Which Wide Angle for Landscapes?

[damond_lam]

I have a M6 with Noctilux and 35mm 'lux. I plan to do a two week trip to Mainland China purely for landscape and nature photogragphy. I have been looking at 21mm, 24mm and 28mm WAs for a while. The only decision to give me peace of mind is to get them all (just kidding!). So which one should I get? Do any of you own more than two of the above WAs? If yes, can you tell me your experience?

 

<p>

 

BTW, do you happen to have the Nikon 17-35 F2.8 AFS or Canon 17-35L? How do they compare to the Leica WAs? Sorry that I have to ask this question but I need to address my wife in the next family budget meeting.

[albert_smith]

I learned a valuable lesson about landscape photography while taking

a workshop. While many people immediately grab a very wide angle

lens in hopes of "getting it all in", the fact is that many

landscapes can be improved by isolating details within a scene. The

human brain is good at selectively seeing things and eliminating the

superfluous, but the film doesn't lie. If your subject is reduced in

scale or relegated to a small percentage of the frame by using a wide

angle, the image won't be as strong as you remember it in your mind's

eye. If something makes you think that the scene before you should

be photographed, distill the essence of what makes you like the

scene, and get rid of everything else. Today, my best landscapes are

made with normal and medium telephotos.

 

<p>

 

Yes, there are times in many terrains where the wide angle is the

best view, especially when there are distinct levels within the

scene, foreground, mid-ground and back ground, but I would think that

the image could be enhanced by elimination, not addition of "stuff"

within the frame. That optical extraction, can really make the image

stronger, and make it clear why you thought the photograph was worth

taking. There are millions of wide angle shot of the Grand Canyon

rolling out of out of one hour labs every day, and they all look the

same... tiny, unimpressive and boring.

 

<p>

 

As for your next lens, I would look at the spacing of your focal

lengths. I normally wouldn't have both a 35mm and 28mm lens because

I would want the effort to change the lens to give me something

different. For my Nikons, I have the 24mm and 20mm lenses, and find

I use the 24mm lens probably 8 to 1 for general shooting. It is a

tamer look that in more universal in more situations... I can with

care give it a totally normal look, or exaggerate the perspective and

make it look really wide. One other tip, if you are shooting with a

very wide lens, and every element within the scene is at infinity,

you probably don't have the best composition. If you are

subordinating the background with a reduced scale, then put something

in the foreground to draw the eye into the scene.

 

<p>

 

Good luck on your trip.

[Rob F.]

Damond, The 28mm, of course, has the advantage (for some of us) that

it can be used with the camera's built-in finder (except for the 0.85

finder). This can be a good thing when traveling, as you don't have

to keep track of your accessory finder or worry about it falling

off. The new 28mm f/2 is also supposed to be one of Leica's

sharpest. And the 28 is versatile enough that you won't have to keep

taking it off to exchange with a 35 or 50 as often as you would with

a 21 or 24.

 

<p>

 

On the other hand, the 28 is a bit close to the 35 (Though not

necessarily too close to be usefully wider). If it seems too close,

then consider the 24mm, which makes a well-spaced addition to your

35mm. Not too close and not too far apart. I think you'll find it

adequately wide for almost any shot. I would feel I had a gap

between lenses if I went right from 21mm to 35mm.

 

<p>

 

The Leica lenses will be better than any of the Nikon or Canon glass

you mentioned. Zoom retrofocus lenses distort, and can't compete

with the latest Leica ASPH glass for image quality.

 

<p>

 

Have a great trip!

[javier]

I second Al Smith, in most occasions and for landscape photography

standard and medium telephoto are better than wide angle lenses.

[tony_brookes5]

I used to use a wide angle for landscapes - 35mm f3.5 but it was a

big mistake. I changed to 90mm or 135mm. Great improvement. Alan is

right, wide angles are not much good for landscapes - no recession

and crowding of too much detail.

[jackflesher]

Wow, big difference in opinions here! I regularly use the 24 in my

landscapes (and its compliment in 4x5 format, the 90) and get many

great shots. The trick is to have something photogenic - a subject

like a rock, bush, piece of wood etc - in the foreground, and no more

than about 1/5 sky, unless it has really dramatic clouds.

 

<p>

 

I also find lens selection depends on how large (far away) the

background subject is relative to the frame. For scenes like the

Grand Canyon, where everything is relatively flat from the viewer

perspective, isolations with a 50 or a 90 will give better results.

In Yosemite or Zion Natl Park, where you are "inside" the image, even

a 24 is sometimes not wide enough. As for the 21, I find it to be

more useful for architectural shots or interiors. I second the

comment that with the 35 'lux, the 28 may not be enough wider to

justify its use. So, IMO and in order of preference, a 24/35/50 or

21/28/50 or 28/50/90 would be good 3-lens combos for travel.

