lars_bergquist Posted August 4, 2010 Share #21 Posted August 4, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) For generations, photographers used 'standard' or 'normal' lenses such as your Summilux for landscapes, because there were no other lenses, or their camera came with one fixed lens only -- like the Rolleiflex, the great landscape camera of the 1940's and the 1950's. It is an excellent education to use one lens only, because you soon learn to see -- some say "previsualize" -- the kind of pictures it will take. Later, that will mostly be extended to other focal lengths. When I put an 18mm lens on my camera, I 'see' 18mm pictures. The same with 24mm, 35mm, 50mm and 90mm. When I mount a 35mm lens e.g., I "put on 35mm eyes". You will learn to do the same. With time, you will learn what focal lengths suit different situations (landscapes, riots, parties, portraits ...) and will wade in usually with the appropriate lens already mounted -- and with the appropriate 'eyes'. Meanwhile, as has been already suggested, the frame selector lever will do much to enlighten you. It has sold untold M lenses for Leica. But starting out with just one lens is highly recommended, at least if that lens is as universal in usefulness as a 50mm or 35mm. The old man from the Age of the Rolleiflex Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 Hi lars_bergquist, Take a look here Can I use my 50mm F1.4 lens for landscape?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Guest mc_k Posted August 4, 2010 Share #22 Posted August 4, 2010 If you read all the "50mm" threads here, for some the 50/1.0 is their preferred landscape lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JanCderidder Posted August 4, 2010 Share #23 Posted August 4, 2010 Why on earth would you need F1.0 landscape lens in the first place? Serious Landscapers use tripods and generally speaking require a deeper depth of field ... anyway thats how I've been tought to do landscape. Landscape can be doen with any reasonable quality lens, and I would prefer F8 or F11 for it "LANDSCAPE" we are talking about. F1.0 is a total waste of money for landscape ... (realize the "scape" in the word) I do landscapes with my 35 mostly, however 50mm landscapes should work out fine as well, all depends on style you want to shoot. Hell I've done nice landscapes at 90mm.... go figure it out, practice, review and deduct .... :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
poptart Posted August 4, 2010 Share #24 Posted August 4, 2010 : A 50 mm lens? For landscape!? Never, never, NEVER use your 50 mm for landscape shots! Landscapes are far too big for this lens' rather smallish angle-of-view; that's why you must always use a wide-angle for landscape. If you try regardless, your sensor may crack due to image overload as you fire the shutter ... as unfortunate users have reported. ::D: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom_W Posted August 4, 2010 Share #25 Posted August 4, 2010 It's not the lens that takes the picture it's you. Ofcourse you can use this lens, to suggest otherwise would be like saying you can't bake a cake without eggs. You can bake a cake without eggs but it makes for a different cake - equally as nice as long as you put the effort in and the other ingredients are as tasty. Use the lens to the full, your wallet demands it. T Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
anabasis Posted August 4, 2010 Share #26 Posted August 4, 2010 Your 50mm lens will do fine with landscapes if you move about with it. I prefer either wider or longer, but that is my style. You need to develop your own style, and you can certainly shoot landscapes with a standard lens. Jeremy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mc_k Posted August 4, 2010 Share #27 Posted August 4, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) ...Serious Landscapers use tripods and generally speaking require a deeper depth of field ... anyway thats how I've been tought to do landscape....F1.0 is a total waste of money for landscape ... (realize the "scape" in the word) ... no one bought the lens for landscapes, they just found it useful. Not sure why deep landscapes are "serious" and shallow ones aren't. But that wasn't the point; the point was a 50mm focal length is fine for landscapes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted August 4, 2010 Share #28 Posted August 4, 2010 The new 50 1.4 is pretty heavy, specially chrome. Previous not so bad, but no leightweight. I would not hesitate to go with my 50 2.8 last version as I do landscapes with it all the time. 35/50/90 is still the classic set as far as I am concerned. Inexpensive lightweight 35/90 are out there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aesop Posted August 4, 2010 Share #29 Posted August 4, 2010 It's not the lens that takes the picture it's you. Ofcourse you can use this lens, to suggest otherwise would be like saying you can't bake a cake without eggs. You can bake a cake without eggs but it makes for a different cake - equally as nice as long as you put the effort in and the other ingredients are as tasty. Use the lens to the full, your wallet demands it. T ...I would argue that your analogy is somewhat flawed, Tom - a discussion on the type of egg used (as opposed to the lack of, therein) would be more appropriate, methinks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom_W Posted August 4, 2010 Share #30 Posted August 4, 2010 I'm ammenable to whatever semantics you want, the point is still valid. T Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdtaylor Posted August 4, 2010 Share #31 Posted August 4, 2010 ...I would argue that your analogy is somewhat flawed, Tom - a discussion on the type of egg used (as opposed to the lack of, therein) would be more appropriate, methinks. Organic or corn fed? MAybe the 1.0 is steroid fed...