Landscape photography with a normal lens

I have been doing alot of reading and it has included Ansel Adams

series The Camera, The Negative and The Print. In The Camera Adams

states that the normal lens does not give as interesting perspective

as wide angle or long lenses. I find that statement surprising since

many of his better known photographs were made with a 12 1/4 inch

lens on 8X10 - including my favorite, Clearing Winter Storm. Does

anyone here use a normal lens for landscape photography or have we

all been brainwashed to want 110mm superlenses for every format up to

11X14?

I shoot with a slightly long lens, but well within the "normal range for my format": I

use an Apo-Sironar 210mm on my 5x7 camera. "normal" is about 180mm, I think.

 

I love my lens. I think it's more about being familiar with the glass you're using, and

knowing what to anticipate when you're out looking for the image. I've used nothing

but this lens for 11 years now, and love the results.

 

It's like my Documetary Photo teacher told me ong ago: if the subject isn't big

enough, take a step towards the subject. No need for a zoom or a telephoto if you can

get closer.

In the small format I have always been a fan of my 35mm lens and my 50mm. My first LF lens is a inexpensive 127mm. My ability to compose an image with it is sloooooly improving. I just feel like some kind of weirdo for being drawn to "normal" picture. I guess the new kids won't hang out with me. The Adams quote has really stuck with me though. I don't know why.

Edward,

 

I use my "normal" 14" Commercial Ektar quite a bit on my 8x10. For several years it was the only LF lens I owned and I never felt disadvantaged with it. I've added longer and wider lenses to my kit, but I use them when circumstances require it---like when there are topographic barriers or physical confines that restrict where I can place my camera---and I find them very useful for that purpose.---Cheers!

My 4x5 large format kit consists of three focal lengths. A 90mm, a 162mm, and a 240mm. I haven't had a chance to use the 240 yet as it needs to be mounted. When I went to Colorado for a week last fall, about 90% of my shots were done with the normal lens. I stil find wider angles harder to compose, and am looking forward to using the 240mm when it is mounted.

Interesting question. On 4x5, I find about 80% of what I do is either with a 110mm or a 210mm. On 8x10, the mix is a bit more evenly spread between a 150mm, a 300mm and a 450mm, but with a slight preference for the 150mm lens. Considering that the aspect ratio is exactly the same, I'm not sure why my lens preference differs, but it does.

It all depends on how you "see". My shortest lens is a 150mm on my 4x5, and I use it the least. I had a wonderful 90mm, but never used it.

 

<p>I prefer most of my images to have a touch of what the Japanese call <i>Kanso</i> - a feeling of simplicity. This is often easier when the lens is a little longer than normal. In this case, a 300mm on 4x5.

 

<p><center><img src="http://www.kenleegallery.com/barnk.jpg"></center>

I also not a normal lens guy I prefer 47mm - 135mm and 210-480mm and I would prefer a 120mm over my 135 but the 135 is one of the seldom small lenses with I can close my Horseman HF on it!

But I also know some great photogs only worked with a normal lens the hole live!

the 12" lens is really closer to a moderate wide angle than a so called "normal" lens for 8x10

 

A 14" lens is much closer to what you might call a "normal" lens.

 

On top of which, Ansel was nothing if not both rather didactic but also quite contradictory at times.... I think it depended on who his audience was and which lenses he was using at the time.

Also keep in mind that Adams wrote those books very late in his life, decades after he did his most famous work. He may well have changed his thinking about things.

Normal lens for 8 x 10.

 

Clearly what is 'normal' for one person may be abnormal for another. The usual rule is that the normal focal length is the diagonal of the format. I don't know the exact dimensions of 8 x 10 film. I would guess it is about 195 x 245 mm; certainly not far different. Then the diagonal would be about 313 mm, which is very close to 12 1/4 inches.

 

Normal focal length lenses are called 'normal' because they provide the perspective one tends to see when looking at the scene. Shorter or longer focal length lenses exaggerate perspective in one direction or another.

 

I think the reason many landscape photographers often use relatively short focal length lenses is to use the 'near-far' principle enunciated by Adams. One has a near object of interest quite close and distant far objects, and one wants to empahsize the space in between. Jack Dykinga, in Large Format Nature Photography, shows many examples of this technique, using short focal length lenses. Long focal length lenses, on the other hand compress distances.

I've got three lenses that seem to split time on the (4x5) camera about equally. These are 110mm SS-XL, 150mm Sironar-S, and 240mm Fujinon-A. The 150mm is the "normal" lens and is excellent for when I need a view angle of about 45 degrees. It also makes a dynamite closeup lens down to about 1:1.

 

The way I work is to walk the scene and decide where the proper place is from which to make the photograph. Then I look closely to see how much of the scene I want to put on film, and pick the lens that will do that for me. In other words, I pick the location and perspective first, lens second. Of course, YMMV.

 

The idea that a lens gives a perspective is interesting. I always thought that the photographer picked the perspective, and used the lens to record his decision. Yosemite valley from Tunnel View, for example: If that's the scene you want to make a photograph of, it just cries out for a "normal" lens. On the other hand, if you'll climb the trail from there up to Inspiration Point, to capture the same scene takes a longer lens (about 30 degree angle of view, or a 240mm for 4x5) because you are farther away and higher up. Is one better than the other? Depends on which perspective you want. It's not the lens - it's you choosing the perspective.