(Personally, I'd leave the noct at home and take a 50'lux and 90TE in

its place for the same weight and cost in a 24/35/50/90 4-lens

combo!) But with all this said, it should boil down to your specific

needs matching your style of shooting.

 

<p>

 

Cheers,

[pete_su4]

A wide angle is nice for landscapes if you have a big foreground

element that you can focus closely on that leads the eye back to

the big scene in the background.

 

<p>

 

This sort of composition requires close focus and small

apetures and a tripod.

 

<p>

 

The Leica lenses generally only focus to about 3 feet, which isn't

close enough for this kind of thing. A Nikon 24mm prime will

focus to 8 to 10 inches, which is what you need.

 

<p>

 

As other have noted, a normal to medium telephoto is nice for

taking shots of the big landscape off in the distance, and for

focusing on smaller details that simplifying composition.

[pete_su4]

I meant to say that the Leica M lenses don't focus that close, and

by comparison a Nikon 24mm SLR lens does.

 

<p>

 

I'm sure the Leica R 24mm would focus to a distance similar to

the Nikon.

[andrew_schank]

If I am down inside an area of great beauty, I often use a wide to

capture the sweeping natural formations. 21mm to 24mm seems to be

what I use the most. The best images I ever got from Yosemite were

taken with a Medium format equivalent of 21mm down in the valley

early in the morning. Now for the sort of "lookout" places you often

come accross while traveling, I find wide angles almost never produce

the image I wanted, and have also gone to 50 to 100mm for most of

those kinds of landscapes, and try to isolate what captures my

attention the most when I take in the whole scene.

[jay_.]

I choose my camera outfits based on the major type of shooting I'm

going to do. You stated "purely for landscape and nature

photography". If I made that statement, unless I was backpacking or

not intending to use a tripod, I would not use an M Leica. It takes

a lot of mental fiddling to reconcile with the Leica's finder frames

to assure accurate composition at the predominantly long distances

associated with landscape photography. I can do it well, but an SLR

is a lot easier to deal with. And if my "nature" photography you

mean macro and wildlife, an SLR is a *must* unless you've got a

Visoflex and are a masochist ;>) That said, if I were using an M

Leica for your trip, I would purchase 2 lenses. The first is the Tri-

Elmar. As a daytime walkaround lens for travel with the Leica, it

can't be beat. You've got 28-35-50 in a superbly sharp, contrasty

lens. It will serve you for almost all your landscape needs. Using

anything wider than 28mm requires a great deal of care and experience

in choosing and composing a shot. The widest lens I use with my

primary landscape outfit (Hasselblad) is the 50, which is equiv. to a

33mm lens in 35mm-format. (If you want an ultrawide for occasional

use, perhaps the Cosina-Voigtlander 21/4...very small, quite

inexpensive, good reviews so far.) The second lens I'd recommend is

a 135/4 Tele-Elmar. These are also quite inexpensive (perhaps 1/2

the cost of a 90mm)and will let you select pieces of farther

landscapes, as well as letting you get some candid people shots in

the daytime. Leave the Noctilux home, but do take the 35 Summilux

for low-light shooting. As to the Nikon zoom, I owned the older 20-

35 AF-D, and it was a nice lens but not up to the standards of any of

the Leica R lenses in that range. The 17-35 might have been designed

with the D1 in mind (whose CCD multiplies focal length by 1.5x)and

from my limited use I thought it was less sharp than the 20-35. My

Nikon kit includes the 20/2.8, 28-105 and 80-400VR. I looked at the

18-35 3.5-4.5 but at those focal lengths the wider aperture (for

reducing DOF for subject isolation) and closer-focusing distance of

the 20 seems like something I wouldn't want to give up.

[dan_brown4]

For landscape, I would recommend a 28mm and a 90mm lens.

Perhaps a 35mm lens in place of the 28mm. Why not an

ultra-wide? Well, in my opinion, such lenses require a

foreground object to provide a more pleasing image. That is

fine, but then you are orten using the foreground object as the

primary subject. The distortion on the ultra-wides is also not so

pleasing to me. The 90mm is for isolating interesting details

that cannot be approached otherwise (which happens frequently

in landscape shooting).

[art_karr]

This is a difficult question since you are asking what will best

represent what impresses you; and that we don't know.

 

<p>

 

If you are imressed by the horizonal expanse of the land, use

wide angle [i used 15, 18, 20 and 24 mm in places like the sand

hills or the plains in Kansas]. If the interest is on individual items

or the vertical expanse of the land use longer lenses [i tend to

use telephoto lenses more in the mountains]. The point

addressing wide angles in closed spaces is well taken.

