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
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.
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
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.
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.
If you like.Originally Posted by Kuzano
Maybe.
Yes.
One man's Mede is another man's Persian.
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.
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.
I was going to suggest this but Rick beat me to it.
Roger
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks