Landscape Lenses

[Ernstk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For all of my photography I use a 35 'Lux pre asph and a 21/2.8 Elmarit M. Both of them used at 5.6 or 8 give me all the depth of field and quality that I need for landscapes.

Ernst

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[RexGig0]

18 hours ago, Kiwimac said:

This landscape was shot with a Fujifilm GFX 100 and a 100-200 zoom. Approximately the frame is about 3km wide and 8km from where I stood.

The lens is IMHO a secondary or even tertiary factor in the exercise. Focal length, being in the correct place at the correct time of day and so on are more important. The biggest drawback with M lenses is the difficulty in using the sort of graduated ND filters and so on that are commonly used in landscape work; the filter sets would be larger than the lenses!

 I shall probably add the Apo 135 at some point - mainly just for landscape shots because I personally enjoy picking out specific areas and features of landscapes more than the ultrawide all encompassing view variety.

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!

Telephoto lenses are especially useful for terrain such as this. I, too, like the idea of acquiring an M-mount 135mm lens, for mountain landscape shooting, but, I have wonderful, much-loved 85mm, 100mm, 135mm, and 200mm SLR lenses, so, have not prioritized acquiring M-mount telephoto lenses. (My wife and I are still serious bird/wildlife photographers, so, at least until age catches-up with us, we will still be keeping and feeding DSLRs.)

[Franka373]

On 1/20/2023 at 1:44 PM, Ouroboros said:

Sorry you took it that way.  My point was fairly clear that anyone's dogmatic opinion on what is, or isn't, a good lens for landscape photography is  pointless and ultimately not very helpful to anyone.   

I am getting caught up on the thread with some really good additional comments.  I have to say this one gave me a good chuckle.  I needed that. 

[S Maclean]

Any lense, specialy any great lense can be used for any purpose, BUT, realistiacally there are lenses that are more suited to some work than others.

Any great photographer will take great pictures, with an iPhone, a disposable camera or a Leica SL.

So we can callenge the OP in his request but there it a sound narrative to his inquiry.

Technical and artistic balance each other.  But let's talk technical faility for specific use for a second, just to be fair.

Taken the above as a starting point and understanding that the following is just general:

• Focus lengths of, say, 50 and above (75, 85, 90....) do lend themselves to detail, introspective photography, including nature photography.  Images are often flattened, context is limited and often they are slower lenses.  (this is not true to all lenses, specially the ones this forum's members use, but just a general trend)  As such they are less "contextual" and moe intimate.  They bring you into the subject. These lenses often even at slower stops render beatuful out of focus areas.  They of course can be used for anything, but 99% of the time they are not used for "landscapes" per se.  When they are, they can be great, but, honestly, it is not their most natural medium.  A great photographer will overcome these natural limitations and can give you an awe inspiring landscapewith a 200 mm lense.....a more average photographer may struggle a little bit more taking the lenses outside of their natural suite.
• Focus lengths bellow 28 going into the super wide lenses are VERY contextual.  If you do take close portraits with them you better pay good money for incredible optics and even then you'll be dealing with some distortions for close portraiture or someone will just punch you in the face for getting to close to them.  These lenses do give incredible contextual portraiture (street photography, interior groups etc) and do relfect mood and ambient.  However, they are often perfectly and easily suited for landscapes and architecture.  DOF is often quite large with out of focus areas being reduced.  They are less intimate by nature.  When you do get a super fast super wide (like a 21 lux etc) you can get incredibly magical scenes, and as above the photograher POV, artistry and technical knowledge can completely reverse the nature of these optics and present you with an incredible intimate and poignant image that negates everything I just stated.  But, an average photographer will be able to easilly capture landscapes with infinite focus and amazing framing out of the box
• 35 and 28, to me, bridge these 2 functions.

Now on aperture:

• Super fast aperture 0.95 to 1.4 Will give you magical effect, not necesarilly great for landscape photography unless there is a strong artistic intent behind it.  Can you use a Noctilux 0.95 for landscapes, Yeah!  You probably should stop it down or bing some ND filters and even then you may be compromising or limiting the shot....But you can.  Stop it down and you may as well get a Cron 2. or elmarit etc etc
• Fast apertures 1.4 to 2.8 are great and flexible but often you will still have to stop them down landscapes.  Nothing wrong with that.
• Slower apertures (relatively speaking)(3.5 and above) will limt your ability to deal with light and DOF effects in portraiture, but will make it easy to shoot hyperfocally, street and landscapes from the hip.

So, OP, IMO for andscapes only you want a 21 to 35 mm, modern rendering, 2 and above speed.  You can get a 1.4 etc which will make it easier to adapt to other environments and photography needs.

A much SHORTER answer is.  It all depends what landscape you're photogrpaphing and how you want to render it.  A dessert is different from a jungle, A distant mountain range will be lost on a wide angle and, as seen above, made magical on a telephoto.  A canyon may benefit from extreme perspective of a wide angle.  A city landscape is different from a beach.  A storm at night different from a drought etc etc.

Here's an interesting example. I took this with my M11 and with an Iphone 14 as I was walking by.  At home I started editing this one and after I had finished realized it's the iphone shot that I liked better in composition.  

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!

Edited January 22, 2023 by S Maclean
edditing bad typing errors

[Franka373]

Thank you for the considered response.  It is very helpful. 

[Jared]

The three lenses the OP already owns will all be superb performers at typical landscape apertures. At f/8, I can’t imagine anything being meaningfully better.

[markc2]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The first time I came up to the mountains with a Leica Summicron 90mm R lens, I really learned that I knew nothing. A 90mm meant I had to choose, and being my first time in the mountains I couldn't choose, or it was very difficult because I thought I was always leaving something out. I later got a 28mm R lens and I wasn't close enough to what I wanted and everything seemed small and insignificant, or I had to get a lot more "in there" to make what I felt was a dramatic shot. I eventually went MF with a 60mm zeiss lens and that came out to about 35mm or so in 35mm land. That ended up being my "Goldilocks" lens. That lens let me get in there while still having space in the frame and be far away without diminishing what I thought was important.

So for me it's kind of where does the lens put you in the way that you want to show the landscape around you. I learned a whole h e double hockey sticks from reading these posts though. Maybe this is too basic but it's my 2 cent's 🙂

 

Mark

Edited January 18, 2024 by markc2
needed a bit more words.

[250swb]

6 hours ago, markc2 said:

 

So for me it's kind of where does the lens put you in the way that you want to show the landscape around you. I learned a whole h e double hockey sticks from reading these posts though. Maybe this is too basic but it's my 2 cent's 🙂

 

Precisely. Having an opinion about the landscape is worth far more than any APO or 'lux lens in the camera bag because that opinion points the way to a suitable lens, and that opinion also leads the way to the treatment of the photograph to make it memorable. But all to often landscapes are defined by 'look what my lens can do' rather than 'look what I can do'. And if you don't use f1.4 for landscape photography any lens with an f/8 stop will be good enough, and if your landscape is more than half a mile away atmospheric haze will negate any benefit an APO lens may have brought to the table, so that saves a lot of wasted money that could instead be spent on a tripod, the second essential for a landscape photographer after a camera.