Short telephotos for landscapes?

[paal_jensen1]

Its a complete waste of money to buy an 80-200/2.8 lens for shooting landscapes. Even for low light work an 80-200/2.8 doesn't make much sense; a set of prime lenses is faster and better. It makes even less sense if you carry with you a 600/4 as well. Its under these circumstances you really want to save weight. Im curently using a 85/1.4, 135/1.8 and a 200/4ED macro lens. The two former I hope to replace with something more lightweight. If weight is no issue (shooting landscapes only from your car) and cost is no isse, by all means buy a 80-200/2.8, but it doesn't make much sense anyway. A slower 80-200 is a far better choice.

 

<p>

 

As for the infamous Pentax 80-200/2.8 lens; you get what you pay for. According to those who has tried both, its better than the Nikon. It is also beter built; use more metal than the competition and also offers some features (gizmos) the competition don't. It is still not an obvious landscape lens though.

[bobatkins]

Reading through this thread reminds me why I should probably delete

most equipement threads!! It doesn't matter which lens use, what it's maximum aperure is, how much it weighs or who makes it.

 

<p>

 

The question, which some posters seems to have misses or ignored, is

what FOCAL LENGTH lens do you find most useful for landscapes. I'm

inclined to delete responses which doesn't address this issue

from the thread and I would ask participants in this forum to stick to

the question and not get sidetracked into other issues.

 

<p>

 

Personally I tend to shoot like the original poster of this question,

at wide (24mm) or telephoto (300). Sometimes I shoot with a zoom

covering the range in between, but unlike John Shaw, I don't favor

the "portrait" lens range (85-135mm). Everyone has their own shooting style I guess.

[ShunCheung]

In the case of macro work, maybe all you need to do is to move a few inches and you can achieve more or less similar results with a 200mm macro rather than a 100mm macro. The problem with landscape work is that you can't always move a few miles (or even a few hundred feet) to achieve the shot with the one lens you have. To me, it doesn't make whole a lot of sense to have only one fixed 80mm, 100mm, 135mm or 200mm lens for landscape work. I'd say you need at least two telephotos, a short 100mm and a longer 200mm or a combination of 80mm/180mm, etc. It all depends of the particular situation and the particular result you want to achieve. That is why I think a 80-200mm type zoom is ideal.

 

<p>

 

When I started doing landscape photography in the 70's, for a while the only telephoto lens I had was a 135mm and it was a good compromise. (And I shot with friends who had 200mm and 35mm lenses while I also had a 28mm, and we used one another's lenses to cover more focal lengths.) Nowadays, a lot of menufacturers don't even make 135mm lenses any more. Zooms are a lot more popular with good reasons.

[g_deen]

I wouldn't be caught dead without my 70-200/2.8 and converters in the field.

last week while hiking in the mountains of Northern New Mexico playing with

a 20/2.8 out on loan, I came across some Sheep in the rocks above me. Add the

2.0x and presto, a reasonable 400/5.6. For pulling out isolated landscapes

of the mountains around me the 70-200 works perfect. Want wider, mount the 50/1.4

Want wider mount the 20. With these three lenses, extension tube, and converters,

I can cover a lot of ground (20-400mm). My 100 macro is thrown in for good measure. Regardless

of some peoples' flat out disdain for the 70-200, my personal feeling is that it

is the most versatile and important lens in my bag.

[pete_su]

Given Bob's post, and to be more specific: I seem to like the 50-150 range of focal lengths the best. I find it easier to make the picture interesting, and to crop out distracting things on the outside of the frame and especially in the foreground. Working with wide angles is much harder in this respect because you really have to find a scene with an interesting subject from the "front" of the frame all the way into the background. Zooms in this range are incredibly handy, because you can easily adjust the cropping of the photo in the viewfinder once you have picked your perspective. The zoom I mentioned in my first post is also great because its small, light, easy to use for macro with diopters and usually fast enough.

[paal_jensen1]

My choice of favorite short telephoto lens varies. Currently, I find that I use my 85/1.4 more and more. Its a very nice focal length for portaits of nature. You generally do not need fast and heavy prime lenses for landscape work unless you shoot night time landscapes, which I do.

