M11 for me Posted January 19, 2018 Share #21 Posted January 19, 2018 Advertisement (gone after registration) May I take up the point about need of the UV filter. I believe that for digital cameras they are not needed at all, neither for wide angle nor for tele lenses. Still Leica (or other brands) sell filters to protect the front of the lenses. Such filters might be called „protect“ as with Canon. Leica sells a protection glass called „UVa II“ for this purpose but not because of UV protection. Lenses and the sensors include enough VU protection. On the other hand the use of such a UV filter should make absolutely no difference to the result. This information I have from several articles that I read about that theme and my dealer tells me the same. And note that in snow you need no ND filters either unless you would like to shoot wide open. I live in Switzerland and I believe that I have some experience with shooting in snow. As the metering captures a lit of very bright light the result would be rather dark pictures. And when photographing peple there faces tend to be quite dark. Still my recent experience with Canon 5D Mk III and IV shiws that these metering systems master such light situations extremely well. I have some snow scenes shot with the M10 and I did not make out any problem either. And coming back to the initial question: I would consider sceens in the Alps normal landscape sceens. Any lens would actually do. I would consider my lenses (28, 50 and 75mm) perfect for Jungfrau glacier sceens. I would have the 28mm on the M10 and the other 2 in the bag. 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 19, 2018 Posted January 19, 2018 Hi M11 for me, Take a look here Which focal lengths do you recommend for views from top of mountains?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jmahto Posted January 19, 2018 Share #22 Posted January 19, 2018 Not sure I follow you Jayant, but many’s the photo which would benefit from polarisation, particularly at altitude. Just based on what I read from simple google search. Most say that at altitude the sky is highly polarized and deep blue and a polarizer will make them too dark. I have never used it therefore no first hand experience (but have shot plenty with my digital camera up to 14,000 ft without any filter). In general I have general issue with polarizer filter with wides. Depending on which direction you shoot, the sky becomes uneven due to wide FOV. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raid Amin Posted January 19, 2018 Author Share #23 Posted January 19, 2018 (Jungfraujoch is the amazing railway that runs to the summit of Jungfrau.) Yes, Pete. I was just clarifying that I would be taking a lift up the mountains. Thanks. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raid Amin Posted January 19, 2018 Author Share #24 Posted January 19, 2018 May I take up the point about need of the UV filter. I believe that for digital cameras they are not needed at all, neither for wide angle nor for tele lenses. Still Leica (or other brands) sell filters to protect the front of the lenses. Such filters might be called „protect“ as with Canon. Leica sells a protection glass called „UVa II“ for this purpose but not because of UV protection. Lenses and the sensors include enough VU protection. On the other hand the use of such a UV filter should make absolutely no difference to the result. This information I have from several articles that I read about that theme and my dealer tells me the same. And note that in snow you need no ND filters either unless you would like to shoot wide open. I live in Switzerland and I believe that I have some experience with shooting in snow. As the metering captures a lit of very bright light the result would be rather dark pictures. And when photographing peple there faces tend to be quite dark. Still my recent experience with Canon 5D Mk III and IV shiws that these metering systems master such light situations extremely well. I have some snow scenes shot with the M10 and I did not make out any problem either. And coming back to the initial question: I would consider sceens in the Alps normal landscape sceens. Any lens would actually do. I would consider my lenses (28, 50 and 75mm) perfect for Jungfrau glacier sceens. I would have the 28mm on the M10 and the other 2 in the bag. I never use any filter with RF cameras anyways, so it is good that no filtering is needed with a digital camera. Thanks for the specific tip for Jungfrau glacier to use 28-50. This is useful to know. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted January 19, 2018 Share #25 Posted January 19, 2018 My choice would one camera and one lens - my MATE 28-35-50. