, one red and one blue per square — with some in-camera processing to produce the image that is stored. Removing the filters so all pixels get all the light increases the sensitivity by at least one stop, and gives a monochrome image which some photographers prefer. Leica and Pentax offer monochrome cameras without the Bayer filter, and it is possible though not cheap to de-Bayer almost any camera.

### Image stabilization

Many newer cameras have a feature which vendors call image stabilization, vibration reduction or shake reduction. This automatically moves some part of the camera system to partly compensate for camera movement; it can give a large improvement for hand-held shots, but is of little or no value if you are using a tripod. It is most useful for telephoto lenses since those are more sensitive to camera movement.
Some vendors (Olympus, Pentax) put this feature in the camera body; this saves on weight and cost compared to having it in multiple lenses and it means you get stabilization with every lens, even older ones that you might pick up cheaply. Others (Nikon and Canon SLRs, Fuji) build it into their lenses, which they claim is more effective since it can be tuned for the individual lens. Still others (Sony, Panasonic, Nikon and Canon mirrorless) put it in both some lenses and some bodies.
If the camera can move the sensor for stabilization, that mechanism can also provide a high resolution mode. It takes several shots moving the sensor slightly for each, then combines them into a single image. For Olympus and Panasonic, that means higher pixel count; for example a 40 Mpixel image with a 16 Mpixel sensor. Pentax, on the other hand, uses this to gain detail and improve color accuracy while retaining the sensor's original pixel count. Results are often good, but the sensor movements are slow enough that it requires a tripod and does not work well for moving subjects.

### Autofocus

Most current lenses and nearly all bodies support an autofocus feature. New lenses with only manual focus are rare these days, though there are some including most mirror lenses and the Voigtländer 40mm f/2 or the 7Artisans 35mm f/5.6, both tiny and lightweight "pancake" lenses. There are, however, many manual focus lenses on the used market.
Autofocus is convenient anytime and really useful when tracking a moving subject (e.g. animal or athlete). However, it is not necessary for a static subject (e.g. cathedral or landscape) and for some subjects (e.g. portrait or crowded square) manual focus may give better results because it gives the photographer more control. For most macro shots, manual focus is essential. For many wide-angle shots, autofocus is not needed.
Some autofocus lenses require you to flip a switch to select automatic or manual focus, while others use a combination mode that autofocuses but lets you override it by turning the focus ring whenever you want.
Many current lenses have a motor in the lens to do the focusing; marketers often call these "hypersonic" motors. Earlier autofocus systems had the motor in the body and some sort of mechanical linkage to manipulate the lens. In general the newer system is better, both quieter and faster. However there are still lenses made with the older system; for example, most of Pentax's high-end "limited" lenses are older designs without the motor. There can be compatibility issues across generations; an older body may not know how to send the signals to control a motor in the lens, and some newer bodies lack the in-camera motor so they cannot autofocus unless the lens has a motor. Many lens adapters have a similar restriction. See mixing systems below for discussion.
There are two systems used at the sensor to drive autofocus, contrast detection or phase detection. Web search will find many discussions of their relative merits, but no entirely definite conclusions. Contrast detection is more accurate, at least if the subject is not moving, so often better for portraits, landscapes or other still subjects. Phase detection is faster, so likely better for sports or moving wildlife like birds in flight.

### Anti-aliasing filters

Some photos have an effect called a moiré pattern, as shown in the photo of parrot feathers to the right. Moiré can appear for any subject with repeating elements: fabrics (especially densely textured ones like tweed), cornfields, brick walls, ... It is caused by an interaction between the pattern in the subject and the pattern in the sensor.
Moiré is unrealistic and in most cases it is quite undesirable, though it can sometimes be used for artistic effect. A lens filter or various tricks in post-processing can reduce the problem, but often they cannot eliminate it entirely.
Most cameras have an anti-aliasing (AA) filter built into the sensor to reduce this effect - at the cost of reducing the effective resolution by slightly blurring the image at near-pixel level. Cameras without the filter are targeted mostly for photography where moiré is unlikely to occur or preferable over lower resolution, such as landscape or astro-photography.
Pentax leave out the AA filter and emulate the AA effect when needed by vibrating the sensor to blur the image slightly.