 

<p>

 

Zoom lenses are great in this focal length range. Unfortunately, most good zoom lenses are fast and heavy. Neither speed nor weigth is something you need for landscapes. Most slower short telephoto zooms are cheap, plasticy consumer grade optics that does not appeal to me. Its a mystery why no lens manufacturer makes zoom lenses that are optimized for both optical quality and built quality instead of speed. I wish the camera manufacturers start producing modern 70-150/4 lenses with high optical quality and durable all metal construction for hard field work.

[eielrt_anders]

My favorite landscape lens is the 90mm. I would choose it or an 85mm lens over a 100 or 105 or 135 mm lens. While on vacation in the Tetons, Yellowstone, and Glacier National Parks several years ago, I quizzed myself on what lenses would be best for Mountain lanscapes. I concluded that the lenses I would use the most would be the 35mm, 50mm, 90 mm, and 400mm lenses. At the time I owned 28mm, 50mm, 90mm, and 200mm lenses. I now own a 35mm and 400mm lenses in addition to the other lenses. The lenses that I thought would be best, are the best as I determined later in the field. A lens that I now would add is a super wide angle for tight situations such as canyons and panoramics. I have not found the 100-300mm range of lenses useful at all. My 135 and 200mm lenses are gathering dust on a shelf somewhere in my house! To answer the question, I use my 90mm lense for over 50% of my landscape pictures.

[paul_d]

John Fielder in his book "Photographing the Landscape" talks about three views of the landscape: the Grand Scenic, the Microcosm, and the Intimate Landscape. The lens used will depend on the view that the photographer is trying to depict on film. As I recall Fielder used lenses from 20mm to 300mm, as well as close-up equipment. I recommend the book for those trying to develop thier landscape 'vision'.

[paulo_bizarro]

Mark,

 

<p>

 

It's funny you are asking this, because I have just returned from a one week vacation, where I have managed (as always) to squeeze in some photo errands. I have carried one body and three lenses: 28 1.8, 50 1.4, and 135 2 (plus a flashgun and extension tube). I ended up using the 135 the most, even for landscapes, the reason being that I can get more compelling images with this lens, focusing in on what it is really the mood of a particular place.

 

<p>

 

Not all places offer the chance of capturing grand vistas with a wide angle. When I had the 70-200 2.8 I found out that I was using it mostly around 100-135mm, so the next move was pretty natural.

[duane_galensky]

I've shot most of my landscapes with a 180/2.8 ED, not for the speed, of course, but for the quality and the ability to isolate. I'd think an 80-200 would be ideal, but I don't have one. I did buy a 70-300 ED Nikkor recently, and am looking forward to trying it out. I have had some success with a 24mm also, as well as a 55 micro and a 105 micro.

 

<p>

 

I think that generally speaking, wide angles are harder to use successfully since they almost demand a statement about near/far relationships (either that, or it seems to turn out as a sweeping, rather uninteresting vista with everything pushed far back in the frame and rendered small.) For example, Art Wolfe made a lot of images with a 20mm, and all the ones I remember are vertical compositions with stuff in the foreground. Almost all his other landscapes were in the 80-200 range, I'd reckon. Shaw, too, seems to be in that 50-135 range a lot.

[baz]

This seems to be quite a hotbed of issues, so I`ll put my tuppence in.

Personally, I think that almost any tele lens can be used effectively

for landscape work. I own an old Pentax spotmatic outfit with 28/3.5,

50/1.8, 135/3.5 Takumars and a 200/4 Vivitar and a cheap (gasp!) 2x

teleconverter. The 135mm is a very flexible focal length and can be

used for almost anything. I find sometime a shot taken with a 50mm is

just too cluttered, there is nothing to grab the viewers eye. Using

the 135 (or greater) is a great way to crop out unwanted objects and

focus on the little details a bit more.

Believe it or not I`ve had some good landscapes using the 200mm with

the 2x converter.

It really is a personal thing.

[davebecker]

3 Years later...the thread is barely alive! I've recently been using a Nikkor 50-300mm f4.5 ais ED for landscapes. Heavy but effective if you are not walking too far.

[lee_shively]

Thanks, Dave, for reviving this thread.

 

I have to admit, when I view my slides from a trip, the best ones usually are done with my Canon 70-200 f/2.8. Nothing can draw in the distant mountains and hold the middle ground like a short to medium telephoto. I like wide angle views, too, but the 70-200 just seems to work well more often than not.