Nature & landscape focal length

[JoelKlein]

Hi everyone,

I found myself using 50mm + for landscape shots.

My 20/1.8 & 14-24/2.8 are collecting dust.

Is this a general thing to change taste?
Will I ever use those wide angles again?

I think the ‘Shift’ in my brain happened after Steve’s video was explaining and proving that focal length and depth of field have nothing in common. It is the subject size in the frame thar matters. No difference how I got the subject to fill the frame, by walking up to it with a wide angle, or by using higher magnification lenses.

The only difference is the perspective / compression effect.

Before that video, I was under the impression that wider angle would give more DOF and longer glass would give less. Since I wanted everything to be sharp, I went with wide angles blindly.

 

[DRwyoming]

Nothing wrong with a 50mm lens for landscapes but it really comes down to how you see landscapes and how you set up shots.

The wide and ultra wide lenses really shine when there's an extremely close and compelling foreground element in landscape shots. IOW, when you've got something like a very interesting flower, rock, or other graphical element that's feet or sometimes inches from your shooting position and you can setup for a perspective that includes that super close element as well as an interesting mid ground and background then an ultra wide lens is really the tool to pull off a shot like that. If that's not how you see and setup landscape shots and you're after a view closer to what you'd naturally see with your eyes when looking into the scene then something like a 40mm, 50mm, 70mm lens or similar would likely give you the shot you're after.

I'd also say the ultra wide lenses are pretty important when you want a really wide expanse of sky as in wide field astro photography or landscapes where clouds are a dominant part of the image.

Of course you can always emulate that ultra wide look by shooting a pano sequence with a moderate focal length lens and stitching the shots together in post but for a single image with one or more extremely close foreground elements as well as interesting mid ground and background elements a wide angle lens is hard to beat.

 

[Nimi]

Nothing wrong with a 50mm lens for landscapes but it really comes down to how you see landscapes and how you set up shots.

The wide and ultra wide lenses really shine when there's an extremely close and compelling foreground element in landscape shots. IOW, when you've got something like a very interesting flower, rock, or other graphical element that's feet or sometimes inches from your shooting position and you can setup for a perspective that includes that super close element as well as an interesting mid ground and background then an ultra wide lens is really the tool to pull off a shot like that. If that's not how you see and setup landscape shots and you're after a view closer to what you'd naturally see with your eyes when looking into the scene then something like a 40mm, 50mm, 70mm lens or similar would likely give you the shot you're after.

Of course you can always emulate that ultra wide look by shooting a pano sequence with a moderate focal length lens and stitching the shots together in post but for a single image with one or more extremely close foreground elements as well as interesting mid ground and background elements a wide angle lens is hard to beat.

I was thinking the same thing. Take a 50mm, shoot vertically and do a pano for some amazing results.

The wide angles give you "vistas" that are difficult to achieve with anything over 28.

 

[DRwyoming]

The only difference is the perspective / compression effect.

Remember that perspective and any compression effect doesn't really stem from the choice of focal length but is entirely dependent on your position relative to the scene. IOW, we achieve perspective effects by moving in or out towards or away from the scene and then the choice of focal length allows us to frame the desired scene with that particular perspective.

Stated differently a long telephoto lens doesn't create 'compression' but shooting farther away from the elements in your scene create that compression and then the long lens allows you to frame the scene so that those image elements take up a larger percentage of the frame. Similarly an ultra wide lens doesn't create clownlike features in human subjects, it's shooting very close portraits (as in inches away from someone's face) that create the huge perspective distortion issues but the ultra wide lens allows you to get that close and then still keep the subject's face in the frame.

IOW, find perspective with your feet and then zoom or chose different focal length lenses to optically crop the image as desired.

 

[bleirer]

It's interesting to look at the same concept in different ways. In one way you can think of the camera to foreground object as one "unit" of distance. A background object if the same size but one more "unit" of distance behind will appear 1/2 the size, add another unit and it appears 1/3 the size, another unit 1/4 the size, and so on. In other words get closer for the background to seem smaller, go farther away for the background to seem larger. So in this strategy one would mentally judge how many "units" between foreground and background and for each jump just count 1/2, 1/3, 1/4 and so on.

For example, two people of the same size standing next to each other with the photographer 10 feet away. Same size. He moves 10 feet back (one distance "unit") to appear 1/2 as tall as she, 20 feet back to appear 1/3 as tall, 30 feet back to appear 1/4 as tall. If the photographer was 100 feet away he would have to move 100 feet back to be 1/2 the size, 200 to be 1/3 and so on.

