Back in 2017 we went to Nice, France, for a weekend. At that time I had an M9 and the two Zeiss lenses I still use today, a Planar 50/2 and a Biogon 35/2,8. It was the first journey abroad with a digital Leica. I still had my X-Pro2 back then, and I was thinking about bringing it too – to get some longer focal lengths. But I didn’t – and I didn’t regret it.
We rented a car the whole time we were there, and went on a short trip every day. The first trip was to the east; Monaco. The clouds were hanging low in the hills behind the city.
Between Monaco and Nice lays the small medieval village Eze, where this beautiful scenery was shot.
As we went to the west we stopped in the small village Biot, and went for a walk. Everywhere we looked, people had their laundry hanging out to dry.
The small streets of Biot was no match for the M9. Even though it already was an old camera at the time, I think it managed the difference in lighting good. Shadows, highlights and heaven works well in the picture.
The last trip went north. We ended up in a small village called Utelle, high up in the hills about 65 km north west of Nice. The place is just beautiful and the M9 did a great job capturing it. The conclusion from this trip was that a 35 and a 50 is more the enough for me, as I go for vacations like this. I even consider just taking the 35mm on our next journey. As I looked at my pictures from the Faroes (see post #50) I realized that I probably would have been quite satisfied if I had only used one camera and one lens. Less to carry and less decisions to make, of which lens to use.
What is your thoughts about this? Would you go with just one camera and one lens? In that case – what would you choose?