## Lenses

While the camera's body records the image (either digitally or onto film), it would be utterly useless without a lens. The lens is arguably the more important of the two, as it captures and directs light and provides ways to adjust the focus, zoom, and sharpness.
Some photographers carry a multitude of lenses and swap them depending on the exact photo they want to take — a strategy that salespeople at the camera store would no doubt encourage — but some of the world's most famous photographers used only one or two lenses for much of their career.
There is no universal "all purpose" lens that can do it all. Every lens will have tradeoffs in capability, quality, and especially price. The "perfect lens" is any lens that lets you take the picture you want. When shooting nature or architecture, you'd likely have plenty of time to try several possible lenses to find one that's just right. But try doing that when the kids are frolicking on the beach, and you're sure to miss some great moments while you were futzing around changing camera lenses; it would be much better to compromise and have one lens that's flexible enough to use for a wide variety of shots.
The next few sections discuss specific types of lens; later we give suggestions for choosing the right combination for travel.
Camera lenses don't have names or model numbers. Instead they're mainly described by the focal length and aperture, the key characteristics of the lens; for example a 50mm f/1.4 lens. Often a few letters will be thrown in to make a model number; for example Nikon have a 50mm f/1.4G AF-S lens where "AF" indicates autofocus, "S" shows that is done with a motor built into the lens, and "G" indicates a current lens series that will not work on many older bodies.

### Focal length

The first number is the focal length. Prime lenses have a single fixed focal length; zoom lenses can vary their focal length.
* In discussing focal length, we assume a 35 mm film camera or "full frame" digital camera. For other types of camera, the actual numbers are different but the "35 mm equivalent" is often quoted.
Small focal lengths like 24 mm will capture a very wide image, while long lengths like 300 mm will capture a narrow image that enlarges distant objects. A lens in the 40-60mm range can be described as "normal", below 40 "wide angle", and above 60 "telephoto". Sometimes lenses below about 20mm are called "ultra-wide" and those in the 75-105 range "portrait lenses".

### Aperture

The second number is the aperture, which indicates how much light the lens can let in. Fast lenses with large apertures allow shooting in lower light or using faster shutter speeds, and they make it easier to get good bokeh, that sexy expensive-looking background blur.
Apertures are written in an unusual way which is basically a fraction of 1 divided by number, meaning that f/2 is a larger aperture than f/4. Better zoom lenses have a constant aperture at every focal length, but more commonly the aperture shrinks as you zoom in. A lens described as 18–55 mm f/3.5–5.6 has an aperture of f/3.5 at 18 mm, and f/5.6 at 55 mm.
One stop of aperture changes the number by the square root of two (about 1.4) and the amount of light admitted by a factor of two. For example, going from f/2.8 to f/2.0 doubles the light intake; you can get the same exposure with a shutter speed twice as fast. The differences can be large; consider a typical kit lens at its long (f/5.6) end versus a prime 85 mm f/2 lens. The difference is three stops, so the fast lens admits 2$^3$ or eight times as much light. The fast lens may be shooting at 1/200 second, easily hand held, while the slow one needs 1/25 which requires a tripod and is likely to produce blur if the subject moves.
Digital cameras let you adjust the sensitivity (measured by the ISO rating) of the sensor; in the old days you chose that when you bought your film, but now you can change it for every shot and most cameras allow settings much higher than were common for film. To a large extent, this compensates for the problem of a slow lens; for the example above just crank the ISO up by three stops and you can shoot at 1/200 with the f/5.6 lens. Fast lenses are therefore less important now than they were in film days. However raising ISO gives more noise in the photo, and for really dim light or for stop-action shots that require high shutter speed you need both high ISO and a fast lens.
Fast lenses also have disadvantages. Moderately fast (f/1.4-f/2.0) primes in the 35–85 mm range are generally reasonably priced, but if you want an ultra-fast lens, a fast zoom, or a fast lens outside that range, then the price will be stiff. Shot wide open, fast lenses have less depth-of-field so they require precise focusing. Also, weight increases at approximately the same rate as light-handling capacity — for example, an f/1.4 lens gathers twice the light that an f/2.0 lens gets, and weighs about twice as much.
Most lenses have adjustable aperture, but there are a few fixed-aperture lenses. A few are "pancake" lenses, very compact and lightweight, such as the Chinese company 7Artisans 35/5.6. Among telephoto lenses, nearly all mirror lenses and a few others have fixed aperture.