Another easier way to look at it is as a simple fraction of the camera to the foreground distance and the camera to background distance. If the camera is 10 feet from the same sized foreground person but 20 feet from the background person, then 10/20 is .5 so the background person seems half as big as the foreground, but if the camera is 100 feet from the foreground person and 110 from the background person then 100/110 is .9 so they seem almost the same size. So with this strategy one would roughly judge the two distances and make an approximate fraction out of the camera to foreground and camera to background to judge how much the background will drop off.

If you want distant mountains to seem bigger, shoot their foreground subject from farther away. If you want the nearby forest to seem farther away, get closer to the foreground flowers.

 

[EricBowles]

I find the wider lenses are not really to capture a wide scene if there are important features. Distant mountains or tall trees in the distance look small with wide lenses. But wide lenses are excellent if you have something important in the foreground - a major leading line, a significant foreground element, or a flower or plant. If you don't have a strong foreground, your wide lenses are going to struggle in a big landscape.

In this image, the trillium was just a couple of feet from the front of the lens. The hillside was covered with trillium plants but the distances separating the plants prevented me from capturing more than a few plants in any scene while maintaining enough size for the to be the subject. The image is at 14mm with the 14-30 f/4 lens.

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

This image was made about 30 minutes later. I used a 70-200mm lens at 125mm to capture just the portion of the scene I wanted, and to exclude an unattractive foreground. 50mm is similar to your normal field of view, so you are essentially capturing what you see.

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

I normally like something either wider or narrower than 50mm. 50mm matches what you see - your normal field of view. 70-200mm is good to extract a portion of the view - to isolate just the subject matter you want. Often this is making a distant element or area of a scene more important.

 

[bleirer]

I like that first example, the way the size of the background flowers drop off so rapidly since you are so close. Plus the sunstar is cool.

 

[AlanB313]

It sounds like the vision you are "seeing" right now in landscapes might currently be best served by the mid range focal lengths?

I'm trying to look at a scene and think about how different framing will change the effect. I'm new at thinking critically about my photos so these kinds of discussions are helpful.

I'm hoping to add a wide fast prime at some point, especially after experiencing the geomagnetic storm and aurora last month. I'm using my 16-80mm f2.8-f4 dx for now. Astro is a place where a wide prime can shine. Also, I live in the west. There are places in the west where the most striking element in a landscape is its absolute enormity. That's another place where a wide angle can be a good choice, leaving sharp elements in the foreground and still showing big sky or magnificent scenery. The desert southwest comes to mind as well.

But in a trip to the Pacific Northwest, I found my 150-600mm useful to frame glacial views on Mt Rainier. I could zoom to the right level (well over 300mm) to capture the glacial contours in a way that a wider angle angle wouldn't. And adding or shortening distance with my feet wasn't an option. Same thing when you are standing on the rim of the Grand Canyon....or Glacier Point.

Bottom line for me, I got really interested in wide with the aurora, so maybe my mind isn't looking for the 50mm perspective as much right now.

 

[Doug A.]

For the past 30 year I shot mostly landscapes and have used focal lengths ranging from 15mm to 180mm. For the longest time, most every landscape I shot was in the range of 24-50mm. Then I began to shift to wider views with the focal length of 18-20mm being my preferred for several years. Recently, this has changed again and now I find myself shooting lots of landscapes in the 70-100mm range. So I don't think it unusual for landscape photogs to have the way they photographically see the world shift over time.

 

[Vincent_VdB]

Most of my landscape photos were shot with the 70-200 f/2.8 lens. I am not a true landscape photographer but that is how it works for me. Recently used the 100-400 S lens as well for some landscape. It is how you envision the end result and not what you think is the norm.
I weigh my words but in your posts I do notice you are heavily influenced by others and feel compelled to follow what works for others. We all have our guru on YouTube, Facebook, forum, ... and do we not have to stay blind for trends and learn new tricks but use the lens that let you capture the scene and give you the picture you envisioned.

One of the better landscape photographers on YouTube I know is Thomas Heaton. He converted to Nikon months ago but he was happy shooting Fuji and Canon before and with any focal length. In the below link can you see a video on how much he likes the 100-400mm what comes as no surprise if you seen his previous videos. Not just his trips to the Arctic but also on shoots in his home country.

Looking in my own country do I find the person here below incredible in landscapes and is his Canon RF 24-240mm his most used lens., his second most used lens is a 16mm prime.

Danny Matthys

Danny Matthys is on Facebook. Join Facebook to connect with Danny Matthys and others you may know. Facebook gives people the power to share and makes the world more open and connected.

www.facebook.com

 

[JoelKlein]

Thank you all, Great wisdom and advice.
I’m PTSD about using longer focal length because of compression and thinn DOF. Fueled by the fact that the ultra wide gets the entire scene sharp.

