Landscape photography with long lens

[chiranjeeb]

My main interest is landscape photography and my longest lens is a

75-150mm zoom (I use 35mm). It seems most of the time I turn to the

long end of the zoom. I own a 24mm, but because there isn't that much

grand scenery around me, it goes unused. Moreover compositional

issues are much harder with the 24mm. I was wondering if any of you

have found the 200mm-300mm focal lengths useful for 35mm landscapes

----I am thinking of buying a prime or zoom in that range.

[sean de merchant httpw]

I have shot some shots in the 200 mm range (shorter true focal length on a digicam) and I find the longer focal lengths are great for landscapes. It makes it easier to remove power lines, modern homes from pastoral scenes, and other unsightly elements. A longer lens also makes it possible to get smaller scenes from further away which can keep you off of private property. <p>

 

The only place I find myself wanting wider glass is when I put in the long hours of travel time to get out into the National Forests and National Parks here in the USA. And even then, longer glass has its place when you take a strenuous hike up a neighboring mountain to get a view of one of the major peaks (and avoid glacier crossings for which I lack the training). Albeit, getting closer to a mountain and using wider glass will give you a cleaner image most days due to atmospheric diffusion of light from distant locations.<p>

 

In short, I find longer focal lengths useful. <p>

 

hope this helps, <p>

 

Sean

[stephen_schoof1]

I love wide angles but find plenty to shoot from 100-200mm. 300mm+ is occasionally useful and can make for dramatic compositions (esp. w/ a large sun or moon). I personally prefer a zoom for these longer lengths just because it's easier to vary your compositions - using a prime and changing your position is a lot harder when your nearest subject element is three miles away.

[markp]

My most-used lens for landscapes is my 80-200 f2.8 zoom. Next is my 24mm. My third most-used landscape lens is my 300mm. So yes, I'd certainly argue that the longer focal lengths are of great value for landscapes.

[joseph_smith3]

I just came back from a trip to Arches National Park. I was very glad I took my 300mm f 4.0 along with me. I used it when I wanted tighter composition. I also used a 28-70mm, a 70-210mm and a 24mm. When I travel by car, I also take my 500mm with me. You would be surprised what it can do to produce good landscape shots. Joe Smith

[stephen_scardamalia]

For an opposing perspective - I am in love with wide-angle lenses. :)

 

When I picked up MF this year I bought two lenses for my Mamiya 645 - an 80mm and 35mm. The 35 gets way more use than the 80. There's just something about that extra-wide angle that really grabs me. Maybe I've missed out on some shots by not having a longer lens, but I haven't really found myself wishing for it. I may add a longer zoom to my arsenal though, just for added flexibility.

 

I think part of it is that much of my work so far with the Mamiya has been in tropical locales where I think I react strongly to what seems to be a much more wide open space and I'm tyring to capture that.

 

I also tended towards wide angle with my 35mm gear.

[pvp]

Long lenses have their place in the landscape arsenal; you can't always get as close as you'd like. However, don't forget that your feet can perform a much better zoom than any lens...

[sergey_oboguev]

I have on ocassions done landscape (seascape?) shots of the rocks with the birds on them using 600/4.

[phule]

Telephoto lenses are very useful for selecting specific elements from a scene. I found myself between 100 and 300mm often on my trip to the Tetons this past fall.

[bob_k2]

They are two different types of pictures. Long lenses, in general, are good for isolating interesting elements and subjects ("This is an interesting grove of tree" or "This is a beautiful peak"); and wide lenses, by presenting the big picture, are better at conveying the feel of a place and putting the user in the middle of the scene ("This is what it feels like to be on this beautiful ridge.")

 

When I first started, I went mostly long (80-200mm), but I go mostly wide now. It is more difficult to compose a wide shot properly. When I go on long hikes or climbs, I often take only one lens: a Nikon AF 20mm (usually with a light Nikon N75), which gives me everything I need to capture the beauty of the areas I visit. I would recommend this to everyone: try taking a trip with only a 20mm (or wider) and force yourself to take only wide shots. You might become addicted.

 

-

[sean corley]

During Jan/Feb 2003 I went on a road trip through the U.S South-West. <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004iuV">(Here)</a>.I took a 20mm, 28-105mm and a 400mm with 1.4 TC and a borrowed 100-300mm. I almost left the 400mm+TC at home. I'm glad I didn't as I used it far more than expected for landscape photography even with the 1.4 TC .I actually used it more than the 100-300mm. You would think after almost 2 years I would have scanned some shots to show as examples but I'm not that organized.You know what us old-fsahioned film types are like.

[sean corley]

BTW.If I had to choose only one lens for landscape I'd alway chose the wide angle over the telephoto.

[mark_chappell]

My favorite landscape lenses are 17-40 mm and 100-400 mm zooms, usually with

polarizing filters. Usually the 100-400 most useful in the 100-300 range but I

occasionally use it at 400 mm. So the answer to your question is 'yes' -- I would definitely

recommend a longish lens for landscape work. The framing utility of a zoom is extremely

helpful, but as others have said, you can probably get slightly better images from a prime.

[robert_potts1]

My favorite landscape lens is a 200mm in medium format. I have not had much luck with this focal length in 35mm. The equivalent of the 200mm in 35mm format is 135mm. I think this would be a reasonable prime lens choice for you.

[imaginator]

Almost any focal length can be used for landscape... everything from 180 degree view to telephoto. The other day I found myself using a 400mm tele on Yosemite falls (upper falls) to get detail in the the top part as the wind blew the water around. Another time I used the 400 was when I noticed a fascinating pattern in the rock where some of it had broke off... a "scar", and from the distant viewpoint I needed the tele to get in close. At sunset, distant mountain ranges glow with warm colors... isolating one or two peaks can make a good composition, and many creative shots can be done with the sun or moon (as mentioned) either rising or setting. Now here comes the part you don't wan't to hear: many zooms don't have as good of image qaulity at the long end (not all, but this is common in zooms that go to 200 or 300mm) Consider some "primes" (fixed focal length lenses) or at least plan on limiting the zooms to less than their max zoom (like using a 300mm at 200mm) Use a tripod...