### Zoom or prime?

A zoom lens is one that can change its focal length. These are not necessarily telephoto lenses, though tele-zooms are common; an 11–16 mm lens is still a zoom lens even though it only captures extremely wide images.
A lens with a fixed focal length is a prime lens. Prime lenses are less flexible, but generally faster, lighter, and more compact than zooms. They are also often sturdier, both because zooms have more moving parts and because many useful primes are older designs with all-metal construction rather than the plastics in newer lenses.
Consider a 70-200 mm zoom vs an 85 mm prime. The prime will be faster and is likely to be sharper as well; the design problem is much less complex for a prime than a zoom. For the photos where you want a longer lens, you can switch to a longer prime, use a teleconverter, or just shoot at 85 and enlarge it more. The prime user takes a considerable penalty in convenience, and sometimes in quality if the shot really needs a longer lens, but is better off in terms of weight, reliability, and low light performance. The zoom user, though, may get shots while the prime user is busy changing lenses.
Zoom lenses are convenient and nearly all photographers today use at least some zoom lenses. Because prime lenses are less flexible, it may be best to avoid them until you have enough experience to know what you would get the most use from, although for some applications like sports, macro photography, and some types of wildlife they are commonly used and often necessary.

### Normal lenses

A normal lens takes an image where the perspective and relative size of near and far objects is about like what the human eye sees. 50 mm is the most common normal lens, although anything from 40 mm to 55 mm is possible. For APS-C, a normal lens is from 28 mm (equivalent to 42mm on full frame) to 35 mm.
A normal focal length is often a fine default choice for general vacation photos of family and friends, due to its natural appearance and balance of not being too wide or too zoomed. Most entry-level cameras come in a kit with a lens that covers the normal range.
Other lens sizes are judged relative to a camera's normal lens. Lenses with a shorter focal length are wide, and those with a longer focal length are telephoto or long.

### Wide-angle lenses

A wide-angle lens will let you get a broad panorama in landscape photos, or fit all of a city square into the frame. For travel, an important use is for interior shots where you cannot back up enough to cover the whole scene with a longer lens. They can also be used for artistic effect; getting close with a wide-angle lens can give a photo with high visual impact.
Wide-angle lenses give greater depth of field than longer lenses; that is, objects are in reasonably good focus over a greater range of distances so small errors in focusing do not matter and a complex scene with objects at different distances is more likely to look good.
Typical wide-angle lenses are in the range 20 to 35 mm; even wider lenses are sometimes used, but less common. Because of the large depth of field neither autofocus nor image stabilization is much needed for wide angle, so a low-cost used lens will work fine for many shooters.
One way to use a wide-angle lens is to focus to the hyperfocal distance for some aperture; everything from half that distance to infinity will be in reasonably good focus. Set the camera for aperture-priority exposure (it will automatically set shutter speed), set the aperture and focus once, and it is sometimes possible to shoot all day without ever needing to adjust anything. This depends on your definition of "reasonable" focus and on both the focal length and the aperture used. For a definition that was common for film (the "circle of confusion" is 1/30mm; a point source gives an image that size on the sensor) and a 24mm lens at f/8, hyperfocal distance is 2.42m and focusing there works quite well; everything from 1.21m (about 4 feet) out will be in focus. It is less practical for a higher resolution sensor, a longer lens or a wider aperture.
Extreme wide-angle lenses with a close to 180-degree field of view are known as fisheye lenses. They are quite specialized and niche, definitely not a general-purpose lens.
Fisheye lenses capture an extremely wide image, but they do so by distorting the image so it looks like it's inside a bubble. (You may recognize the effect from door peepholes, which sometimes have fisheye lenses.) The result is that they can see a very wide image, as much as 180°, but straight lines become heavily curved. Originally designed for scientific research, they're somewhat common for photographing the night sky, and are sometimes used for artistic effect.