I know it’s misinformation. Because whatever DOF I cover with the ultra wide, I could get with an 800mm if I backup enough. All though they wouldn’t look the same.
Ultra wide will render the background much much smaller vs. a long lens.

Then comes the lens itself.
I shot with the 70-200 a late afternoon, and I got sun glare in the photo.
I changed to the 85/1.2, and the glare was gone! Those perfect lenses are… perfect… And I love to get the best quality I could. That is why, one day I want to own the 135/1.8

I have to work on my black and white thinking though.

 

[EricBowles]

I've shot landscapes this year with everything from 14mm to 400mm (not counting lunar and solar landscapes). I tend to stay away from the 40-60mm range because it does look like what you see without a camera. I'm usually trying to emphasize or de-emphasize something in the frame. It's all a matter of your creative vision - there is no right or wrong.

I enjoy taking a single lens into the field and just working with the opportunities it gives you. That may mean I miss some shots, but it reinforces the value of choosing the right focal length for a scene and your vision - and helps avoid getting into a rut.

 

[JoelKlein]

Most of my landscape photos were shot with the 70-200 f/2.8 lens. I am not a true landscape photographer but that is how it works for me. Recently used the 100-400 S lens as well for some landscape. It is how you envision the end result and not what you think is the norm.
I weigh my words but in your posts I do notice you are heavily influenced by others and feel compelled to follow what works for others. We all have our guru on YouTube, Facebook, forum, ... and do we not have to stay blind for trends and learn new tricks but use the lens that let you capture the scene and give you the picture you envisioned.

One of the better landscape photographers on YouTube I know is Thomas Heaton. He converted to Nikon months ago but he was happy shooting Fuji and Canon before and with any focal length. In the below link can you see a video on how much he likes the 100-400mm what comes as no surprise if you seen his previous videos. Not just his trips to the Arctic but also on shoots in his home country.

Looking in my own country do I find the person here below incredible in landscapes and is his Canon RF 24-240mm his most used lens., his second most used lens is a 16mm prime.

Danny Matthys

Danny Matthys is on Facebook. Join Facebook to connect with Danny Matthys and others you may know. Facebook gives people the power to share and makes the world more open and connected.

www.facebook.com

This is a good video.
Great insights.

 

[jeffnles1]

Joel,
Tastes change over time. I live in the great featureless midwest. I shoot a lot of "intimate" landscapes using untraditional focal lengths for what is typically thought of as landscape. I have wide angles for those times when I want go get a broader view, when I'm in areas with more vista shots and I also do a number of landscape type photos with a super wide angle focusing on a flower or some other feature up close with the background environment in reasonable focus.

Will you ever use your wide angles again? I can't answer that but my guess is yes as tastes and preferred subjects tend to change and drift over time.

Jeff

 

[JoelKlein]

Joel,
Tastes change over time. I live in the great featureless midwest. I shoot a lot of "intimate" landscapes using untraditional focal lengths for what is typically thought of as landscape. I have wide angles for those times when I want go get a broader view, when I'm in areas with more vista shots and I also do a number of landscape type photos with a super wide angle focusing on a flower or some other feature up close with the background environment in reasonable focus.

Will you ever use your wide angles again? I can't answer that but my guess is yes as tastes and preferred subjects tend to change and drift over time.

Jeff

Very true.
As long I’m not alone in the boat. Lol..

 

[eaj101]

I don't know about changing tastes in lenses for landscapes, though I have at times gotten (temporarily) bored with a certain focal length. I think taste in landscape lenses is mostly driven by a) scene content, and b) choice of prime subject. I just returned from a sojourn in a rainforest and found it very frustrating for landscapes. Finding pattern and order in a forest is always difficult, and in the rainforest it's even worse. Add to that the impossibility of finding any overall vista and it was a prescription for major difficulties. I didn't come back with many landscapes. Lots of birds and animals, though

On the other hand, I live in California and a lot of my shooting is of scenes that range from enormous to vast. I tend to regard the middle of the focal length range as 'dead space' for that, neither fish nor fowl. On the wide end I tend most towards 24mm and 35mm. I had a brief fling with ultrawides but it's a look that can get overused and the distortion of perspective makes it hard to find scenes with both enough foreground and a big enough background. The other focal range that I use a lot for landscapes is @150-200mm, 'extracting' parts of a scene to draw attention.

