> if no zoom, then 35mm or 45mm. Hi Colin. Got first pictures back from 28mm and they are terrific. I duplicated a shot in La Quinta near Palm Springs that is shown and sold by a well known commercial photographer. Mine is better (in my unbiased opinion, of course) DH
> If you are taking the 35mm, the 45mm would be superfluous. Using the 35 where the 45 would be more ideal only penalizes you with a slightly smaller image size which can be compensated for in printing. I vote for taking the 90mm also. You might find animal or scenery shots that the double sized image would be to your advantage and the thing only weighs a few ounces (until it has been on your back uphill for three or four miles, then it weighs twenty lbs.). DH
C'mon Colin! You're a Contax man, man!! Take every piece of gear you have. In fact, go buy something extra, that's heavy, and bring that too. The lens you leave behind may be the lens you needed to take that one-in-a-million shot that you will be remembered for long after you're gone. Leave the extra clothes at home instead. After a few days you'll find you've got lots of alone time to really focus on your photography!
I would not leave home without the 90mm. It would be a matter of preference for the 35mm or 45mm. If it becomes a matter of taking only one lens I would take the 45mm, because the image size is important to me.
I had a special opportunity while fly-fishing when an Eagle circled overhead once and then quickly dove in and caught a trout. I captured the moment as the Eagleâ€™s wings were at their apex and the fish was in its talons. The only problem is that image produced by my T4 35mm lens is very small. Yet, if I had tried a 300mm I would not have been able to make a photograph due to the small field of view and fast action. I think the 45mm would have made a better and more pleasing photograph.