### Telephoto lenses

If you intend to photograph far-away objects – especially wildlife, for example going on safari or birdwatching – you will need a telephoto lens.
Pros use quite long lenses, often 400 mm or more, for wildlife or for things like photographing a surfer from the shore. For some shots such as photographing the moon, or bighorn sheep in mountainous terrain, an even longer lens may be needed. For others, a milder tele is typical; a common lens for photographing performers at a concert or athletes in action is a zoom around 70-200 mm, and these are also often used for travel.
Really long lenses are both heavy and expensive and the depth of field is narrow so a small error in focusing can ruin a shot. A traveller might just choose a zoom that goes to 300 or so, or look for a 200 mm prime (common and often fairly cheap on the used market) which acts as a 300 mm equivalent on an APS-C camera or 400 on μ43. If you expect to shoot a lot of wildlife, consider a 300 or even 400 mm prime; these are heavier and generally more expensive but there are some reasonable deals on the used market if you do not need a fast (large aperture) lens or newer features like autofocus and vibration reduction.
If you are going on a safari, consider renting a lens. Bought new, the high-end lenses that are best for this start around $900, many are priced far higher, and they are neither common nor cheap on the used market. The Sigma shown is an extreme example, about $25,000 and 16 kg (35 pounds). For anyone except a pro who often photographs wildlife, rental may make more sense. Cost for a two-week rental is typically about 10% of the cost of the lens; a few hundred dollars for that is reasonable in the context of a safari budget, where a few thousand to buy such a lens is not unless you are quite well-off and expect to use it a lot.
The Chinese company Opteka have some much cheaper telephoto lenses; these use fewer optical elements than most other telephoto designs so they are lighter as well. They are slow and do not have autofocus. Reviews all agree that they are far from perfect, but also that they are fun to play with and sometimes give fine photos.
Mirror lenses are lighter, more compact and usually cheaper than refracting lenses; most of them are between 400 and 1000 mm. These are the only lenses with zero chromatic aberration; a refracting lens bends different colours of light differently, but a mirror reflects all colours identically. However, they have odd bokeh (the quality of out-of-focus parts of an image), the aperture cannot be adjusted, and they lack autofocus. Professionals typically prefer refracting lenses because they need absolutely top-quality results, but a traveller might choose either; except for bokeh, the results can be just as good.
A teleconverter fits between lens and camera and increases the effective focal length. They can be useful if you do not want the weight or cost of an actual lens, but they often degrade the image quality somewhat and they make the lens slower by the same factor that they increase the focal length. For example, if you use a 2x converter with a 200 mm f/4 lens, that gives you in effect a 400 mm f/8. Using a 1.4x converter with a fast high-quality prime will almost always give good results, while using a 2x converter with a cheap slow zoom will usually be highly problematic. Between those extremes, some combinations work well while others do not.
A small-sensor body may be an alternative. Suppose your main rig is full-frame digital and you have a 200 mm f/4. All full-frame vendors also offer APS-C bodies; your 200 will fit on one of those, giving the angle of view of a 300 mm lens on full frame, features like autofocus and in-lens image stabilisation will still work, and lens speed will not be reduced as it would be with a teleconverter. This will not be the cheapest or lightest solution, but it also gives you a back-up camera. Or get a μ43 body and an adapter to use your lenses on it; that will make your 200 act like a 400 mm f/4 and some of those bodies are very compact, with weight not much more than a teleconverter.
There are also adapters for mirrorless cameras (μ43, Sony E-mount, Fuji X-mount and a few video cameras) called speed boosters. These are reverse (0.7x) teleconverters; instead of making a lens act longer and slower, they make it act shorter and faster. For example a full frame 200 mm f/4 on μ43 acts like 400 f/4 on the normal adapter but a 280 f/2.8 on a speed booster.

### Macro

A macro lens is designed for photographing small things. The traditional definition is that it allows a 1:1 ratio of object size to image size so that, for example, a flower with 24 mm (about an inch) diameter gives an image that just fits on a full-frame sensor or film negative, as in the image at the right.
Not all travellers need this, and many of those that do can get by with less than the full 1:1 ratio. It is common, though, to include one lens with macro capability in your arsenal. Generally this will be a telephoto lens since shooting macro with a shorter lens requires getting extremely close to the subject; this makes lighting difficult, and if the subject is a small creature you might scare it away.
Most macro lenses also work fine as general-purpose lenses — though they may be a bit slower or more expensive than a non-macro lens — so it is possible to choose one that can be used both ways.
There are close-up lenses which screw into the filter mount on the front of a lens and magnify the image giving some macro capability. These are cheaper and lighter than a dedicated macro lens, so they will suit some travellers.

