Landscape lens question

[joe43]

I will add my two cents, and likely repeat a lot of what has already been said. I have been taking landscapes for 60 + years. My most used (or only used ) lenses on FX bodies were in order: 50mm, 35mm, 28mm, 24mm, in my film days. Then in digital for wide angle: 24mm and 20mm. Today I was using a F mount 20mm G lens on my Z9 to capture early morning landscape beach and cloud shots (horizontal and vertical) in Florida along with my 24-120mm S lens.

My conclusion? You need more than one focal length as different shooting situations require different focal length lenses. Since I grew up with primes, I still prefer them to some of the excellent but expensive zooms now available. Consider renting a lens before you buy it. And consider a manual focus lens too if you understand and will use hyperfocal distances as you frame and focus your shot.

 

[macwalter]

Reading reviews of the 14-30mm z lens. seems there might be an issue with consistency in copies of the lens where some are clearly better than others.

 

[hef19898]

Sample variance... Honestly, most reviewers just don't know how to test. As in doing proper, standardized and reproducable tests.

And no, shooting some test chart printed from the internet at a self made test stand doesn't count.

 

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

For me, the first rule is to use primes. Not moving your feet, you can change focal length with primes and a zoom will do the exact same thing, trading quality of primes for convenience of zooms (not having to swap lens). If the IQ loss doesn't mean much to you, then go zoom.

The next rule is to chose perspective (this is the "what image you want to make" others are mentioning). You don't change perspective by changing focal length (primes or zooms), you do that by changing your position (using your feet). Get closer and use a wider lens, or further with a more telephoto lens and compose the surrounding landscape around your main subject. This is all entirely subjective and many don't even consider it: either the mountain fills the frame or it doesn't, without concern for surrounding compositional elements.

More to the point of your question, what lens do you chose after considering the above: it still boils down what image you're going to make, and unless you've decided that before you left the house, you don't know what lens is best until you get there and start visualizing what you want your end-result image to be.

But the old rule of "use wides for landscapes" turns out to be horse manure. Lately, some of the nicest landscapes I've seen are with very long telephotos that get a tight perspective of distant shapes and light.

Chris

 

[Milos]

I got a lot of useful information however most of you misunderstood the question. I know that there is not universal lens for landscape photography. Sometimes it is important to cover more and sometimes it is distracting so you want just detail. My original question was. If am able to achieve the same picture with let's say 17mm lens or 50mm lens by just walking which one do I choose or does it even matter?

 

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

I got a lot of useful information however most of you misunderstood the question. I know that there is not universal lens for landscape photography. Sometimes it is important to cover more and sometimes it is distracting so you want just detail. My original question was. If am able to achieve the same picture with let's say 17mm lens or 50mm lens by just walking which one do I choose or does it even matter?

In my reply, I could have simply said "It depends on the perspective you want in your composition". But without the surrounding discussion (how to arrive at that point in a decision making process), some readers may not understand the meaning—I try not to assume too much of reader knowledge. You did get a pretty good, short answer right away with Karen's reply.

 

[macwalter]

Sample variance... Honestly, most reviewers just don't know how to test. As in doing proper, standardized and reproducable tests.

And no, shooting some test chart printed from the internet at a self made test stand doesn't count.

Actually I was reading a review of photography life and my sense is they know what they are talking about.

 

[DRwyoming]

My original question was. If am able to achieve the same picture with let's say 17mm lens or 50mm lens by just walking which one do I choose or does it even matter?

The thing is, generally speaking you cannot achieve the same final image by standing in one position with one lens vs walking to a different position with a different focal length lens. Your primary subject size may stay the same, but perspective changes as you move. Basically perspective, the relative size of objects at different distances changes as you move towards and away from them and even up and down or left and right. Standing in one position and zooming or changing fixed focal length lenses changes the optical crop or framing of the image but doesn't change the perspective and a lot of what leads to compelling landscape images is choosing perspective.

FWIW, I always advise approaching landscapes as:

- Find perspective with your feet, with practice and tuning into perspective changes you can do this without even putting a camera to your eye
- Then frame the image as desired with the appropriate focal length or cropping in post as needed

So it's not just a question of choosing one lens over the other with the idea of just changing shooting position to compensate if you care about the perspective and how that might change the final image.

Here's an example from an old image I've used in workshops and classes. These images were shot from three different distances(closest on the left) to change the perspective in terms of the size of the tree relative to the mountains. Yes, I changed focal lengths to frame each image but no amount of zooming or changing lenses from one position would have changed the perspective. The same applies if you want to really emphasize a foreground object by getting very close to it. That generally requires a very wide lens to frame the resulting shot but shooting the same image from back a ways with a longer focal length lens will no longer have the same emphasis on that object as the perspective that makes that happen comes from your position relative to the objects in the scene.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

If I'd just stayed in the position of that final shot (furthest away from the tree) and used a longer focal length lens to get the size of the tree closer to other images the image would have looked something like this:

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

Getting back to your question, you may be able to achieve the same main subject size with two different focal length lenses by changing your working distance but the resulting images, especially for landscape work, will be quite different due to the perspective changes.