Hogarth, when I attributed "the normal lens does not give as interesting perspective as wide angle or long lenses" to Adams I miss spoke. I was going from memory and did not have the book handy. What I interpreted as this was the following:

 

"In general, I do not find the normal lens especially desirable, functionally or aesthetically, The angle of view and depth of field characteristics do not seem favorable to me in interpreting space and scale. in my experiance, lenses of shorter or longer focal length are usually preferable in an aesthetic sense. I frequently find that the'normal' concepts and performances are not as exciting as those that make an acceptable departure from the expected reality."

 

I stand by my arguement but I do want it clear as to which words are Adams' and which are my interpretation.

One strange point - that others have mentioend as well - is that it often seems you don't need to use as wide a lens on 8x10 as you do on 4x5 for landscapes (and cityscapes). I'm not quite sure why - it seems to be a sort of optical illusion.

 

I frequently use a 90mm lens on 4x5 and on ocassion a 75mm. But on 8x10 my 250mm Fuji often seems plenty wide enough (=125mm lens on 4x5) and my 210 really feels like an ultrawide (= only a 110mm lens on 4x5). On the ocassions I use a 159mm lens, it seems very very wide indeed.

 

This is when photogorpahing basically the same sort of scenes.

Edward,

 

Whether or not you got the quote exact doesn't matter. I'm not saying Adams, or you, are right or wrong. All I'm saying is that the way I work is I pick the perspective from which to make the photograph, then use the lens that will best enable me to capture the scene. I think there are many more aspects to the aesthetics of an image than those few that the lens itself can contribute, to the point of the lens being negligible.

 

If I have a composition that needs 45 degrees, I'm picking the 150mm lens. I have never thrown away a viable composition just because the "normal" lens doesn't sufficiently distort the perceived distances between objects in the scene. That, I think, would just be silly. And I point to the scoreboard - many of Adams' most famous images were taken, as you pointed out, with "normal" lenses.

 

You asked "does anyone here use a normal lens for landscape photography..." and I answered a resounding "yes." I make about 30% of my photographs using my "normal" lens.

There is no 'right' lens for landscape work, there are many people who only ever use one lens for all their work. Conversly, there are people who have more lenses than you can shake a stick at, and are yet to produce a decent image. If you ever find yourself in the situation where you 'cannot' take a photo because you havent got the right lens, try pointing your camera in a different direction!

Thanks for all the feedback. It strikes me as weird that people consider 12 1/4 inches to be moderately wide for 8X10. I guess it is something you have to see for yourself. I am in the market for new lenses and ocassionally I find myself looking at a 90mm lens and think that it is a good lens at a good price, then I remeber I don't want a lens that wide. Sooner of later I will get over what I am "supposed to want" and worry about what I really want.

 

PS I am gald to see so many people are shooting landscapes with normal lenses. I really do like the way they look.

Hogarth,

 

Excuse me for emphasizing something you certainly know.

 

But the reason why the lens focal length 'determines perspective' is that the final image will usually be viewed at the same distance, independent of the focal length of the lens. In principle, if you use a 'normal' focal length lens, your eye will be placed the same way relative to the print that it was relative to the scene. That is, were you to stand at the scene location, and put a frame the size of the print at the viewing distance of the print, you would see more or less the same thing as you see in the print. On the other hand, if you used a short focal length lens instead, you eye would be further away, relatively from the print, which would distort the apparent perspecitive. If you used a long focal length lens, it would be closer. Of course, you can correct for this when viewing the print, simply by getting closer to or farther from the print, but generally people don't do that. They tend to stand about the diagonal of the print from it. (That applies only to prints 8 x 10 or larger.)

 

At least that is the conventional wisdom, which may of course be contradicted all the time by people who are viewing prints.

A long discussion, with examples, of this topic:

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/composition-3.shtml

Edward,

 

You don't mention which style of lens you prefer in other formats. The advice usually tendered is to buy a lens similar to those you prefer in the smaller formats. I agree with that advice.

 

Having said that, I often shoot with a 150mm Xenar on my 5x4 camera and love the feeling of depth I get with prints around 20" wide (ie. they seem almost three-dimensional). They appear to be windows mounted on the wall through which scenes of beauty can be viewed. I think it is due to the familiarity of "normal" perspective that the lens produces, but who knows?

 

Graeme

Graeme, I agree with your window analogy. In 35mm I use a 35mm lens and a 50mm lens almost exclusively (one day a year I take out a 300mm to shoot eagles). In 6X6 I use an 80mm lens. The camera is a fixed lens TLR so I don't have any choice in the matter but I have made several pictures with it that I have found very pleasing.

<p>Personally I love my Nikkor 50MM F1.8. Recently I've pared down to 3 lenses in the bag. This one, my 28MM F2 and the 85MM F1.8D I like 'em fast and I use all three for landscapes. Yes, even the 50. As Bjorn Rorslett states, "what a shining little star this is." The dude knows what he's talking about. Thank you all out there for getting rid of your 50's for zooms. It made for such a steal on lenses in this category!</p>

<p>Six years later, I've ditched the Nikkor 50mm for a Voigtlander 40mm/F2 for landscapes (An outstanding lens). Much better than the 50mm. IMHO. I'm now also using a Nikkor 20mm/F2.8 for the wide angle landscapes and still have the 85mm/F1.8 (Another outstanding lens).</p>