PDA

View Full Version : Confused... WA lens is a must for landscape?



Kuzano
29-Jan-2012, 20:59
I've talked with other LF photographers about this subject. So I want to pose a question. Whenever one sees a discussion on forums like this, it appears that a common perception that landscape photos necessitate wide angle lenses with the assumption that the wider the better.

Yet, I have been told that is not necessarily true. I don't do a lot of landscape, but plan to start traveling more (thanks to semi retirement).

So, should I spend a lot of time searching, buying and using the super wide lenses for 4X5 like 45-60 mm?

Would I see the best landscape results, with a 90mm?

Or are 120 to 150 suitable for landscape?

I'm not necessarily new to LF, but this is a new direction for me. I tend to use, and have, 90, 120, 150 and 210.

John NYC
29-Jan-2012, 21:03
You have very nice selection of focal lengths. Do you ever feel like your 90mm is too long to do the kind of shots you like? If not, you don't need anything wider. Although I have tried them, I tend to stay away from very wide now as it doesn't fit my aesthetic. It is all just a personal choice.

Brian Ellis
29-Jan-2012, 21:34
It depends on how you see. I seldom used a wide angle lens for landscapes with 4x5. 150mm and 210mm were my favorite lengths. The widest 4x5 lens I ever owned was 80mm but I used it more for architecture than I did for landscapes. What's suitable for landscape and what you "should" do depends on how you see and how you want to photograph what you see, not on what others do.

Gem Singer
29-Jan-2012, 22:02
I tend to use a 135, 150, or 180 for landscapes and a 90 or 120 for structures or architecture.

Wider lenses (75 or 65) are good for interior shots where space is limited.

The 210 and 300 focal lengths are reserved for distant subjects.

lbenac
29-Jan-2012, 22:12
I was thinking the same when i started and got a 75mm. Truth is after using LF for some time, I have found that 90mm is really the wider than I would ever need for landscape and when in the mountains 120mm is probably as wide as I ever need.
125, 200 or 120, 180, 240 is a good combo or 90,135,200,300 depending how many lenses you want to backpack.
You would be surprised how much 150 or 210 gets used for landscape.

Cheers,

Luc

Joshua Dunn
29-Jan-2012, 22:19
I think you have a great set of focal lengths to work with.

I own way too many wide angle lenses, from 38mm on up. For landscapes I would not but a “Super Wide” lens, I rarely go wider than 90mm (on a 4x5 format). If you do decide to go wider try something close to 75mm (which is very wide on 4x5) before you go too wide. All of this is subjective; you have to be the judge of your own work. You might try some longer focal lengths than your 210mm; you might be surprised with how far off landscape looks on a 360mm or 480mm lens.

Maybe you could borrow or rent some different focal lengths to help you make up your mind?

-Joshua

Kuzano
29-Jan-2012, 22:34
Great... thanks for all the responses.

Looks as if I would only need to buy wider if I were going to do interior shots. I have been happy with the selection of lenses I have, although I have often thought a 180 would be nice. However while I sometimes think 120 is a bit close to 150, I also think 180 might be too close to 210.

I particularly am interested in the comment about exploring landscapes on much longer focal lengths.

I look forward to other comments, but it looks as if the posts so far confirm what I have been told about landscape focal lengths.

Regarding the question, "do I ever think my 90 is too long"????

Actually, to answer that question, when I have used my 90 for landscapes, I tend to think I am getting too much information in the picture, and it begins to get a bit busy. Hard to find the "prime subject"

Thanks again everyone.

Alan Gales
29-Jan-2012, 22:45
One of my favorite landscape photos that I ever took I did about 25 years ago with a 35mm camera and zoom lens. We have a Japanese garden section in our Botanical Gardens here in St. Louis. I wanted to take a photo of a wooden bridge over a small lake. In that lake there is a big hunk of white limestone sticking up out of the lake which I wanted to include in the photo. To do this with the composition that I had in mind, I had to compress everything using a longer focal length. I used my zoom set at 135mm or a litttle less.

When shooting landscapes sometimes a longer focal length can be better than a shorter one. :)

Peter Gomena
30-Jan-2012, 00:54
I have the same lens selection as you, plus a 305 G-Claron that comes in handy on occasion, and I can't imagine needing a different setup for landscapes. My 150 and 210 are my most-used lenses. If you need wide, the 90 will do the job. My 120 is my least-used focal length, but it has its moments.