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gberger Posted August 5, 2010 Share #32 Posted August 5, 2010 IMO (and I've certainly made the mistake!) most rangefinder photographers will gravitate to the 35mm, as "it fills the viewfinder," giving the 50mm short shrift. If you look at a landscape scene and you have to shift your field of view to cover what is out there, it's 35mm. If you have a tendency to home in on a particular portion of the scene, you're a 50mm person. The 50mm tends to isolate prominent features, while the 35mm covers more ground and can lead to loss of detail in a significant element of the photo. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
viramati Posted August 5, 2010 Share #33 Posted August 5, 2010 well it really depends on your style. Personally one of my favourite lenses when doing 'my type' of landscape is the elmarit-M 90 on my 8.2 (here is an example http://dpsampson.zenfolio.com/p657801128/h3ec63949#h2d780891 ) as I like the compression it give and I prefer going for details rather than large expanse. As to the 50 it is probably my favourite and most used lens and I would have no problem if that is all I had Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biglouis Posted August 5, 2010 Share #34 Posted August 5, 2010 When I go out to shoot landscapes I take two lenses with me on my M8. My 28/2.8 and my 50/2.8. I probably use my 50/2.8 at least half if not more of the time. LouisB Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
christer Posted August 5, 2010 Share #35 Posted August 5, 2010 ............ One of the reasons I want to use this lens as much as possible is that it cost me "an arm and a leg",........ That is the first time I hear that as a reason for selecting a specific lens. I have heard the high value being given as a reason for not selecting a specific lens a good number of times, like not taking something that expensive along on a rough water kajak trip, and that I can understand. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoySmith Posted August 5, 2010 Share #36 Posted August 5, 2010 A Tri-Elmar 28-35-50 would accomplish the goal of carrying only 1 lens, but you would have a smaller aperture. I don't have one, and they are only no longer being manufactured, but they are very highly rated. Roy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnalex141r Posted August 5, 2010 Share #37 Posted August 5, 2010 It is an excellent education to use one lens only, because you soon learn to see -- some say "previsualize" -- the kind of pictures it will take.... Lars - absolutely agree. For years I made myself use only 1 camera - MF rangefinder with a "semi-wide" angle. Sure, there are shots you might miss, but if you open your eyes, for every 1 you might miss, you'll see 10 more you can take. It was, and still is, a fantastic way of learning to see. For over a year, the only lens on my M8 was a 25mm - an equivalent fov to my MF camera. If anyone is interested: the MF camera was a Fujica GS645S; I have 2 of them now. Actually, so far this year, I'd say that 49% of the time I have the Fujica, 49% a freebee Olympus 35-rc, and 2% my M8 - it was under repair until recently, so maybe the stats will change. Yes, I miss the availability of Ilford 220 FP4 and HP5. JohnS Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted August 5, 2010 Share #38 Posted August 5, 2010 You can use the 50/1.4 Summilux for whatever you want. Rules and boundaries are self inflicted. If you can 'see' a '50mm' field of view landscape then you can take it with a 50mm lens, if you can't then you're wasting you time trying to use the 'lux for such photography. Lars' advice is as sound advice as I've ever heard! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gyoung Posted August 5, 2010 Share #39 Posted August 5, 2010 Well I travel with only one 50 mm lens, and its a Summilux 1.4. Its just as 'good' as a Summicron at the apertures normally used for landscape stuff, and for other work where light is limited, its very much better at 1.4 than my summicron I wouldn't go away with only the 50 though, I usually take everything I can carry from 15 to 200. If only one then it would be 35mm Gerry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdtrick Posted August 5, 2010 Share #40 Posted August 5, 2010 Years ago, I made a cross country trip. This was way before digital and before I had Leica. I had a 24mm lens and bought a 20mm just for the trip. When I got out west I learned what they meant by "Big Sky". Even the 24 was way too wide and I shot most of my landscape shots with the 85mm. With Leica, I would not hesitate to use my 50 1.4 for landscape but I would have great difficulty travelling with just one lens. For two lenses, I like to have my 35 1.4 and the 50 1.4. I agree with the others about spending time now shooting with the 50 to see if it is what you want. Pete Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.