### Tripods

The longer the lens, the more likely you are to need a tripod, both because the lens is heavy and because the magnification of the image increases the adverse effect of any camera movement.
A rule of thumb is that you need a tripod if shutter speed is slower than one over the 35mm equivalent focal length; for example, with a 200 mm equivalent lens you need a tripod if shutter speed is slower than 1/200 s. A lot of practice or a good image stabilisation system may let you hand-hold a bit beyond this.
There are alternatives to hauling a heavy tripod along, including small tripods for use on a tabletop or on top of a wall. A monopod is sometimes enough, is lighter, and can also be used as a walking stick.
Decent tripods can quite often be found in thrift stores, as can camera bags. Interesting lenses turn up occasionally, cameras that are good by current standards almost never.

## General rules

Owning a lot of lenses may make sense, but for travel carrying all of them generally does not. You want to keep your carry-all-the-time kit down to two or three lenses, and some people do fine with only one. On the other hand, it is fairly common to bring along a few specialized lenses that are not part of the everyday kit; they stay in the suitcase or the hotel safe most of the time and go into the camera bag only when they will be needed.
The best weight/coverage balance involves avoiding duplication and keeping roughly a 2x difference in focal length between adjacent lenses. It used to be quite common to choose a pair of primes around 35 and 75 mm (or three around 25-50-100) as a lightweight travel kit. This is still a viable choice for some travellers, but zoom lenses have improved greatly and they are now the most common choice.
It usually makes little sense to duplicate focal lengths, for example to carry a 24, 50 or 105 mm lens along with a 28-85 kit lens. Of course there are exceptions; you might want a fast 50 for night shots or a 105 for macro. However, it is worth thinking about how to reduce the kit and 'travel light'.
Another good principle is to avoid extremes unless you have a specific need for them. For example an ultra-wide lens such as 16 mm can be useful, and some travellers even find a 16-35 mm zoom worth carrying, but many have a mid-range zoom that goes wide enough for them. Most of the rest will be fine with a 20 or 24 mm prime, which is likely to be lighter and cheaper than the 16 mm prime, let alone the zoom. Similar considerations apply for extremely long lenses.
This also applies to ultra-fast lenses. For example, Canon's EF 85mm f/1.2 (now discontinued) was two-and-a-half times the weight of the 85mm f/1.8 and nearly five times the price. Every vendor has at least one fast lens in the 75-135 range and many pros consider those lenses ideal for studio portraits, but even they might choose not to carry one for travel.
Another extreme to consider avoiding is high-ratio zooms which cover a large range of focal lengths. The designer can achieve a high ratio only by trading off something else; you lose some image quality or speed, and often some of each. Most pro zooms have a ratio between 2:1 and 3:1, but consumer zooms with higher ratios are common; for full-frame Nikon have a 24-120 (5:1), and several vendors have 24-105 (4.5:1) or 70-300 (4.3:1) lenses. These are convenient, and most users are quite happy with them, but every user pays a price due to the design trade-offs.
You may even be tempted to go for a superzoom lens with a zoom ratio up over 10:1 such as 18-200 mm; these give an enormous advantage in convenience and may be the only lens you need. However, picture quality may suffer noticeably and you'll be stuck using a physically big lens all the time. There may be some exceptions; for example, Olympus have a 12-100mm (24-200 equivalent) f/4 lens for μ43 which they claim is pro quality and which has had excellent reviews. On the other hand, it is bulky, heavy (560 g, or 19 oz) and expensive (around $1300).
Modern pro zooms get close to primes in both speed and image quality and usually have constant aperture across the zoom range, but they are heavy and expensive, and often have a smaller zoom range than consumer-grade zooms. These are a common choice for professionals but much less so for amateurs. For travellers, an f/4 zoom may be a good compromise, both cheaper and lighter than the pro model.

