rts2568

I've just been frozen out in my original reply to you by this site, for the umpteenth time, so very quickly.

1/ Try a standard 50mm F1.8 Nikkor and learn about its usefulness.
If the 25mm F2.8 you refer to is the Laowa 25mm F2.8 Think twice about buying this lens. It is a very primitive all manual lens, Optics are nothing to sneeze about but if you are serious, check out the aperture settings, very carefully: on both of the versions I have, are way off their markings.

2/ Rather than worrying about the lens to get, think seriously about how you position the lens you have and think of whether you might better use stitching with the results you get and of using a medium tele' lens. It depends a great deal on your subject and the best real tool you have is the brain you bring with you on your shoot.

Wish you luck,

Ron

Flickwet Loc: NEOhio

I’m sorry you’re being pedantic, we all knew what he meant, heck FF could be 8x10, you’re right about the 50, it’s normal not wide on a 24mmx36mm sensor.

rts2568

Do a search on the web for Photoshop and 'stitching'. There is plenty available and the process is very simple and effective. There are lots of other software packages available too.

Become informed and win. The rewards, are immeasurable.

Ron

Flickwet Loc: NEOhio

Exactly, good advice, for landscape trees are really all you have to be cognizant of regarding distortion

rts2568

Try stitching two or more images, even if you find yourself in a narrow cave with your 85, though I wonder why you are constantly in tight spaces with an 85mm and thinking 'landscape'?

Ron

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

I disagree, there are many landscape images awaiting to be shot that include man made subjects like buildings and bridges. Seascapes that include a horizon line that isn't straight only appeal to a few.

Flickwet Loc: NEOhio

You’re right, I was thinking too fast

clickety

👍👍👍
The most frustrating thing on this site.

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

I have done landscape photography PROFESSIONALLY for over 40 years.
YES, I am one that posted him to consider a zoom lens.
WHY? Because over those 40 years of professional photography I have used both of those primes and have found that a zoom works better for landscape. I felt I owed him my experience to caution him about limiting him to a single focal length.
Did I do the wrong thing in bringing my experience into my answer? I do not believe I did. I stand by my post, if others find in not helpful, so be it.
When you ask a question on this site, be prepared for a variety of answers. In my honest opinion, there are always better ways to do things. I believe they call that experience.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

I don't know what camera system you're using.... nor if you are using full frame or crop sensor camera.

It's certainly not a hard and fast rule, but more often than not I find myself using a wide angle lens for landscape photography. Anywhere from a moderate wide to an ultrawide. Sure, sometimes a normal or even a telephoto might be useful.... But, at least for me, that's far less frequent.

In the past, I used only primes because most older zooms were pretty poor. But today there are highly capable zooms, so prime versus zoom is more down to your personal preferences. I still prefer primes, perhaps just out of around 40 years habit, but find myself using more and more zooms.

On my crop sensor cameras I use a 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 and a 20mm f/2.8 a lot. I've also use a 12-24mm f/4 lens on croppers, in the past. On full frame, I use the same 20mm, often along with a 24-70mm and a 50mm f/1.4.

There are times I wish I had wider. If were shooting more landscapes with the full frame, 1'd want a 16-35mm f/4. Alternatives are 24mm f/2.8 and 35mm f/2 (alongside the 20mm I'm already using). f/2.8 version of that zoom and f/1.4 versions of both those primes are available in the system I use... but as someone else already mentioned... large apertures simply aren't often needed for landscape work. I've also considered some 14mm and 15mm ultrawide primes for use on full frame. I used to have a 17-35mm f/2.8 that I used with my film cameras (several examples done with it below, but exact focal length wasn't recorded).

Less extreme aperture lenses are smaller, lighter and often less expensive. They also may offer better sharpness from corner to corner. Size and weight might be an important consideration if you'll need to hike some distance to take the shots. Compare the weight and bulk of several smaller primes versus a single zoom.

I was very impressed recently with some work done using an 11-24mm, which is available for full frame in the system I use. However, that lens is quite expensive, big and bulky. It also has a protruding, convex front element that makes using filter on it difficult (this is true with some other ultrawides, too). Standard screw-in filters are impossible, so a special holder and over-size, rectangular filters are needed. I often use a circular polarizer and sometimes a neutral density filters for landscape photography, so this is another consideration.

Some examples....

20mm lens on full frame:


20mm lens on full frame, image cropped to more panoramic format:


50mm lens on full frame, shot from virtually the same vantage point as the image above:


Same 20mm lens on APS-C crop camera (where it "acts like 32mm on full frame"):


17-35mm lens on film (full frame):


12-24mm on APS-C crop sensor camera (at 15mm, equiv. to 24mm on full frame), image cropped to panoramic format:


10-22mm lens (at 10mm, equiv. to 16mm on full frame) on APS-C crop camera:

Bob Locher Loc: Southwest Oregon

For one thing it depends on what format you are using. It also depends on your "vision". In terms of full frame cameras, I tend to go for longer primes. 2 of my best shots were with a 200 mm lens. But another was done with a 35 mm lens; more of a panoramic shot. But not all scenics are panoramic. If you like panoramic, go to a shorter lens, say a good 35 mm for full frame. If you like tighter shots, go at least 60 mm. And one nice thing about a really sharp prime - you can crop a lot and still have a good result. Most zooms will not hold up to that.

juanbalv Loc: Los Angeles / Hawthorne

Wow, Mr. Lugo, you do some beautiful work. Thank you.

Acufine3200 Loc: Texarkana USA

royden Loc: Decatur, GA

Well said. Someone asks a specific question, I see now reason to offer alternatives.

Acufine3200 Loc: Texarkana USA

BillNikon—
I wouldn’t include you in the “frustrating” aspect of this post. You explained your reasoning behind the choosing a zoom over primes. Many others didn’t.