Lens Opinion for Landscape Photography (Page 5): If you are using Nikon, the 24-70mm f2.8. is best all around.

Rashid Abdu Loc: Ohio

If you are using Nikon, the 24-70mm f2.8. is best all around.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

pjarbit wrote:

Im wondering why? I usually shoot with L class canon 16-35 for landscape. Wondering why you feel 50mm and up is better....

Gene51 has described perspective distortion better than I can, but with wider lenses the size relationship of foreground and background objects becomes more exaggerated. Distant mountains, for example, that look imposing to the eye (50mm lens on 24 x36) can look more like mole hills with a 24mm lens on the same format. Panorama stitching with a near normal or longer lens is very effective and not difficult, but I shoot film mostly. My solution is to shoot 6 x 7 or 6 x 9 with a 58 or 60mm lens, both of which give the approximate field of view of a 28 and 24mm lens on a 24 x 36 format, respectively, but without the perspective distortion. It’s just a personal preference.

gessman Loc: Colorado

On the question of limiting one's reply to only the options asked about in the question, while I don't agree with allowing the question to throttle a better answer, I do indeed wish all those who offer alternatives that give them "great results" would post examples of their "great results" so the rest of us could see those "great results" rather than implying that their alternative answers give them "great results" but never let us see what "great results" is to them.

Acufine3200 Loc: Texarkana USA

gessman wrote:

On the question of limiting one's reply to only the options asked about in the question, while I don't agree...

Or at the very least an informative explanation.

gessman Loc: Colorado

Acufine3200 wrote:

Or at the very least an informative explanation.

While I don't disagree with you, this being a "photography forum" and all that, and with respect to the idea that "a picture is worth a thousand words," plus, given the fact that words can often be very deceptive and conceal a lot of the "proof" that is within the "pudding," pictures work real well for me when it comes to accepting someone's expert advice. Take Mr. Gene51 Lugo's example for instance... excellent as always! The only thing that puzzles me about those images is why a person would pay thousands of $'s for weatherproof equipment and then go out into the wilderness in sandals or something that would require a "boardwalk" through the wilderness. Man, them city slickers up there in New York City...

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

juanbalv wrote:

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

Thank you!

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

RWR wrote:

Gene51 has described perspective distortion better... (show quote)

I think this is a good illustration of what you can do without a wide lens or a tripod.

https://petapixel.com/2016/10/27/stitching-panorama-forget-wide-angle-lens-home/

alfeng Loc: Out where the West commences ...

PixelStan77 wrote:

Considering buying a Prime Lens for Landscape Photography. Considering a 35MM F2 and a 25MM F2.8. Which in your opinion is the BEST for Landscape Photography and why?

Thanks in advance for your opinion.
Stan

IMO ...

... Consider what other people have suggested ...

BUT (most importantly!?!), consider the FIELD OF VIEW that you want to capture!

Knowing THAT should help you decide which of the two focal lengths to choose IF those are your only two choices ...

.... OR split-the-difference and COMPROMISE with a 28mm lens.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

For landscape work with an FX camera, the 35mm would be my choice. Though I have used a 20mm with good results.
--Bob

PixelStan77 wrote:

Considering buying a Prime Lens for Landscape Photography. Considering a 35MM F2 and a 25MM F2.8. Which in your opinion is the BEST for Landscape Photography and why?

Thanks in advance for your opinion.
Stan

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

gessman wrote:

While I don't disagree with you, this being a &quo... (show quote)

When in Rome. . .

Thanks for the kind words!

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

alfeng wrote:

IMO ...

... Consider what other people have suggested ...

BUT (most importantly!?!), consider the FIELD OF VIEW that you want to capture!

Knowing THAT should help you decide which of the two focal lengths to choose IF those are your only two choices ...

.... OR split-the-difference and COMPROMISE with a 28mm lens.

Or learn to do panos and not feel constrained by what the focal length says on the lens. . .

orrie smith Loc: Kansas

PixelStan77 wrote:

Considering buying a Prime Lens for Landscape Photography. Considering a 35MM F2 and a 25MM F2.8. Which in your opinion is the BEST for Landscape Photography and why?

Thanks in advance for your opinion.
Stan

DX or FX? With a DX, somewhere between 16 and 24mm is great, for an FX, somewhere between 24mm and 50mm. The "nifty" 50 is a good starter with a great price.

adamsg Loc: Chubbuck, ID

Absolutely wonderful work!!! AS a former California resident, some of those look quite familiar. Bravo!!

adamsg Loc: Chubbuck, ID

I use the same duo that you describe, and in the same way. I do find that my use of the 18 end of the zoom on my "prime" lens gets far less use and that I tend to stay in the 40 to 50 range. There is an amount of distortion at very wide angles that I find disconcerting in many settings. This would be why I would like to explore stitching at some point: panoramas without the mountains into mole hills effect.

clickety

billnikon wrote:

I have done landscape photography PROFESSIONALLY f... (show quote)

I apologize, I did not mean to offend and it certainly was not directed at you or anyone else specifically. It was meant as a general comment or tantrum (my bad!).

Your point about experience is certainly understood and appreciated. Most of what I learn is garnered from the rich detailed discussions here.

Yet, often original questions seem to get lost in the subsequent discussion. There are some (NOT YOU and not the posters at the time of my original ill-thought comment) who appear to view any question or subject as an opportunity to enhance their self image. This often takes form as condescending, bloviating and off point nonsense.

My response was knee jerk endorsement of the sentiment expressed and very poorly timed.

For my photo journey this blog is priceless. There may be worts and blemishes but this is an incredible site!