## Mixing systems

An advantage of most DSLRs is that they use the same lens mount as older cameras so they can use older lenses. For most users, a film camera does not make much sense today, but see Travel photography/Film for discussion. However, using fine old lenses on a new digital body is a far more attractive proposition. Current Pentax or Nikon DSLRs can use most lenses back to about 1960. Others go back as far as changes in mounting systems, Canon DSLRs to 1987 and Sony Alpha-mount cameras using Minolta lenses back to 1985. New Leica m-mount rangefinder cameras can use lenses all the way back to the 1930s.
Older bodies or lenses from any manufacturer may lack features that are common in later models, most notably autofocus and vibration reduction. If you want to mix and match across generations various restrictions apply; the boxed text to the right describes some of the common ones but is not an exhaustive list. If you are considering a large investment in equipment — and especially if you will include some older items — it is almost certainly worth doing considerable research first; you might start by looking at the online forums for the brand of interest.
MILCs (mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras), also known as EVIL (electronic viewfinder, interchangeable lens) cameras, have a short register distance (sensor to lens mount) so with an appropriate adapter they can use any lens designed for a longer register distance. This includes almost all available lenses — any new DSLR lens, almost any film SLR lens (including pre-1987 Canon FD lenses that do not work on current Canon cameras and older Minolta lenses that do not work on current Sony models), and any Leica rangefinder lens.
However, there are restrictions. All adapters allow the lens to physically plug into the body, but many do not provide any other interface (levers or electrical contacts) so features like autofocus do not work. In some cases, even automatic aperture control — you compose the shot with the lens wide open for good viewing then when you hit the shutter the lens stops down to shoot — is not available. There are a few exceptions if camera, lens and adapter are all the same brand.
People with several interchangeable lenses may carry two camera bodies, or sometimes even more. In film days this usually meant two with different film; today it may mean two digital cameras or a digital and a film body.
A camera body that uses film, or has a full-frame sensor, can be an advantage for wide-angle lenses, because the larger format widens the angle that lens captures. On an APS-C camera, a 24 mm lens gives an angle of view equivalent to 36 or 38 mm; on μ43, 48 mm. Why not load some film into another body and use the lens as the 24 mm device it was designed to be? This may give pictures that your small-sensor rig can't capture.
On the other hand, some people take advantage of the effect of sensor size differences on telephoto lenses, making them act like longer lenses.

## Putting a system together

A common approach to assembling a good system is to pick one type of lens you really need, then choose other lenses to go with it. Here we discuss options with different choices for the first lens; of course you might choose to start with two or more of these.

### Start with a standard lens?

Arguably the most important lens is the standard lens, around 50 mm. For most of the 20th century, nearly every camera sold came with one, and they give an undistorted perspective, close to that of the human eye. Henri Cartier-Bresson — who is often credited with inventing modern photojournalism and whose classic photos of Paris now appear in poster shops everywhere — did nearly all his work with just one lens, a standard 50 mm.
There are variations. Some photographers prefer to use 35 mm as their standard lens, and some claim that the least distorted perspective comes from a lens whose focal length equals the sensor diagonal, 43 mm for full frame. Pentax makes a 43 mm full-frame lens which is very highly regarded, a 28 mm lens on APS-C gives a similar perspective, and Panasonic has a 20 mm f/1.7 (40 mm equivalent) for μ43.
One could build a system starting with a high-grade 35 to 50 mm prime. Most vendors offer f/1.8 or f/2.0 lenses in this range at moderate prices, and often f/1.4 for not much more; these are among the easiest lenses to design and manufacture since they do not need to zoom, to be remarkably fast, or to handle extreme focal lengths. A lens from the current line will have autofocus and quite likely better coatings, but a much cheaper manual focus lens from the film era might also be a good buy. Lenses faster than f/1.4 are also available for many mounts, but typically at premium prices.

### Start with the kit lens?

The lens most commonly sold with a camera today is the kit zoom. Cost is usually low; a body with the kit lens is generally not priced much above body alone. These lenses vary in coverage; most cover at least the 28-70 range and many go a bit beyond that. They also vary in speed (most are quite slow), weight (many are lightweight), and image quality. Many users will be quite happy with a kit lens, and some vendors offer different bundles so a buyer can choose a different kit lens.
Most manufacturers offer a consumer-oriented 70-300 mm zoom, not topnotch quality or very fast but lightweight and moderately priced. That is a very popular add-on; with the kit lens it gives quite a versatile two-lens system. Some vendors even offer two-lens bundles along those lines.
For some users it is also worth considering a higher grade tele-zoom or a prime telephoto lens.