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raid Amin Posted January 19, 2018 Author Share #26 Posted January 19, 2018 My choice would be as wide as possible. For monochrome add a dark yellow filter. Just increases contrast. If there is snow, an orange filter does miracles in the snow. And darkens the sky a bit. UV makes colour a bit muddy in the blue spectrum. Gives haze. Using one for long lenses is a must. I have great 21 mm pictures, work well on the big mountain horizons. And works in cramped positions with trees, lakes, rocks. You are the "outlier" here, Alberti! I can see that having a very wide angle lens would complement having a 35mm and 50mm (66mm iwiththe M8) lens, say. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raid Amin Posted January 19, 2018 Author Share #27 Posted January 19, 2018 Advertisement (gone after registration) My choice would one camera and one lens - my MATE 28-35-50. Yes, but I would then need to buy such a lens, and it is not a cheap lens. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertknappmd Posted January 19, 2018 Share #28 Posted January 19, 2018 (edited) I used a 35 mm for many of my Jungrfau pictures but also had a 90 mm for details. There is no obvious formula... It depends on your vision and composition. Stitching is very helpful but beware of artifacts and always do in manual as your sky can really suffer at those elevations. Always use a UV filter up there.... Albert Edited January 19, 2018 by albertknappmd 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raid Amin Posted January 19, 2018 Author Share #29 Posted January 19, 2018 Hi Alberti: Is a UV necessary with a digital camera too? Have you used the Hologon at Jungfrau visit? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted January 19, 2018 Share #30 Posted January 19, 2018 (edited) Sensors, unlike film, are not significantly UV sensitive, so a UV filter is typically for protection only. A UV/IR filter, or a polarizing filter, address different issues, the latter requiring a polarized light source to dictate orientation and intensity. Jeff Edited January 19, 2018 by Jeff S 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted January 19, 2018 Share #31 Posted January 19, 2018 Maybe I am wrong, but is a 35mm lens an overall suitable lens for mountain images or would a short tele or a wide angle lens be better suited? As a rule of thumb, I remember being told and reading that wider lenses make mountains look smaller. So conventional wisdom has suggested that short telephotos were relatively more useful for mountain photography. But in reality it depends. On you, on your preferences and of how you want to take images. I have shot mountains and from mountains using various focal lengths, and still do - from 21 to 135. A 35mm lens is still a very useful one and I would certainly carry one along with one or two longer lenses (75/90 and perhaps a 135). I'd also take a 21 myself because you never know. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted January 19, 2018 Share #32 Posted January 19, 2018 (edited) May I take up the point about need of the UV filter. I believe that for digital cameras they are not needed at all,... Now, this is worth some personal opinion on my side : as I said I have a very long relation with photographing on mountains, from 1000 to 4000 meters, with film (6 x 9, 6 x 6, 35 mm) and digital in the last 10 years : - First of all, I said that I consider UV filter reccomended... NOT necessary - With film, and expecially certain color films, it was really necessary from (just to say) 2500 meters and over : if you had fine details, should be they trees, or rocks structures, or even simply faces, you often LOST them in the neg/prints... and this was sometime (I don't exaggerate) really dramatic with 35mm at high elevations. : I used Leaicas for years and years, but loved to take many times my folding 6x9 Super Ikonta mainly for this reason... and my Rollei 35, precious in climbing for its size, had the minus of not having an UV filter for it (I never found one...) - Some UV filters were even not completely up to the task... and I had several and did notice the difference - With digital this CHANGED A LOT (let's put apart, of course, the specific M8 issue... ) - I never experienced, with no UV filter on, the level of "blur/unfocus" (dunno if is the right term) that saw on 35mm film... and most of my Leitz lenses were used both on film and digital, - But I DID notice some collateral advantage with UV filter on some other detail... with certain lenses, I had the feel that it reduced some marginal purple fringing... I admit that never went in depth in investigating a scientific reason for this... but tha'st my positive feeling with some lenses of 35mm and below - So... I prefer to take an UV filter on... the protection of front glass is anyway a plus... and, on M240, I see no difference between an UV filter and the UVIR that I often mount on, having "inherited" them from M8 times... Edited January 19, 2018 by luigi bertolotti 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tsleica Posted January 19, 2018 Share #33 Posted January 19, 2018 (edited) I used a 35mm f1.4 asph up in the Himalayas...I had a15mm and a Noct f1.0 