 

[bleirer]

I got a lot of useful information however most of you misunderstood the question. I know that there is not universal lens for landscape photography. Sometimes it is important to cover more and sometimes it is distracting so you want just detail. My original question was. If am able to achieve the same picture with let's say 17mm lens or 50mm lens by just walking which one do I choose or does it even matter?

If only field of view mattered this app linked below will help. It shows you for example that a 17mm lens at 100 feet would have about the same frame as a 50mm lens at 294 feet. You can plug in any focal length and distance and see the field of view.


As far as perspective moving closer or father will change how the size of the background object relates to the foreground object. The closer you are physically to the foreground the relatively smaller the background will be. The farther away you are the relatively larger the background will be. So if you want the Tetons to loom large behind Moulton's barn, go far away and frame the barn with a telephoto.. if you want the mountains to be small behind a wildflower, get closer and frame with a wide angle.

Easy math, whatever your camera to subject distance is, something the same size as the subject will appear 1/2 as big if it is twice that distance from the camera, 1/3 as big if it is 3 times that distance from the camera, then 1/4, 1/5, etc. Example if the camera is ten feet from one person in the foreground, a same size person 20 feet from the camera will be 1/2 as big as the one in front. If the background person moves to 30 feet from the camera they will be 1/3 the size. If the camera was 100 feet from the foreground person the background person wouldn't be half the size until they were 200 feet from the camera.

Another way to look at it, two people of the same size, one is ten feet behind the other. If the camera is ten feet from the front person then the camera is 20 feet from the background person. 10 divided by 20 is .5 so the background person will be half the size of the foreground person. Move the camera to 90 feet away from the foreground person, so now the background person is 100 feet from the camera. 90 divided by 100 is .9, so by the camera being farther away the background person seems almost the same size as the foreground person.

Camera Field of View Calculator (FoV)

Calculator of Field of View of camera and lens, both the dimensional size of the Field Of View seen at a specified distance, and also Angle Of View.

www.scantips.com

 

[Milos]

Now it all started make sense. Great responses! Thank you all.

 

[hef19898]

One thing so: one cannot approach a certain subject as one might wish to. A mountain on the other side of a valley, a waterfall, some rocks in a river, a seastack and the waves crushing into it.

So in theory the FoV of a 300 mm lense at a distance is the "same" as a 35 mm from a lot closer. In practical terms, the difference between those distances is nothing someone can change. Same for wildlife, of course that bird or animal would look similar 50 and 500 mm, if I could just get close enough. Reality is, I cannot.

Approach landscapes by feel, if an image feels right at the moment you take it, chances are it is not a bad shot (most shots aren't going to be great so, even by yout own standards, the only ones that really matter). If you are focusing to much on the technical aspects of photography (apperture, your tripod, which lense to use, to focus stack or not, calculating FoV...) and composition (rule of thirds are similar crap) the higher the chances are that the shot will boring, mediocre at best, and not be representative of yourself. The lense, and camera, play the smallest role here, assuming both are in working order and above a certain threshold of IQ. And guess what, besides some extreme examples, cameras and lenses are "good enough" for decades now.

I do landscapes at all focal length, from 16mm on FX to 300mm on DX.

TLDR: Use whatever lense you have, if you like the result, it is all good.

 

[Roy]

I never know how to decide what lens to use when doing landscape photography. If I have no problems getting close of farther away, do I pick let's say 24mm lens or 50mm lens? What are the pros and cons using either lens?

Experience will make you look at the scene first.
Then the lens will become obvious.
If you cant decide then get a zoom like the 24-70 or 24-120 ...

 

[wassa1957]

Gee, this has stirred things up. My answer change lenses and try a different perspective. Landscapes don't fly off? Sorry a cheeky Aussie approach.

 

[O]

Looking at the history of focal lengths used in my landscapes - it is between 24 - 70, so thats the lens I use. I dont like wider, but for astro I use my 16mm fisheye. As said above using wider requires skill I don't possess

So you do like the 16mm Fish Eye for astro,

 

[O]

I never know how to decide what lens to use when doing landscape photography. If I have no problems getting close of farther away, do I pick let's say 24mm lens or 50mm lens? What are the pros and cons using either lens?

I guess It’s like choosing to buy a car or house.............you need to know what you see and feel, then look at how you’re going to go about it all.

The Key point should not just be about what lens or camera is best, there just tools.

As a user of tools be guided by your craft, your artistry, your style, your eye, what evokes your emotion, this path often chooses the right tool for you, then simple take that tool to capture what you see and feel.

As you know Every lens and camera can do landscape photography, some of the best tools are Phones LOL especially if its the only camera with you at the moment of need.

Some Masters gone by traveled the world with only a manual prime 24 and 50mm lens. Others with a fixed 35mm.

Its simple if you want a wide and dramatic WOW look starting from super wide at your toes then taking the viewer to a panoramic horizon, hence 14mm 16mm.

If you want perceptively accurate as the eye sees naturally subjects then 50-60mm is great place to start.