### Start with a high-end mid-range zoom?

Another way to build a fine system is to replace the kit lens with a high-grade wide-to-tele zoom. For some pros, especially wedding photographers and photojournalists, this is their most-used lens; it is fast, high-quality and very versatile. However pros generally use top-of-the line 24–70/2.8 full-frame zooms which are quite heavy and expensive, not suitable for most travellers.
Lesser lenses might be better for travel; for full-frame, Canon have a 24–70/4.0 and Nikon a 24–85/2.8-4.0, and for many mounts, a zoom with a wider range such as 24-105 is also available. For APS-C or μ43, all the main vendors offer cheaper and lighter mid-range zooms, and for APS-C Sigma have an 18–35 mm f/1.8 and a 50–100 f/1.8.
If the budget is tight and you can live with manual focus and no in-lens stabilization, a used 35-105 mm zoom is worth considering. Back in about the 1980s all the major manufacturers offered these; today they mostly have 24-105 autofocus lenses, but the old 35-105s are high quality and now quite cheap. One might also consider a 75-150 mm zoom from the same period for similar reasons.
Taking an APS-C system with the Nikon 17–55 as an example, one wants the next lens up to be around 55*2 = 110 mm. The Nikon 105 f/2.5 is readily available on the used market at moderate cost and has a fine reputation; that is the obvious choice, but there are many other possibilities.

### Start with a tele zoom?

Another approach is to build a system starting with high-grade tele-zoom. This can work with a kit lens or standard prime rather than replacing it, so in one sense it is a better buy than the wide-to-tele zoom; whether it is more useful depends on your style of photography.
The approach is tried and proven. Well-known outdoor and travel photographer Galen Rowell$^{[deadlink]}$ did most of his work with only two Nikon lenses, a 24/2.8 wide angle and a 75-150/3.5 zoom. Buying used from a dealer one can get exactly those manual focus lenses today for around $350; the nearest current Nikon equivalents, a 24 f/1.8 and 70-200 f/4 with autofocus on both and vibration reduction on the tele, would be $1600-odd new. On APS-C the Sigma 50-100mm f/1.8 would give you a much faster 75-150mm equivalent lens.
For full-frame, the obvious choice for travel is an f/4 zoom around 70-200 mm. Nikon, Canon, Sony and Pentax all offer one, and they are both cheaper and lighter than the pro 2.8 lens but faster than the other consumer zooms. Another alternative for Nikon or Canon shooters only is Tamron's 70–210 f/4, which is cheaper than the camera vendors' lenses and gets good reviews.
For μ43, Panasonic have a 35-100 mm (70-200 equivalent) and Olympus a 40–150 (80–300 equivalent); these are about the same price and weight as a full-frame 70-200 f/4, but faster at f/2.8. These are heavier and more expensive than most µ43 lenses but may be rather an attractive option, especially since the camera bodies are lighter as well.
APS-C shooters are less fortunate in this respect. The full-frame 70–200mm zooms will work, but on APS-C they act like longer lenses and they are heavier than an APS-C lens needs to be. Those who want a high-quality tele-zoom designed for APS-C face a difficult search. Of the main players, only Pentax offers a lens that gives a 35mm equivalent range around 70–200, a 50–135 f/2.8; they also have a 60-250 f/4. Another option is the Sigma 50–100 f/1.8, available for Canon, Nikon, and its own bodies. Fuji offers a 50–140 f/2.8 for its X-mount bodies. None of these are cheap; all are over $1000 and the Fuji is about $1600.
There are many choices for lenses to pair with a tele-zoom; the commonest are a prime in the 24-35 mm range, or a wide-angle zoom.

### Start with a wide zoom?

Another approach is to start with a high-grade wide zoom. This may work well if you shoot a lot of architecture or landscapes, and some photographers find this all they need for travel or street photography. Anything 35 mm equivalent or more works as a standard lens, but the zoom feature makes it much more versatile. If the budget is tight, there are manual focus lenses in this range from the film era.
For full-frame Canon have a 17-40 f/4, and Nikon a 16-35 f/4. For L-mount Panasonic offer a 16-35 f/4.
For µ43 shooters who can stomach the cost and (relatively speaking) weight, a unique option is Panasonic's Leica 10–25 f/1.7, but that lens costs about $1800 in the U.S. Alternatives that are both lighter and less costly (around $1000) are a Panny/Leica 8-18 f/2.8-4 and an Olympus 8-25 F4.
This can also lead to a reasonable two-lens system. Lenses that pair well with a wide zoom include a tele-zoom, a fast prime in the 70-105 mm range, or a macro lens in the same range.