too..the 15mm stayed in the bag..and the Noct came out for dark villages..but the 35mm was the lens I wouldn't be without.. Edited January 19, 2018 by tsleica 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Susie Posted January 19, 2018 Share #34 Posted January 19, 2018 Definitely the 135m/6.3 Mountain Elmar. You beat me to it Peter, but just to be pedantic it is the 10.5cm Mountain Elmar... Susie 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Albertson Posted January 19, 2018 Share #35 Posted January 19, 2018 Thank you for all the tips here! I was thinking of Jungfraujoch in Switzerland. My current thoughts suggest using M9 with 35mm and M8 with 50mm as the starting point. A small 25/4 or 28/2.8 is also a possibility to have a wider view if needed.I will leave the Hologon 16/8 for street photography. I can carry only so much on a trip with the family. I could leave behind the M8 and bring along my E-PL1 with Lux 25/1.4. Another carzy thought is using M9 and SWC. . When I was there (in 1983), I got some stunning shots of the Jungfrau and the other peaks with just the 40mm lens on my Rollei 35. If you can, wait for settled weather up top before taking the rail up to the Jungfraujoch. The ticket is not cheap, and it would be a shame to get up there only to find it fogged in. There are worse places to wait out the weather than Lauterbrunnen! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotoism Posted January 19, 2018 Share #36 Posted January 19, 2018 (edited) I went to the Canadian Rockies last June with my M8. My three lenses were the CV15, 28/2 Cron, and 50/1.4 Lux. That pretty much covered all my needs for various "mountainscapes", The frequency of use was also in that (descending) order, and I do quite a bit of stitching when I use the 28 and 50mm lenses (shot portrait mode) for panorama. Edited January 19, 2018 by fotoism Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
djmay Posted January 19, 2018 Share #37 Posted January 19, 2018 I have spent a lot of time in the mountains, more in Switzerland than anywhere else (I live in Switzerland). I have used medium format and large format film, M9, M-P 240 and S 006. In 35mm equivalents, I have used from 19mm to 150mm. There are uses for all. If you are at the top or edge of a mountain and there are mountain ranges relatively close, the wide and ultra-wide angle lens are useful. As the distance to the closest ranges increase, the longer lenses become useful. Also, the longer lenses are useful when there are a series of mountain ranges that are visible at varying distances, due to the visual compression of the distant ranges. This is with 19mm equivalent. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Jesse 11 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Jesse ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/281006-which-focal-lengths-do-you-recommend-for-views-from-top-of-mountains/?do=findComment&comment=3444040'>More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted January 20, 2018 Share #38 Posted January 20, 2018 I have spent a lot of time in the mountains, more in Switzerland than anywhere else (I live in Switzerland). I have used medium format and large format film, M9, M-P 240 and S 006. In 35mm equivalents, I have used from 19mm to 150mm. There are uses for all. If you are at the top or edge of a mountain and there are mountain ranges relatively close, the wide and ultra-wide angle lens are useful. As the distance to the closest ranges increase, the longer lenses become useful. Also, the longer lenses are useful when there are a series of mountain ranges that are visible at varying distances, due to the visual compression of the distant ranges. This is with 19mm equivalent. Lowres-1001844-2.jpg Jesse Nice, Jesse. Is that the North Face of the Eiger? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
djmay Posted January 20, 2018 Share #39 Posted January 20, 2018 Nice, Jesse. Is that the North Face of the Eiger?Thanks. Yes, Eiger on left, Moench in middle and Jungfrau right. The Jungfraujoch, mentioned in another post, is in the saddle between Moench and Jungfrau. Jesse Sent from my Lenovo YT3-850L using Tapatalk 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 20, 2018 Share #40 Posted January 20, 2018 Definitely the 135m/6.3 Mountain Elmar. I'm joking of course, Raid. ... Pete. You beat me to it Peter, but just to be pedantic it is the 10.5cm Mountain Elmar... Susie Maybe I'm too young, but I've never seen a mountain Elmar 6.3 105mm in alpine use. In contrast, more often the Elmar 4.0-90mm. Is there a significant difference in the image results of these two lenses? If I need 105mm, I prefer an old Nikon PC 2.5-105mm for Leica Screwmount M39, but it weighs quite a bit for hillwalking. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/281006-which-focal-lengths-do-you-recommend-for-views-from-top-of-mountains/?do=findComment&comment=3444231'>More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now