Jump to content

Landscape lens

Mark ashfield

By Mark ashfield
in Leica M Lenses

 Share

Recommended Posts

Stuart Richardson

Stuart Richardson

Posted
Posted

I will be the misanthrope to suggest that this is kind of an unanswerable question. Most of my landscapes are done with 50-135mm lenses, and there is no focal length that is inherently better or worse for landscapes, it is all about what kind of photographs you like to make, and what environment you live in. I live in Iceland, and there are very large, open spaces that make a lens with more reach practical. People who live in a jungle or dense forest might prefer a 21mm to add depth of field and space to a composition.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
M11 for me

M11 for me

Posted
Posted
vor 16 Minuten schrieb Stuart Richardson:

I will be the misanthrope to suggest that this is kind of an unanswerable question. Most of my landscapes are done with 50-135mm lenses, and there is no focal length that is inherently better or worse for landscapes, it is all about what kind of photographs you like to make, and what environment you live in. I live in Iceland, and there are very large, open spaces that make a lens with more reach practical. People who live in a jungle or dense forest might prefer a 21mm to add depth of field and space to a composition.

I like very much how you put that. At the time of my Canon (I still have it) with its Zooms (2 years away from now) I was not used to Primes. Nowadays I have a fully different view. Today I was in Basel and the sky was black with still a bit of sun from times totimes. I had the 28mm on my M10. And I had what I had. It was quite good. I brought home some nice pics.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
adan

adan

Posted
Posted

Any lens that gets the picture you want. I've used everything from 15mm to 400mm for landscapes.

Below: with 75 Summilux and 21 Elmarit (Dr. Mandler Rules!) - on the same day in the same mountains. Doesn't require a jungle situation for a 21 to be expressive and compelling.

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!

  • Like 10
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael Geschlecht

Michael Geschlecht

Posted
Posted

Hello Mark,

Welcome to the Forum.

Well, I guess you have your answer: It pretty much depends.

On what you are looking for/at. And: What you want to do. And so on.

What are your plans? What type of Landscapes do you want to photograph? And more.

Please tell us the parameters that you want to begin with & perhaps we can be helpful. Keeping in mind that you might get a number of different answers to any 1 specific set of circumstances. As you already have.

Best Regards,

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
Peter Kilmister

Peter Kilmister

Posted
Posted

Regarding landscape photography, I suggest you get hold of a wonderful book on the subject by Charlie Waite. It is out of print but you can get copies on Amazon for GBP 0.01 plus postage. 

I don't know where you are in the world, but postage for books is cheap and no customs duty anywhere in the world (except, perhaps, North Korea).

Having read the book it is Charlie's view that you use the right lens for the occasion and a tripod or a step ladder may be of more importance. Charlie likes to shoot at dawn and dusk and uses closed apertures to get as much depth of field as possible. So don't bother with a Noctilux!

Link to post
Share on other sites
lct

lct

Posted
Posted

Depends on the focal length. At 35mm i cannot recommend the Summarit 35/2.5 (no experience with 35/2.4) which is rather soft at edges and corners below f/5.6 unless you use only smaller apertures. The Biogon 35/2.8 is an almost perfect lens for landscapes but it vignettes more than the Summarit. which is easier to adjust in PP. The Summicron 35/2 asph is very good as well but has too much CA for my tastes. No problem with the Summilux 35/1.4 FLE if you don't dislike its bokeh which is not aways as smooth as i would like, especially around f/2.8. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
spydrxx

spydrxx

Posted
Posted

If you want high resolution and contrast, go with a modern lens - your choice of focal lengths. If you want a more classic look, you can easily go back to the 1960s and use a 35/2.8 Summaron as I did for a number of years. Very different rendering from modern offerings.

Link to post
Share on other sites
rsolomon

rsolomon

Posted
Posted

Considering the question  .......

All focal lengths can work, some may be better, some may not. 

Regarding appeture, all can work, some may be better, some may not

if you ask a more specific question we can answer more specifically 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Stuart Richardson

Stuart Richardson

Posted
Posted

Some examples: 

Below is a 110mm lens on 4x5, which is roughly a 32mm on 35mm.

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!

This is a 35mm on the S, which is like a 28mm on 35mm

This is a 80mm on 6x7, which is like a 40mm on 35mm.

This is a crop from a shot taken on a 500mm lens on 4x5, which is probably around 180mm on 35mm.

And finally, this is a 4.15mm iPhone lens (29mm?)  taken through a 8.5x pair of binoculars, which I guess are around 500mm, so who knows? 

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...