Peter Gomena

Scotty230358
30-Jan-2012, 01:32
For about 95% of my landscape work I have never gone wider than 120mm with the majority of shots taken with my 180mm lens and even then this focal length seems to have a wide view (don't ask me to explain this because I can't) I recently bought a 450mm lens and find it surprisingly useful for landscape work (if only it wasn't so damn heavy)

Doremus Scudder
30-Jan-2012, 04:06
I agree with the above. Your lens set should be more than fine. I have a 75mm that I use in tight canyons and on occasion for a real wide view, but got along just fine without it for years.

If you find yourself cursing your 90mm because it's not wide enough semi-regularly, then you can consider acquiring a wider lens. Until then, just go with what you have.

FWIW, 135mm seems to be my most-used focal length.

Best,

Doremus

Ole Tjugen
30-Jan-2012, 04:35
I'm one of those people who has absolutely everything: Every focal length from 47mm to 600mm.

Most of the time I end up using a normal or slightly shorter focal length, e.g. a 120mm lens on 4x5" or a 165mm lens on 5x7".

But every once in a while it's obvious that I need something a lot shorter, or a lot longer, to get the picture that I want. See what you use, see what you would like to use if you had it, then get that.

rdenney
30-Jan-2012, 07:16
That word "landscape" just isn't specific enough. I've made many landscape images using a full-frame fisheye, and more than a few using lenses four or more times the focal length of a "normal" lens.

Generally, I find the short lenses useful for exaggerating the scale of the foreground with respect to the background. So, if my main subject is small and close to the camera, and I want it to look like my main subject, I come in very close with a short lens. If the mountains on the horizon line are my main subject, I may need longer lenses than what I own. When I was in Alaska earlier in the year, I made a photo of Mount McKinley, and use 280mm on a 24x36 digital camera (six times normal). The 200mm lens for the Pentax 6x7 I also brought was grossly inadequate to isolate the interesting part of the subject--I didn't even waste the film for that image.

But I've made lots of ultra-wide images, too, when I wanted to exaggerate the perspective relationship between foreground and background.

The shortest lens I own that covers 4x5 is 65mm, and I suspect I've used that once for every 50 times I use a 90, and the 90 runs perhaps neck and neck with the 121.

For architecture, the 65 is what I would call a problem solver. But it may exaggerate perspective too much for most architecture, calling attention to itself too much. If it's the architecture I'm interested in portraying for its own sake, and not to make some alternative photographic statement, then usually I won't use a lens that short.

Rick "suggesting a search on Nana Sousa Dias's work on this forum for examples of really short lenses used for landscapes" Denney

chassis
30-Jan-2012, 07:22
Ansel Adams made plenty of nice images with standard lenses for the focal length. If I had to make a summary statement about his work, is that it is in the standard to longer focal lengths, in general.

Right now I am in a wide angle mood. But I am working on a shot/visualization that is turning out better with a standard length lens. When I conceived the shot, I was convinced I needed a lens as wide as I could get. I made a few negatives with the wide angle, and they didn't deliver what I wanted. So I tried an image with a normal lens, and it is much more in line with my visualization.

Bottom line for me is, there are no set rules, just tradeoffs to achieve your visualization.

Dan Fromm
30-Jan-2012, 07:38
Kuzano, a lot depends on the landscape. I adore wide angle lenses, but if the interesting part of the view is distant a wide angle will give a shot that's all uninteresting foreground with a tiny hard-to-see interesting part. I get best results with w/a landscapes when there's an interesting foreground and the distant background doesn't matter much.

There's a scenic overlook on 395 north of Mono Lake. I once took a picture of the basin (looking more or less south from the overlook) on 2x3 with a 38/4.5 Biogon. One of the worst shots I've ever taken, and I should have known better. Haze killed it, and if the haze hadn't the featureless (because distant) nearly everything in the frame would have.

Google around, find Clyde Butcher's site, and see how he uses w/a lenses in (usually) very constricted settings. If that's what you want to accomplish and your 90 won't do it, then think about getting a shorter lens. Otherwise, go out, shoot, and learn from results that don't please you.