I could happily go shoot landscapes with a 24/35 and something @150, and often have. Your mileage will vary

 

[eaj101]

Joel,
Tastes change over time. I live in the great featureless midwest. I shoot a lot of "intimate" landscapes using untraditional focal lengths for what is typically thought of as landscape. I have wide angles for those times when I want go get a broader view, when I'm in areas with more vista shots and I also do a number of landscape type photos with a super wide angle focusing on a flower or some other feature up close with the background environment in reasonable focus.

Will you ever use your wide angles again? I can't answer that but my guess is yes as tastes and preferred subjects tend to change and drift over time.

Jeff

I haven't spent much time in the midwest but the potential for big 'cloudscapes' has always impressed me.

 

[jeffnles1]

I haven't spent much time in the midwest but the potential for big 'cloudscapes' has always impressed me.

A little farther west from here would offer plenty of that in spring and winter storms. I live in Northern Kentucky and it is just hilly enough with enough trees to make cloudscapes kind of difficult. I do get out before some storms and look for good photo ops and once in a while we get lucky.

 

[JoelKlein]

Is this considered cloudscapes?
SOOC.

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.

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

 

[jeffnles1]

Is this considered cloudscapes?
SOOC.
View attachment 90695

View attachment 90696View attachment 90698View attachment 90697

I don't see why not. The ones below were shot with an iPhone. I was in the area for a relative's wedding. My Canon camera was back in the room and we were just walking around the grounds when a storm started coming in. I had the iPhone so that is what I used. I've always been of the opinion, the camera in hand when something happens is the best camera. As photographers, we can usually make something happen even if we have the "wrong" lens or "wrong camera" at the moment. What is that old saying... F8 and Be There.

Your cloud photos I would call cloudscapes.

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.

 

[Ado Wolf]

I think different focal lengths can be used for different scenarios:
- I use my 24-120 for mountain landscapes (mainly the Alps)
- I use my 14-30 mainly for lakes and seascapes
- I use my 70-200 mainly for forest shots

I occasionally use the 70-200 for mountains as well, to pick out nice peaks. But considering I hike many miles / km at a time, I tend to keep it home (quite heavy and every gram counts).

When I have to travel light, then it's my D850 with my 24 and 85 Primes.. which cover 24, 35, 85 and 128 mm making use of DX mode.

In fact, for quite a few influencers, the focal length most desired is around the 40mm range. Take the currently hyped Fuji X100.. with it's fixed focal length of 35mm..

 

[O]

Nothing wrong with a 50mm lens for landscapes but it really comes down to how you see landscapes and how you set up shots.

The wide and ultra wide lenses really shine when there's an extremely close and compelling foreground element in landscape shots. IOW, when you've got something like a very interesting flower, rock, or other graphical element that's feet or sometimes inches from your shooting position and you can setup for a perspective that includes that super close element as well as an interesting mid ground and background then an ultra wide lens is really the tool to pull off a shot like that. If that's not how you see and setup landscape shots and you're after a view closer to what you'd naturally see with your eyes when looking into the scene then something like a 40mm, 50mm, 70mm lens or similar would likely give you the shot you're after.

I'd also say the ultra wide lenses are pretty important when you want a really wide expanse of sky as in wide field astro photography or landscapes where clouds are a dominant part of the image.

Of course you can always emulate that ultra wide look by shooting a pano sequence with a moderate focal length lens and stitching the shots together in post but for a single image with one or more extremely close foreground elements as well as interesting mid ground and background elements a wide angle lens is hard to beat.

Agree completely.

For myself i use what ever tool fits the purpose best at the time be it

16mm fish eye
14-24
16-35
24-70
50mm 1.4 G
50 mm 1.8 S
85mm 1.4 portrait lens
100 F2 macro Ziess
105 F2.8 G Macro stunning for stacking on a D850
70-200
200-500
300 F2 .8 VR II
They are all just tools each offering varied outcomes.

The 14-24 example i use for creating a dramatically wide interesting for ground for a WOW factor, leading to an interesting mid ground and capping it of with a wide dramatic powerful sky.
I shoot so close to the foreground that at times i can see the feet of the tripod in the bottom of the frame yet i have a level horizon line.
There is no one set rule for creating a landscape photo.
Other times i use the 85mm 1.4 camera in vertical portrait position then take shots and stitch, even the 105 macro excels.
A wide angle lens like 14mm creates a different look and effect as it gets in far more of the subject therefore information compared to say a long lens.
Use the lens fit for the purpose, super wide lenses have a strong place especially in creating dramatic wide photos.
I can take a wide mountain shot, then use the 300 32.8 to cut a section out of the mountain as a separate shot, again all just tools, no right or wrong here.
Portraiture shots i can use a 85mm 1.4 yes a 16mm Fish Eye even or a 300mm F2.8, it depends on what i want to achieve.

Only an opinion