 

<p>

 

Art

[godfrey]

I use both 24mm and 35mm as my "standard" lenses on Leica

M. I debated a while between the 21 and 24 when I was looking,

got a loan of the 24 and found I really liked it; the 24/2.8 ASPH is

a very very sweet lens. 28mm never really does anything for me -

it's not wide enough and not "normal" enough.

 

<p>

 

With a 24/35/50 kit, you'll have three fairly close-spaced lenses.

Whether you need all three is debatable: I found a 24 and 50 to

be a sufficient kit for my most recent trip.

 

<p>

 

My more usual travel kit is wider spaced. I did several weeks in

the British Isles last year carrying a 15/35/90 kit, which was just

terrific. I use them in the proportions 35-70%, 15-20%, 90-10%.

Very flexible, I was never caught out by the feeling of not having a

suitable lens. I think if I switched from the 15 to a 21, the

proportions of use would shift a little more to the 21 but not by

too much.

 

<p>

 

I don't like to think about it from the idea of "purely for landscape/

nature photography." As others have said, I often find that I want

a longer lens for landscape work, not a wider lens, and if you're

talking wildlife ... well, most wildlife photographers start with

300mm lenses and go up from there. I try to think about it from

the perspective of "what kind of picture opportunities will this

lens afford?" instead.

 

<p>

 

A friend of mine purchased the Nikon F100 and Nikkor 17-35/2.8

AF-S lens recently. I had a chance to play with it and make some

photographs. This is a VERY nice lens and a remarkable

camera. I've not done any comparison shooting with it to "test" it

against the Leica lenses, but it is definitely very capable kit and a

lens with beautiful imaging qualities. However, it is substantially

bulkier then my M6TTL plus 15/35/90 kit and I'm not fond of AF

SLRs and all the automation stuff, I prefer the slower pace and

thought process I go through with the Leica M more.

[art_karr]

Godfrey:

 

<p>

 

<b> I did several weeks in the British Isles last year carrying a

15/35/90 kit, which was just terrific</b>

 

<p>

 

The British Isles aren't large enough to have landscape: I hope

you realize that this is a joke.

 

<p>

 

Art

[Robin Smith]

Art you can only see as far as the horizon which is not far and the

Britain is quite large enough for that...

 

<p>

 

I second most others thoughts - wide angles often destroy the sense of

monumentality, so I think a short tele is much more useful. The wider

the angle the more usually-boring foreground you have to include. If

you are printing then you can mask it out, of course. I suggest you

get a 90mm, or 75mm.

[roberto_watson_garc_a]

Damon, you´re asking about a wide angle for landscapes, so you need a

wide angle with good resolution at infinity, of course any of the

newer asph will do fine, althoug I belive retrofocus design may be

not as sharp as real wide angle design at infinity; if what I write

makes scence the 21/3.4 can be an option too.

[timothy_nelson]

To maintain the perspective of your 35mm and/or 50mm lenses, yet

capture a wider view, you might also consider the options available for

panoramic landscapes. For example, stitching multiple exposures from

your 35/50 lenses is feasible either using physical splicing of prints

or virtual splicing in Photoshop. You can increase your angle of view

to 360 this way if you wish. Even if the splices are imperfect, most

viewers enjoy such panoramas, which effectively increase your film

format. Of course, there are also several excellent 35mm panoramic

cameras available for less than the price of some Leica wide angle

lenses. Of course, if you're dying for an excuse to get another Leica

lens, well that's another issue we all understand....

[art_karr]

LOL, Robin:

 

<p>

 

That was a joke, mostly. Then, where I lived in Montana [many

years ago], the county was larger than England. The horizon was

beyond the county line. I have a lot of friends in the UK and the

rest of Europe. The plains blow their minds. I took one to

northern Canada. Changed his own way of thinking. He

eventually left Germany and moved here. Haven't taken any to

Alaska yet. Western Europe is a tiny place. People there are

amazed at the size of NA.

 

<p>

 

As for me, I want to go to Siberia. It will awaken me, I'm sure.

 

<p>

 

Art

[nesrani]

"Western Europe is a tiny place."

 

<p>

 

Hmmm....

[bill_holtz]

Damond - May I ask where you will be going? Will you be on a photo-

tour, a regular tour, or on your own? I have made several trips to

China both as a member of a tour group and as a guest of my wife's

family. I have found photography in China intoxicating but often

frustrating. Asking me for advise on photography is a bit like

hiring a lifetime .200 hitter to be a batting coach. But, I would

offer some things to consider. Contrast in China can be brutal.

With a tour group you will probably be eating during the best light.

