Lenses for Landscape Photography
Jul 15, 2018 12:52:56 #
Reality check folks.
A good as any 135mm lens might be, that focal length not the best choice for landscape photography with any 35mm or current DSLR system.
I am sorry that the OP feels that the lens manufacturing industry has not addressed his needs or those of other landscape photographers. This, however, in reality is not the case. Firstly, there is no such things as a "landscape lens"- there are hundreds if not thousands of lenses on the new, brand name, aftermarket and used markets that are perfectly applicable to landscape photography.
As far as price is concerned, generally speaking, as it is with all precision equipment, you gets what you pays for" but there are certainly a plethora of moderately priced lenses that are more that adequate for the job. There are many lenses on the used market, that are perfectly fine and are being sold a reasonable prices only because the owners have
upgraded, changed systems or no longer has use for a particular lens.
On this site and many othere photo forumes, there is just too much emphasis on gear, price points and certain brand names. Not enough attention is paid to maximizing one's technique with their existing inventory of equipment before going on to things that are more costly. Of course, there are lenses that perform better that others, but unless you come across a real "lemon" or an old aftermarket or private (store) brand that is truly inferior, there are hardly any currently produced lenses that are all that terrible- they would not survive on today's consumer market.
There are some ways of coming around some lens issues. For instance, a "slower lens perhaps a f/4.5 might perform at it best, as to minimizing diffraction, at about f/8 or f/11, so you can get the depth of field needed for certain landscape compositions and pick up the lenses "sweet spot" at the same time.
The same kind of advice also pertains to portraiture. There has not been a lens made that was named or SPECIFIED as a PORTRAIT lens since the 1950s. There were a few, such as the Kodad Portrait model only because it was a soft focus formula.The Rodenstock Imagon is still a classic soft focus model but guess what!? They have been used to produce spectacular landscape images. Yes there are lenses that are more appropriate for each specific aspect of photography, however, there are many crossover applications and each photographer has their own favorites.
Lenses are the EYES of our cameras and they are important! If one has unlimited financial resources there are some incredible glass to buy. The fun and challenge, however, is doing the research, searching the ads, prowling the old smaller camera stores (if you can find one) and the pawn shops and second-hand stores in search of a "jewel". Don't be lazy and expect the advertising hype and scuttelbut do the work or make the decisions for you! Seek and ye shall find!
A good as any 135mm lens might be, that focal length not the best choice for landscape photography with any 35mm or current DSLR system.
I am sorry that the OP feels that the lens manufacturing industry has not addressed his needs or those of other landscape photographers. This, however, in reality is not the case. Firstly, there is no such things as a "landscape lens"- there are hundreds if not thousands of lenses on the new, brand name, aftermarket and used markets that are perfectly applicable to landscape photography.
As far as price is concerned, generally speaking, as it is with all precision equipment, you gets what you pays for" but there are certainly a plethora of moderately priced lenses that are more that adequate for the job. There are many lenses on the used market, that are perfectly fine and are being sold a reasonable prices only because the owners have
upgraded, changed systems or no longer has use for a particular lens.
On this site and many othere photo forumes, there is just too much emphasis on gear, price points and certain brand names. Not enough attention is paid to maximizing one's technique with their existing inventory of equipment before going on to things that are more costly. Of course, there are lenses that perform better that others, but unless you come across a real "lemon" or an old aftermarket or private (store) brand that is truly inferior, there are hardly any currently produced lenses that are all that terrible- they would not survive on today's consumer market.
There are some ways of coming around some lens issues. For instance, a "slower lens perhaps a f/4.5 might perform at it best, as to minimizing diffraction, at about f/8 or f/11, so you can get the depth of field needed for certain landscape compositions and pick up the lenses "sweet spot" at the same time.
The same kind of advice also pertains to portraiture. There has not been a lens made that was named or SPECIFIED as a PORTRAIT lens since the 1950s. There were a few, such as the Kodad Portrait model only because it was a soft focus formula.The Rodenstock Imagon is still a classic soft focus model but guess what!? They have been used to produce spectacular landscape images. Yes there are lenses that are more appropriate for each specific aspect of photography, however, there are many crossover applications and each photographer has their own favorites.
Lenses are the EYES of our cameras and they are important! If one has unlimited financial resources there are some incredible glass to buy. The fun and challenge, however, is doing the research, searching the ads, prowling the old smaller camera stores (if you can find one) and the pawn shops and second-hand stores in search of a "jewel". Don't be lazy and expect the advertising hype and scuttelbut do the work or make the decisions for you! Seek and ye shall find!
Jul 15, 2018 13:32:01 #
Bob Locher
Loc: Southwest Oregon
I do regret that I apparently can not attach photos to these messages to show my hopelessly inadequate landscape pictures taken with a 135 mm lens on my A6000, for which 135 mm is the equivalent of about 200 mm. Even is they are not as tack sharp as I would like.
I *do* statistically analyze the scenic pictures I taken that I think are worthy of keeping. More than 15% of them are taken with the 135 mm lens.
