Would you consider a 90mm the best for landscapes?

[Brian Schall]

Really depends on what and where you're shooting; I've shot in SW FL and here in NM. For me, I could leave my 65mm on all day; a 75mm might have been better. When I shoot 35mm, I love my 24mm; on 6x6 I loved my 40mm.

[adam satushek]

If I had to pick one 4x5 lens for landscape there is no question I would choose my 150 sironar s. Not just because its awesomely sharp but I love the focal length. But I shoot landscapes on everything from 120, 150, 210, 300, and 450 in the 4x5 format. I do have a 90....but I shoot it so little that I would sell it if I wasn't waiting for the wanderlust 90 4x5 to become available for me to slap it on.

[Kodachrome25]

I shoot landscapes on every lens I own, 65, 90, 135, 150, 180 & 240. The 90 is my favorite wide and once I get my 6x12 back it and the 65 will get used a lot more.

My favorite might be my 135 Apo Sironar-N, tiny and super sharp.

[Kuzano]

Well, since Vinny said 135, and sinhe said that because "he says so"... I'm going with Vinny. Besides I also get most of my landscape done to satisfy me at 135mm. 90 is too wide for the way I like landscapes...

You will learn there is not much consistency on one lens for landscape. I had a 90 and 127 when I started. I went up a bit from the 127 when I purchased a better lens.

[John Kasaian]

So what lens did the OP decide on?

[AJ Edmondson]

I'll agree with Vinny and Kuzano! For me, the 90 has always been too wide for landscapes (there are obviously exceptions) and I don't like to resort to it even for architectural - there is just a "feel" to it that doesn't work for me. I always liked the Kodak 127 but it is too limiting in terms of coverage and the Nikkor 120mm f8 just seems like overkill because of the size... I still have one that I used on 8x10 and 5x7 but I don't frequently resort to it on 4x5,

Joel

[Ian Greenhalgh]

I shot some scenery today, the rapids in the nearby river. I used my 2x3 Graphic with Angulon 65 and Xenar 105. I found the 65 was a bit too wide. Transpose those lengths to 4x5 and the 65 is equivalent to a 90 so I agree that a 90 is too wide for many scenes.

[Aldo]

These posts are very interesting for me. I'm using shen hao TZ 45 IIb ... a 4x5 field camera with a bellow extension 75-340mm, with a only one lens , a normal 150mm rodenstock sironar-n small and light. It's the only lens that i have tried in 4x5 , so i have no experience of other lens and perspectives ... .

Normally i use to shoot mountain landscapes and architecture , so i need a lens with a large coverage and a bit wide.

In 35mm i love 35mm and 21 mm focal lenght , but in large format it's so difference , there are many changes in the perception of the image plans.

I don't need a ultrawide lens ... a 90 sut for me ? It's too wide? i believe that seems to a 21-24 in 35mm

No much money and my long mountain trails need a lightness solution: 90 f8 superangulon or 90 f 6.8 grandagon. Even the NikKor 90 seem to be a great lens but a bit rare .

Thanks for your answers and excuse me for my ugly english...

[John Kasaian]

No.
The most useful lens, IMHO, depends on the view. How it works out for me is, wide angles(including the 90mm) for close up subjects, longer lenses for the "grand view."
If I have to work with a single lens, a normal length (135-150-180) is certainly a useable compromise.
90mm Is certainly important for architecture and if your mountain landscapes tend towards the "intimate" )ferns, rocks, close ups etc...) a 90 mm WA may suit your vision.

[Aldo]

Thanks John, this is in part my opinion , that for general use in landscapes even a 150 mm is a bit wide but close to human eye .
I believe that the main lens for me remain the normal 150, but many times a lens not too big or heavy and wide could be useful in urban landscapes, for architectures or to change the perspective of the photo.

The problem is that i have no idea of the real look of the 90: i have no comparison with a 72-75 or a 110-120.