E. von Hoegh
30-Jan-2012, 07:57
I've talked with other LF photographers about this subject. So I want to pose a question. Whenever one sees a discussion on forums like this, it appears that a common perception that landscape photos necessitate wide angle lenses with the assumption that the wider the better.

Yet, I have been told that is not necessarily true. I don't do a lot of landscape, but plan to start traveling more (thanks to semi retirement).

So, should I spend a lot of time searching, buying and using the super wide lenses for 4X5 like 45-60 mm?

Would I see the best landscape results, with a 90mm?

Or are 120 to 150 suitable for landscape?

I'm not necessarily new to LF, but this is a new direction for me. I tend to use, and have, 90, 120, 150 and 210.

If you like.

Maybe.

Yes.

Jim Jones
30-Jan-2012, 08:31
The choice of lens depends on both the locale and one's approach to photography. A long lens is useful on the great plains; a wider lens may be better in the mountains. A long lens lets one optimize the background for some shots. A short lens gives a sense of intimacy. A friend often borrowed the equivalent of a 90mm that I rarely used, while I chose longer lenses to isolate elements of the same scene.

Even Ole may encounter a situation where his battery of lenses doesn't include the optimum one, and misses a shot. This is certainly true of most of us. It's a trade-off between having (and transporting) as many lenses as possible, or travelling lighter (and cheaper) and shooting what we can. My lightweight kit includes a 65, 135, and 203. Its 11 pounds feels heavier each year.

randy larson
30-Jan-2012, 09:11
I use 110-150-240-300-450. The 150mm would be my most used lens for landscapes. I have given thought to adding a 75/80, but never have gotten around to it or felt that it was absolutely necessary. I use the 300 and 450 more than the 110.

Roger Thoms
30-Jan-2012, 09:29
Rick "suggesting a search on Nana Sousa Dias's work on this forum for examples of really short lenses used for landscapes" Denney

I was going to suggest this but Rick beat me to it.

Roger

cyrus
30-Jan-2012, 09:54
All a wide lens does is show more of a panorama of the landscape. This may or may not be what you want, depending on the shot you're taking. Do you want to concentrate on the great big over all picture, or concentrate on greater details of a smaller portion of the horizon? You can be a perfectly good landscape photographer using normal lenses. In my personal case I only use wideangles if there are very dramatic clouds in the sky that I want to concentrate on. Those ginormous thunderheads can go from horizon to horizon so a superwide is useful if you want to get the whole thing in, but then the details of the rest of the landscape are far too small to be noticed in comparison.

John Kasaian
30-Jan-2012, 10:07
Roman Laranc relies heavily on a 210mm for his superb landscapes. Just sayin'

Kuzano
30-Jan-2012, 10:45
Great responses and much good information, in such a short period of time. I will continue to check in on this.

However, from what I have seen so far, I will work with what I have. If anything, and if I decide to add to the lens list, I will likely go to a longer focal length. But, it seems I am set for a while.

Thanks a lot. Every post has been interesting to me.

As far as types of landscape... to the East of me is high desert country, rolling hills, ridges and sagebrush plus canyon country such as Snake River and Steens mountains. To the West I have pine forested mountains, rivers and the huge deciduous forested Willamette Valley, not to mention the Oregon Coastline. To the North, Mount Hood, Portland OR, the Columbia River basin, and to the South, more Mountains, Lakes and Streams. To the North East, the Strawberry mountains, what we refer to as the American Alps.

I said travel, but not even sure I'll make it out of the state with all that's available nearby.

ROL
30-Jan-2012, 10:56
I really think your question and postulated assumptions are ass–backwards aesthetics wise. Why not shoot first and ask questions later, unless as Kasaian suggests, you want to ape a specific photographer. Many people think to shoot landscape because it seems easy enough based on other talented photographers' work. It is in no way easy to create compelling landscape/nature compositions and print them, without a true appreciation, knowledge, and love of the subject itself – something which truly applies to any subject.

Wide angles are useful for establishing near–far relationships. Longer focal lengths compress space and can deaden important (to you) elements of the landscape, rendering distant compositions emotionless, which to be sure may be overcome by color relationships, or by the talented printing Kasaian refers to. Cropping, particularly in natural situations with LF gear, may also be an important tool (for more, see Cropping a Negative (http://www.rangeoflightphotography.com/pages/cropping-a-negative)).

