Paul Eveleth

What are your the favorite lenses for the perfect landscape? I currently use the Tamron 70mm-200mm
F/2.8.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

50mm and longer.

ClarkG Loc: Southern Indiana USA

Well.....normally when shooting landscapes, a wide angle is preferred to get more of the landscape into the field of view. I never heard of using a zoom lens for this, unless your lens goes down to say at least a 50mm or better yet an 18mm.

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

I don't care to go wider than 35mm on a full frame camera, and have used 50mm and 85mm as well as 35mm for landscapes.
Contrary to what many believe, you do not need a wide or ultra-wide lens for landscapes.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

You can use anything from ultra wide to telephoto lenses for landscapes. It's just a matter of taste and your style. I like ultra wide myself (a 12-24 on a crop sensor camera) but I have seen very good landscapes shot with telephoto lenses.

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

Getting more of the landscape into the field of view does not necessarily make for a better image though, especially with the landscapes we find in the upper Great Lakes region.

Mike

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

My favorite landscape lens is also my favorite utility lens, my 28-300 zoom, of which I have two, one for Nikon and one for Canon.

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

You may want to ask this question in the Landscape Photography section https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/s-132-1.html to see what they have to say.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

It depends on what you are shooting. I use a 45 PC-E, 85 PC-E, 80-200 F2.8, 100-300 F4 mostly. I will also use a 24-70 F2.8, 24 PC-E and on rare occasions, my 14-24. For wide expansive scenes, I much prefer a longer lens, camera in portrait mode, and as many shots as necessary to "take it all in" which I stitch in PanoTools, Photoshop or Lightroom over using a wide lens on a single shot. I've tried a Nikon 28-300 for landscape and found it inadequate for my landscape needs.

This first image was a 14 shot, dual row pano shot with an 85mm PC-E. Because of the busy background, I shot it at F2.8 to put some separation between the bridge and the background.

The second was two years earlier, shot as a 4 frame pano with a 45mm PC-E.

The third image was a 10 fram pano, shot with a 150-600mm at 150mm.

The last image was a 15 shot (5 columns x 3 rows) stitched pano, using a 45mm PC-E lens.

I used either a D800 or a D810 for these.

Pano stitching has become a very popular technique among landscape photographers.

Aside from having greater control over depth of field, freedom from perspective (not keystoning) distortion, and being able to make an image as wide and or tall as necessary, a stitched pano using a longer focal length also turns your DSLR or Mirrorless into a 90 mp (or more) medium format camera.

.

original image is 15952x8098px, or 129.1 mp

(Download)

original image is 13233x7077px, or 93.4 mp

(Download)

original image is 14763x9438px or 139 mp

(Download)

original image is 12949x10204 px, or 132.1 mp

(Download)

juan_uy Loc: Uruguay

I don't have the same equipment, and sure I don't have the same abilities. But my answer is pretty the same, so
And thanks for saving me writing a longer reply

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

And thank you! (Necesitamos levantarnos unos a otros). As far as abilities are concerned, as I tell my students - most of what they see in my images is showing up at the right place, the right time, with the right camera - and a good idea what I was after in the final product. The image below of the three bridges shows what the result of stitching was, before I applied any enhancements - in other words, nearly straight out of the camera. What I saw was in between what the camera captured and what I did as a final product.

Other than the Cliffs of Moher, all of the other images were re-visits. Much of my most successful imagery happens like that.The three bridges pano was a second visit in 2 days. the bridge with fall colors was a second and third visit, with 2 yrs between the second and third.

You probably have the abilities already - you just haven't tapped into them yet. I am certain that the landscape opportunities in Uruguay are considerably better than in my neck of the woods (NYC and points north).

I do shoot raw, but I find that easier to work with than jpegs. I won't apologize for my laziness.

(Download)

juan_uy Loc: Uruguay

Thanks for the encouragement
I know I have a lot to learn and grow, but mainly at this point I'm lacking practice (I think I will always lack that, as not having enough ).
There are nice landscapes here, and we are lucky to have quite dark skies quite near, and I do happen to like landscape and milky way photographs the most

Strodav Loc: Houston, Tx

Don't let anyone tell you there is one best lens for landscapes. Wide angles (I use a Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8) allow you to put interesting objects close to the camera making them look large helping accentuate the background. It's the lens I use most. If you want to skip an uninteresting foreground, then longer lenses can do the job. If I'm not using the 14-24mm, I am using a Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8. I rarely go longer than that, but have occasionally used a 70-200mm f/2.8, just like you. Yes, that's the trinity, a really good set of lenses to have if you are serious about photography.

More important factors are waiting for the right light (I love twilight shots when I can pull them off) and moving around finding the best angles and elevation for the best composition.

Don't overlook a good quality cell phone for some landscape shots. When I'm driving / hiking around looking for the best shooting spots for the end of the day, I'll use my iphone 8+.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

nikon 16-35 f4 and 24-120 f4 . And, they both have the same filter size.

Dossile

My favorite lenses are my Nikon 20 f1.8, 70-200 E f2.8 and sometimes my 200-500 f5.6. Depends on what the points of interest are in the landscape. I have a 16-35 f4 but don’t like the distortion between 16-20 that not even PP can correct to my liking. I also have a 24-70E 2.8 but have surprisingly, to myself, hardly used for landscapes.