I do fail to see why my discussing my quest for a better lens should then subject me to ridicule. I'd like to think I know what I am doing. If I don't - hard lines. It's my money I'm spending.
Most of the comments here have been constructive and those I do appreciate.
Cheers
I *do* statistically analyze the scenic pictures I taken that I think are worthy of keeping. More than 15% of them are taken with the 135 mm lens.
I do fail to see why my discussing my quest for a better lens should then subject me to ridicule. I'd like to think I know what I am doing. If I don't - hard lines. It's my money I'm spending.
Most of the comments here have been constructive and those I do appreciate.
Cheers
Jul 15, 2018 17:21:52 #
Long lens landscapes require an eye and extra
skill. That alone explains the consensus among
the lazy and the brainwashed that, "135 is not
a landscape lens".
Normals, and moderately longer lenses, do not
impose a look or style onto otherwise mundane
views. Extra wide lenses do impose a look/style
and so are favored by those of less skill, vision,
and creativity.
skill. That alone explains the consensus among
the lazy and the brainwashed that, "135 is not
a landscape lens".
Normals, and moderately longer lenses, do not
impose a look or style onto otherwise mundane
views. Extra wide lenses do impose a look/style
and so are favored by those of less skill, vision,
and creativity.
Jul 15, 2018 19:22:43 #
Bob Locher wrote:
I do regret that I apparently can not attach photo... (show quote)
First. I don't understand why, if you want to, you are unable to post pictures since they are already in a digital format ...
Second. You do NOT have to agree with my impression that your stated "quest for a better lens" rings hollow because it seems that you are continuing to insist that one of the poorer examples of a 135mm lens provides a valid benchmark for assessing vintage Prime lenses ...
If you don't want to compare the 135mm f2.8 Nikkor to your Sigma, then it would probably be beneficial if you investigated the 135mm Takumar lens which had been suggested earlier in this thread.
BTW. If you want superior take-no-chances Prime lenses then you can always pony up for almost any M-mount Leica lens which can be readily adapted to your Sony ...
.. There are post-War Canon Serenar lenses + Russian copies of pre-War Zeiss lenses which are available with the 39mm Leica Thread mount which can also be adapted to your Sony which may-or-may-not be acceptable to you.
Jul 15, 2018 21:20:58 #
`
Nothing fancy, just a mid-long lens view
of a natural scene. I liked the dark trees
with the reddish low-angle sun bouncing
through a few clumps of leaves.
Nothing fancy, just a mid-long lens view
of a natural scene. I liked the dark trees
with the reddish low-angle sun bouncing
through a few clumps of leaves.
Jul 15, 2018 21:29:46 #
Bob Locher
Loc: Southwest Oregon
Thanks.
Here is one of my pictures taken with a 135 mm lens on my Sony A6000, which equates to about a 200 mm lens on a full frame camera.
Here is one of my pictures taken with a 135 mm lens on my Sony A6000, which equates to about a 200 mm lens on a full frame camera.
Jul 15, 2018 21:55:13 #
Bob Locher
Loc: Southwest Oregon
By the way, I would respectfully disagree that Ansel Adams used crude equipment. He used sheet film view cameras, a tripod, an accurate shutter, and good lenses that were slow by today's standards but fully capable of sharp results. He had accurate light meters.
He did not normally shoot formats smaller than 4X5", usually larger. He did not have autofocus but he did have a ground glass screen and a magnifier, capable of critically sharp focus. With his light meter and certainly with his years of experience he was able to get accurate exposures. While there is very little large format photography being done today, the large format equipment of today is little different from what he used. Yes, the lens are sharper, and the films have improved - but not to the point they would make much difference at all for a 20X24" print or larger.
Adams was a wizard in the dark room. Contact prints from most of his negatives looked very unimpressive but his magic turned them into some of the most memorable prints ever made.
Even his techniques of burning, dodging and exposure can today be emulated by the better post production programs under the fingers of someone who really understands what can be done. But few if any have the eye Ansel Adams did.
He was one of the great artists of any age.
He did not normally shoot formats smaller than 4X5", usually larger. He did not have autofocus but he did have a ground glass screen and a magnifier, capable of critically sharp focus. With his light meter and certainly with his years of experience he was able to get accurate exposures. While there is very little large format photography being done today, the large format equipment of today is little different from what he used. Yes, the lens are sharper, and the films have improved - but not to the point they would make much difference at all for a 20X24" print or larger.
Adams was a wizard in the dark room. Contact prints from most of his negatives looked very unimpressive but his magic turned them into some of the most memorable prints ever made.
Even his techniques of burning, dodging and exposure can today be emulated by the better post production programs under the fingers of someone who really understands what can be done. But few if any have the eye Ansel Adams did.
He was one of the great artists of any age.
Jul 15, 2018 22:26:33 #
Bob Locher wrote:
By the way, I would respectfully disagree that Ans... (show quote)
I totally agree, especially with the last statement. He was also one of the leading conservationists of the last century, contributing much work to preserving our scenic and wilderness heritage.