Not that it matters, but my most frequently used lens for 5X7 LF lanscape is 180mm (somewhat less than "normal" for that format) followed closely by 300mm (a short to medium tele). The 110mm Super Symar XL rarely comes out. This is not the case with medium and small formats.

Peter York
30-Jan-2012, 11:10
I think a 90mm would cover most wide-angle situations, but certainly not all.

IMHO shooting wider than 90mm can get frustrating because you have to deal with light falloff from the lens and a dim groundglass, which means more $ for a center filter and a brighter groundglass. You also have to be sure that your camera's standards are accurately zeroed. Any unintended swing or tilt will show. This means carefully checking the focus in the corners.

For what it is worth, my most used landscape lens is the 100mm Ektar, though I did recently pick up a 58mm for those rare situations.

John Rodriguez
30-Jan-2012, 23:29
Would I see the best landscape results, with a 90mm?

Or are 120 to 150 suitable for landscape?

I'm not necessarily new to LF, but this is a new direction for me. I tend to use, and have, 90, 120, 150 and 210.

For a shot that calls for a 90mm you'd see the best results. :D What lens to use is completely dependent on the photograph you're trying to create. Doesn't matter if it's landscape, portraiture or action sports.

I like to have at least one wide angle and one telephoto lens at all times, and preferably something in between. I probably use my long lens (250) more then the other two because it places my main subject subject evenly within it's environment. This is due to the size ratio between the main subject and it's surrounding objects (ie - the main subject appears even in size or possibly diminished in relation to it's surroundings - giving a feeling of balance to all the objects in the frame).

John Kasaian
31-Jan-2012, 00:09
I really think your question and postulated assumptions are ass–backwards aesthetics wise. Why not shoot first and ask questions later, unless as Kasaian suggests, you want to ape a specific photographer. Many people think to shoot landscape because it seems easy enough based on other talented photographers' work. It is in no way easy to create compelling landscape/nature compositions and print them, without a true appreciation, knowledge, and love of the subject itself – something which truly applies to any subject.

Wide angles are useful for establishing near–far relationships. Longer focal lengths compress space and can deaden important (to you) elements of the landscape, rendering distant compositions emotionless, which to be sure may be overcome by color relationships, or by the talented printing Kasaian refers to. Cropping, particularly in natural situations with LF gear, may also be an important tool (for more, see Cropping a Negative (http://www.rangeoflightphotography.com/pages/cropping-a-negative)).

Not that it matters, but my most frequently used lens for 5X7 LF lanscape is 180mm (somewhat less than "normal" for that format) followed closely by 300mm (a short to medium tele). The 110mm Super Symar XL rarely comes out. This is not the case with medium and small formats.
I'm not suggesting to ape anyone. 210 is a very common non-WA lens for 4x5 shooters to have. If the OP has one, he can be inspired by the fact that the focal length is used quite successfully by Loranc (and John Sexton, for that matter) and can work with what he may likely already have before needing to chase after that illusive magic bullet:rolleyes:

eddie
31-Jan-2012, 04:17
interesting. i use a "landscape" lenses that are very long.....12, 16 and 18 inches.....for portraits! i have never even shot a landscape with them.....maybe i should.

Bruce Watson
31-Jan-2012, 06:05
For the longest time my widest lens for 5x4 was my 110mm SSXL. On the east coast of the USA, there aren't that many "grand vistas" needing a shorter lens for wider coverage. I found that my landscape work split pretty evenly between 110/150/240 mm lenses.

It wasn't until I started traveling more to the west coast of the USA where there are grand vistas that I bought my 80mm SSXL. Now one of my favorite prints is from that lens.

I'm just sayin' that your subject often tells you what focal length to use to capture it. If you don't need short lenses, don't buy any. ;)

Edward (Halifax,NS)
31-Jan-2012, 11:08
It seems that I shoot normal with any format. 50mm was my favourite lens on 35mm, I am limited to 80mm on my Yashicamat, and I am fond of my 150mm G-Claron for 4X5. Ironically, I recently discovered that my favourite photograph of all time (Clearing Winter Storm) was made with a 12" lens (Cooke Convertible) on 8X10.