What Are The Advantages Of Using An Ultra Wide Lens For Landscape Photography? When I follow lens use recommendations for landscapes discussions on UHH, invariably ultra wides~~~ 20mm...

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

When I follow lens use recommendations for landscapes discussions on UHH, invariably ultra wides~~~ 20mm, 18mm, 14mm, 10mm, etc.~~~are mentioned. When I shoot landscapes/seascapes with a FX camera I usually use a 35mm or 50mm and occasionally an 85mm. Am I missing something by not using an ultra wide?

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Depends on how much you want to include in the image and how you want it to look.
Wider field of view, more stuff. More distortion as well.
(I shoot primarily with an 18-200 zoom, so I compose (and zoom) as required for what I want included in the shot. Including using the 18mm focal length.)
Use whatever trips your breaker.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

It just depends on what you want. Distant views will look all the more distant and empty with a wide angle and you might find yourself cropping to a pano aspect, whereas using the focal length's special perspective on a very close element can be a lot of fun.

edit - I found I used my ultra-wide vertically as much as horizontally (speaking to Longshadow's mention of distortion, which he was posting as I was typing

)

-

Canon EF-S 10-18 mm on Canon T3i. A little bit cropped from top.

(Download)

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Mac wrote:

When I follow lens use recommendations for landscapes discussions on UHH, invariably ultra wides~~~ 20mm, 18mm, 14mm, 10mm, etc.~~~are mentioned. When I shoot landscapes/seascapes with a FX camera I usually use a 35mm or 50mm and occasionally an 85mm. Am I missing something by not using an ultra wide?

You aren't missing anything. All lenses have their strengths and one isn't "better" than another for a subject, you use them to get a specific effect.

Short lenses excel at the "near/far" shooting. Things that are close up are exaggerated in size as opposed to background objects. Objects look more separated.

Personally, I like the look. (and I see that Linda from Maine has posted a very interesting apple image to illustrate that for me)

There is nothing wrong with using a 35mm or 50mm or longer, it's just that the effect will be different. You will see a different amount of the landscape in the frame and the relationships between objects will look different.

HardwareGuy

The ultra wides give you a "scope", "width", and "depth" of view & perspective that 35mm lenses and up don't quite achieve.
I see these wonderful landscapes shot with ultra wide lenses and they are very inspiring. But their effective usage does take a technique and discipline to be effective.
You are not trying to get "everything in", which is easy to do.
For me, I have learned that I am just not an ultra wide lens guys for landscapes. I prefer to shoot at 18mm (DX) and up, it just seems to fit my style better.

GPS Phil Loc: Dayton Ohio

Mac wrote:

When I follow lens use recommendations for landscapes discussions on UHH, invariably ultra wides~~~ 20mm, 18mm, 14mm, 10mm, etc.~~~are mentioned. When I shoot landscapes/seascapes with a FX camera I usually use a 35mm or 50mm and occasionally an 85mm. Am I missing something by not using an ultra wide?

I replaced my 50mm 1.8 with Nikons latest 20mm1.8, very sharp and distortion free. It seems to stay on the Df 90% of the time. Try one Mac, you might find it fits your shooting. I think I'm hooked on mine! The 50 stay's in the bag but is seldom used!

Phil

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

It entirely depends on your photographic vision. The worst way (in my opinion) to use a wide angle is to have a relatively flat subject all at the same relative plane. The distortion of space between foreground and background, or the creation of converging lines by shooting along a plane rather than parallel to it are some of the effects that I like to use my ultrawides for. Linda has posted an excellent example above, and, as you can see, it's not about getting more width into the view, it's generally about getting more depth....

Andy

philo Loc: philo, ca

when shooting in the redwoods a wide is great.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

HardwareGuy wrote:

... their effective usage does take a technique and discipline to be effective...

When I bought my 10-18 mm, I looked at lots of online photos to understand what worked best. I quickly ran out of photo ops around here, partly because many scenes are not where I can access a close element to dominate the foreground. They are probably not a good lens for those who shoot from the car or near the car

Like some of the other folks wrote here, I found my Canon EF-S 18-135, and most recently a Panasonic 14-140 mm (for a mirrorless Pany G7) to be far more versatile.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

philo wrote:

when shooting in the redwoods a wide is great.

Nice! And personally, I like the "leaning in," especially of trees

TBerwick Loc: Houston, Texas

Cany143 recently posted this photo that shows an effect I really like with wide angle, and that's what it does with clouds. https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-545794-1.html
You just need to put one on your camera and play with it.

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

TBerwick wrote:

Cany143 recently posted this photo that shows an effect I really like with wide angle, and that's what it does with clouds. https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-545794-1.html
You just need to put one on your camera and play with it.

That's another near / far shot for sure - an excellent way to explore. You are exactly right in your advice to put on a lens and start looking at things through the viewfinder, up, down, along.... When I was a beginning photographer fifty plus years ago, all I wanted was longer and longer telephotos. As I grew older, all I wanted was shorter and wider.

Andy

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Another UHH user, kymarto (pro photographer Toby Marshall):
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-336465-3.html#5654538

https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-336465-6.html#5664764

-

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

Longshadow wrote:

Depends on how much you want to include in the image and how you want it to look.
Wider field of view, more stuff. More distortion as well.
(I shoot primarily with an 18-200 zoom, so I compose (and zoom) as required for what I want included in the shot. Including using the 18mm focal length.)
Use whatever trips your breaker.

Thanks Longshadow. Distortion is why I haven't been going too long or too wide on landscapes.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

Linda From Maine wrote:

It just depends on what you want. Distant views wi... (show quote)

Linda, that is one of the coolest pictures ever. As I mentioned to Longshadow, I have been trying to avoid distortion, but I should be thinking about how to make the distortion work.