But just to be clear, Adams was no technophobe and readily adapted advances in equipment and technique. His concept of pre-visualization of the image he wanted to capture inherently involved darkroom manipulation and careful choice of film, chemistry, and paper for the final image. He was no "SOOC" purist at all. And he was a practical commercial photographer as well as an artist - his advice on equipment, wiring, and layout helped me design my first film era darkroom, and he embraced industrial, architectural, product, and other commercial work as a necessity for practical survival as an artist, and as being worthy of the same care and attention he used in his artistic pursuits.
I like to think that had he lived longer, Adams would be one of our foremost authors on post processing technique, and that he would have totally embraced the powerful tools, both in camera and on computer, that we have today.
Andy
PS: I love your image. Great, subtle presentation.
Jul 15, 2018 22:32:13 #
Jul 16, 2018 10:06:30 #
I don't know how to "officially" quote 2 posts in one reply, but ....
Bob wrote, in part:
"Adams was a wizard in the dark room. Contact
prints from most of his negatives looked very
unimpressive but his magic turned them into
some of the most memorable prints ever made."
and Andy wrote, in part, also of Adams:
"He was no 'SOOC' purist at all."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
And I myself am onboard with all that. I always considered
my camera to be just an input device for my darkroom. If
I hafta toot my own horn, yes I could print like Adams and
other respected masters. It's dedication, not rocket science.
OTOH I had no need of the Zone System cuz I really am a
bit of rocket scientist. The Zone System is not for dummies
but in context it's fair to call it "Densitometry for Dummies"
[in the meaning of the Dummies Books series]. I didn't use
that. I used a densitometer. I could read, and plot, D-log-E
curves etc etc.
I have no kinship toward "SOOC purists". Even when I shot
chromes, they were designed for my [elaborate] duping rig
where they underwent "PP". For digital, all my SOOC jpegs
are muted, low saturation and contrast, to capture as much
range as possible, to be finalized in PP. I shoot raw only as
"insurance" but can't recall ever needing to "make a claim".
My SOOC jpegs are as unaesthetic as Adams' proof prints.
Bob wrote, in part:
"Adams was a wizard in the dark room. Contact
prints from most of his negatives looked very
unimpressive but his magic turned them into
some of the most memorable prints ever made."
and Andy wrote, in part, also of Adams:
"He was no 'SOOC' purist at all."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
And I myself am onboard with all that. I always considered
my camera to be just an input device for my darkroom. If
I hafta toot my own horn, yes I could print like Adams and
other respected masters. It's dedication, not rocket science.
OTOH I had no need of the Zone System cuz I really am a
bit of rocket scientist. The Zone System is not for dummies
but in context it's fair to call it "Densitometry for Dummies"
[in the meaning of the Dummies Books series]. I didn't use
that. I used a densitometer. I could read, and plot, D-log-E
curves etc etc.
I have no kinship toward "SOOC purists". Even when I shot
chromes, they were designed for my [elaborate] duping rig
where they underwent "PP". For digital, all my SOOC jpegs
are muted, low saturation and contrast, to capture as much
range as possible, to be finalized in PP. I shoot raw only as
"insurance" but can't recall ever needing to "make a claim".
My SOOC jpegs are as unaesthetic as Adams' proof prints.
Jul 16, 2018 10:29:13 #
RWR
Loc: La Mesa, CA
Bob Locher wrote:
My photographic interest is shooting landscapes, a... (show quote)
I thought you expressed your need quite well. Unfortunately, there are some folks here who cannot understand why everyone doesn’t think the same as they do. It’s really no one else’s business what you want the lens for!
Quality zooms the last 35-40 years have almost eliminated the demand for slow 135mm prime lenses (consider the Nikkor 50~135 f/3.5 AiS). Manufacturers aren’t likely to produce anything that won’t sell well, so you’re pretty much limited to the used market.
I won’t pretend that it would be best for you, but one of my favorites is an f/2.8 Leitz Elmarit-R, sharp, excellent contrast, neutral color rendition. I don’t consider 750g to be too heavy, especially since the cameras I use it on the most weigh twice that.
For pleasing out-of-focus rendition, I use either an f/4.0 Leitz Elmar or f/4.5 Schacht Travegon, 12 and 18 aperture blades, respectively.
Almost any mount can be adapted for your camera, so there are a great many possibilities. Good luck!
Jul 16, 2018 16:29:38 #
Bob Locher wrote:
Bokeh is how a lens renders something out of focus... (show quote)
Thank you. In portraits I sometimes used filters in front of the lens that would give diffuse the definition to the edges and create slightly darker edges. They made the subject stand out more in the shot. We do it now in photoshop with an overlay.
Jul 16, 2018 21:19:49 #
Bob Locher wrote:
Thanks.
Here is one of my pictures taken with a 135 mm lens on my Sony A6000, which equates to about a 200 mm lens on a full frame camera.
Here is one of my pictures taken with a 135 mm lens on my Sony A6000, which equates to about a 200 mm lens on a full frame camera.
Very nice job, Bob. That's the best way to make your point -- case closed on using a 135mm for landscapes.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.