Lens Opinion for Landscape Photography (Page 6): I stepped in a different direction, and now go with the more wide angle zoom such as the 16mm- whatever (on a full-frame sensor). The...

JimRPhoto Loc: Raleigh NC

I stepped in a different direction, and now go with the more wide angle zoom such as the 16mm- whatever (on a full-frame sensor). The technique I saw in Outdoor Photograper magazine is to use the camera in portrait orientation, with the lens at a wide angle (not distorted, not fisheye). This lets you accentuate a foreground interest item in the landscape while still getting a wide field of view. Of course that same zoom lens can be used in landscape orientation as you may prefer. JimR

juanbalv Loc: Los Angeles / Hawthorne

clickety wrote:

I apologize, I did not mean to offend and it certa... (show quote)

Talk about bloviation, what?

SkyKing Loc: Thompson Ridge, NY

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

...I don’t know if this will interest you but these are the focal lengths used by Ansel Adams for landscape photography...mostly for 8x10 prints...a large percentage was with focal lengths between 30-45mm...

Diamond41 Loc: St. Louis, MO

Based on your initial question, 35mm is my suggestion

ValliPride Loc: Lost in Florida

IDguy wrote:

No need for fast lens for landscape...you want high f-stop for DOF.

Need to state FX or DX and preferred subjects for helpful answers. I use 16-35 on FX and 10-24 on DX.

I could not have stated it Better?nikon 16-35 f4 normally about F18 F20 for Lightning photos

jimpitt

16-35 f4.0 FX is the best for my money (I have and like). At least for landscape.
17-35 f2.8 FX might be a bit better, but twice the $'s. And the weight.
My 3 cents.

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

SkyKing wrote:

...I don’t know if this will interest you but these are the focal lengths used by Ansel Adams for landscape photography...mostly for 8x10 prints...a large percentage was with focal lengths between 30-45mm...

This is all fine and good, but it only applies to field of view. When choosing a lens for any purpose, it is important to consider how the lens handles perspective and depth of field - both of which will change when you change formats.

So, no, using a 250 - 310 mm lens on an 8x10 camera is not going to be the same as using a 33 - 41mm lens on full frame. The field of view will be similar but that's about it.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

Gene51 wrote:

This is all fine and good, but it only applies to field of view. When choosing a lens for any purpose, it is important to consider how the lens handles perspective and depth of field - both of which will change when you change formats.

So, no, using a 250 - 310 mm lens on an 8x10 camera is not going to be the same as using a 33 - 41mm lens on full frame. The field of view will be similar but that's about it.

Couldn’t have said it better!

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

Gene51 wrote:

This is all fine and good, but it only applies to field of view. When choosing a lens for any purpose, it is important to consider how the lens handles perspective and depth of field - both of which will change when you change formats.

So, no, using a 250 - 310 mm lens on an 8x10 camera is not going to be the same as using a 33 - 41mm lens on full frame. The field of view will be similar but that's about it.

Gene, this is purely a mental exercise question and I will understand if you choose to ignore it.. It appears that Mr. Adams’ favorite lens (from the above chart) would be the 310mm. Do you have a feel for which 35mm DSLR FX lens could be stitched to give a composite image that would approximate the ‘look’, including perspective, of the 310?. Field of view can be addressed by the number of images and DOF by focus stacking. But, is it possible to capture perspective also?

repleo Loc: Boston

SkyKing wrote:

...I don’t know if this will interest you but these are the focal lengths used by Ansel Adams for landscape photography...mostly for 8x10 prints...a large percentage was with focal lengths between 30-45mm...

Interesting info - thanks for posting.

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

Rich1939 wrote:

Gene, this is purely a mental exercise question and I will understand if you choose to ignore it.. It appears that Mr. Adams’ favorite lens (from the above chart) would be the 310mm. Do you have a feel for which 35mm DSLR FX lens could be stitched to give a composite image that would approximate the ‘look’, including perspective, of the 310?. Field of view can be addressed by the number of images and DOF by focus stacking. But, is it possible to capture perspective also?

I could postulate what the right answer is to this excellent question, but I'd have to see it firsthand. The largest camera I used regularly was a 4x5, and the longest large format lens I used was a 210 (?) Symmetrigon. I never gave any thought at the time that I might want to do a comparison.

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

Just for fun, I took this image of the Cliffs of Moher, on the west coast of Ireland. I used a D810, Sigma 150-600 set to 150mm, and took 11 images in a double row to make this pano. If I wanted the wider view that is often taken, I would have shot two more images on the left. The original image resolution is 14768x9438 or 139.4 mp. I don't need no stinking wide angle . . .

(Download)

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

Gene51 wrote:

Just for fun, I took this image of the Cliffs of Moher, on the west coast of Ireland. I used a D810, Sigma 150-600 set to 150mm, and took 11 images in a double row to make this pano. If I wanted the wider view that is often taken, I would have shot two more images on the left. The original image resolution is 14768x9438 or 139.4 mp. I don't need no stinking wide angle . . .

That shows convincingly why, when you have the time, to leave the wide angle in the trunk. The lack of any apparent distortion and the crispness of the image would be hard to even get close to with a wide angle. Not to mention a prime used this way can duplicate the AOV of any wide angle.

adamsg Loc: Chubbuck, ID

Gene51:

This makes me want to get into stitching and avoid some of the distortion problems involved with wide angles, at least below 30mm.Great shots and fine work in processing to achieve a beautiful image.Congratulations!

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

Rich1939 wrote:

That shows convincingly why, when you have the time, to leave the wide angle in the trunk. The lack of any apparent distortion and the crispness of the image would be hard to even get close to with a wide angle. Not to mention a prime used this way can duplicate the AOV of any wide angle.

Thanks! If it takes 2 seconds to take a single shot hand held, this took me about 15 secs. Not a lot of extra time involved. And you are right - no way even a 46 mp wide angle shot comes close to the richness of detail of a 140 mp image.