If you’re going to make a stitched series using the lens in portraiture position on a tripod then 85mm provides distortion free outcomes minimizing cropping top to bottom, however i see many people using 35mm and editing software.

If you want to cut a piece of dramatic landscape out of the mountain or land scene then longer focal lengths like 200, 300 even 500mm can deliver great results.

For as good as it gets optically the 19mm Tilt shift is very very hard to beat.

I have moody shots i love from a 28-300 , amazing works from the incredibly sharp 180 degree FOV F2.8 16mm fish eye, the 14-24 F 2.8 G is an amazing dramatic tool for a very creative look, but the best all round universal tool for my taste is the 24-70 F2.8 G it covers 24, 35, 50, 60 and 70mm, then the 70-200 F2.8 FL is deadly good, i take a few paces back or forward as needed but its just sharp and detailed.

Mirror less my 50mm 1.8 S is so so unique, so good for everything. I am contemplating the 24mm 1.4 or a 24-120 F4 both versus the 24-70 F2.8 S at some stage but its not a priority just now, something i will come back to.

Summary of choice, the focal range of 24-70 F2.8, 70-200 F2.8, as long as its F2.8 optics or better, other than that it’s the 50mm 1.8 and or a 28-300.
You see the greatest asset more powerful than choosing the glass for optical perfection, well for me is............

perfect LIGHT.

Only an opinion

 

[Captain Spaulding]

Shooting a DSLR, I used a Rokinon 20 1.8 for astro and my 24-85 or 70-200 f4 for most other things. Most of the images I have were taken between 35 and 120. The specific FL would depend on the perspective I wanted. My favored approach was to use a FL on the long side and going wider stitching in post.

A lot of the time the topography limited my ability to frame with my feet and I really liked the extra resolution panos provided. Learned a bit about hyperfocal distancing in the process.

Now shooting a Z8 with the 24-120 f4. That covers pretty much everything I’ve wanted in the past. Health has kept me from going out in the field. I’m working hard on that. I guess we’ll see.

 

[John Woodworth]

Edge cases to mention:

Framing a subject with no depth (i.e. a flat piece of paper straight on) will yield identical images regardless of focal length (assuming no lens distortion).

The depth of focus for an object is identical for the same image size (the same framing) independent of focal length. That is to say, if a head shot is framed identically with a 50mm or 100 lens, the depth of focus is identical, although the 100mm shot will be taken at twice the distance. Obviously, the perspective (which can "distort" the imaged features of the face) is very different.

The "compression" of background commonly associated with long focal lengths is more a result of perspective than focal length but cannot really be duplicated with shorter focal lengths in a practical sense.

 

[DRwyoming]

The "compression" of background commonly associated with long focal lengths is more a result of perspective than focal length but cannot really be duplicated with shorter focal lengths in a practical sense.

I'd word that a bit differently:

The "compression" of background commonly associated with long focal lengths is more a result of perspective than focal length but cannot really be duplicated at closer working distances with wider lenses.

As you point out optical compression is a matter of distance. You can achieve optical compression at long distances by shooting a shorter focal length lens and cropping or using a smaller format sensor (cropping in-camera) but it's the distance that's the important thing.

 

[Milos]

Wow I did not think this would get so popular. The good news is that I learned a lot and finally I understand when and how to use wide angle lens. Hopefully I am not the only one.

 

[bleirer]

I'd word that a bit differently:

The "compression" of background commonly associated with long focal lengths is more a result of perspective than focal length but cannot really be duplicated at closer working distances with wider lenses.

As you point out optical compression is a matter of distance. You can achieve optical compression at long distances by shooting a shorter focal length lens and cropping or using a smaller format sensor (cropping in-camera) but it's the distance that's the important thing.

Though I would agree with John on his use of the word practical. Maybe he added that later.

 

[John Woodworth]

I'd word that a bit differently:

The "compression" of background commonly associated with long focal lengths is more a result of perspective than focal length but cannot really be duplicated at closer working distances with wider lenses.

As you point out optical compression is a matter of distance. You can achieve optical compression at long distances by shooting a shorter focal length lens and cropping or using a smaller format sensor (cropping in-camera) but it's the distance that's the important thing.

Though I would agree with John on his use of the word practical. Maybe he added that later.

I think we are in agreement. I should have completed the thought regarding "practical".

The example in my head was in trying to duplicate, using a 50mm lens, a frame-filling image of a bird taken with a 600mm lens. Taken from the same distance (to keep the same perspective), the 50mm version of the subject bird could be cropped to achieve the identical image with the same sense of "compression". But the crop would be a factor of 12 in the linear dimensions to give the same framing...That would reduce the number of pixels by 1/144 which would probably destroy the 50mm's image for most purposes.

Alternatively, a wide-angle lens can be duplicated by shooting a panorama from a fixed position. I do this all the time and even focus stack. But this is time consuming, and the subject(s) need(s) to remain motionless.

So, I was just trying to state the obvious: In practice, using just one lens and walking around will not give you all possible creative freedoms.

 

[O]

Experience will make you look at the scene first.
Then the lens will become obvious.
If you cant decide then get a zoom like the 24-70 or 24-120 ...

100%