Smog or haze is common. On a cruise up the Yangtse I found that

distant shots with my 180 APO Telyt turned to soup. Landscapes?

Depends on where you go; China is a pretty dull country in many

places. Nature photography with a Noctilux and a 35 lux? I think

you will find these lenses more suited to street photography. And,

outside a reserve or such, I haven't seen much wildlife in China. As

for the WA, I concur with the advice given. I have used a 24 Elmarit-

R and 15 Heliar. Zooms? It's a toss up. Not having to change

lenses can be "very" bentfical. I have gravitated to an EOS-3 with a

28-135 IS. But, I still take along my 180, usually a 80 lux, and a

Contax G1 with a 28 Biogon and 45 Planar. Final comment, don't

forget a portriat lens. Your Noctilux may work for you, but take

something. IMHO, portraits are among the most available and

rewarding photo opportunities in China.

 

<p>

 

Zhu ni hao yun. Zhao xiang cheng gong. (Wish you good luck. Sucess

in taking pictures)

[jackflesher]

As for Nikon 17-35 or 20-35 wa zoom, I've owned both and agree with

Jay. IMO the 20-35 was a bit better optically, and more solidly

built. The 17-35 flared more. Optically both are very good - as good

as the 20 and 24 primes and better than Nikon's fixed 35 - but not in

the same ballpark as the 35 asph M's. Almost as good optically and a

bit more versitile for travel is Nikon's 24-85 f2.8-4 zoom. Great at

the wide end and doesn't fall apart at 85. Better than the 24-120 all

around (which is a pretty good lens anyway) and has a decent macro

too.

[tse_sung_wu7]

Interesting question and responses.

 

<p>

 

I wonder if this has to do with how you see things, and in particular,

the relationship between when you see something you want to photograph,

and when you decide to bring the camera to your eyes and make the

photo, esp. if you're a little limited in how you move around (say

you're walking with others, non-photographers, whom you don't want to

have to wait too long for you).

 

<p>

 

For instance, my very second lens was a 28mm, to which I became very

accustomed. In the last few years, I've been shooting with a 35mm, and

when traveling about a year ago in Ecuador, I recall feeling a little

constricted, while I was photographing and walking around with my

friends. I'd have to back up, b/c I would see a scene worth

photographing, but only after I had 'walked into it' in a 28mm frame.

In order to use my 35mm, I had to backtrack and get further behind from

my comrades.

 

<p>

 

I don't think one can generalize about a country and focal lengths. I

think it's an entirely subjective decision. Last time there I did use

a clunky old 70-210 for many wonderful intimate street shots, as well

as one really great one of a distant lamasery on a hill in eastern

Tibet. A perfect example where a telephoto was great for a stunning

landscape.

 

<p>

 

But you have what you have, and you adapt. Years later in looking at

the slides or prints, it seems that you'll more likely recall how heavy

your bag was and how complicated it got rather than all the shots you

missed b/c of the limitations of your equipment.

 

<p>

 

After the scene of the sunlight pouring on a buddhist lamasery at 3000+

m in Yunan, near the border of Tibet (TAR), we went on a pony ride, and

the light was too dim for me to use that telephoto, and for some reason

I couldn't get at my other, faster lenses. So many shots were lost-

that I do remember.

[stefano_ferrando1]

I second what Albert Smith has written above.

I shoot mostly landscapes and find that a normal lens is most of times the bettern choiche. It also teachs you "something" about composition, that you can later use with wide lenses.

A 21mm lens and also a 24mm lens can be used in very particular situations and both require you a deep knoweldge in framing, selecting and composing (I'm not writing you have not, only writing its difficult).

If you really need a wide lens don't go wider the 28mm. The Summicron 28mm Asph is a great and sharp lens, very contrasty. For your purposes it seems to be the best one. But don't let home a standard lens. I've taked landscapes photos all day long today with two M bodies. One with a 50mm Summicron on and the other with 28mm summicron. I've used one roll and another half with the 50mm and used only 10 frames with the 28mm.

Hope my words can help you and good luck for your next family budget meeting ;-)

Stefano.

P.S. Don't underevaluate the usage of the Noctilux in landscape photography, expecially at f:5.6 and if you don't need to use filters (very recomended in landscpae photography, in my opinion).

[Troll]

Perhaps the best landscape photographer in this country is David Muench. Looking through his books (which fortunately give details of every picture) he seems to use either very wide or very long lenses. Very rarely does he use "normal" or near-normal focal length. I'd suggest 21, 35, 50, and 90mm (you can always crop).

[Troll]

Well, Damond, I stuck my foot in my mouth before noticing the date that it was originally posted. What did you end up taking with you?