Focal length for landscapes

ymc226

ymc226

Well-known
Local time
1:08 PM
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
319
Kids are growing up and not amenable to having pictures taken.

Am interested in landscapes, using B&W film. Is a more common focal length used for landscapes? I know this is a very general question but can one post examples with focal lengths used.

I have 35mm, 6x6 (Hasselblad), 6x7 (Mamiya 7II) and 6x9 (Fuji 690 GSW and GW III) cameras available. Having many lenses but I would like to limit myself to one main system as I would like to buy only one set of filters.

Besides medium red and yellow, any other filter colors would you suggest? I live in NJ and Nantucket so would have options of foliage and beach as subjects.
 
I would use one of the medium formats because you will just get more out of it... That being said the wider two make more sense for landscapes unless you want a lot of foreground information then the 6x6 would be useful.

Focal length, well sort of depends on how much foreground you want in the photo.

Now lenses.... whatever one has the least diffraction with a high DOF you will be using for landscapes. I have not read up on enough tests about your lenses to know which one.

Wide angles are strange to use for landscapes because it is sort of like fake panoramic. You get too much corner chromatic aberration and compound it with diffraction and it can get ugly depending on the talent of the lens. However if you use a program to correct it then they becomes more useful, but then you are printing and not processing; if you are ok with that.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/dxo/optics-pro.htm
 
Field said:
I would use one of the medium formats because you will just get more out of it... That being said the wider two make more sense for landscapes unless you want a lot of foreground information then the 6x6 would be useful.

Focal length, well sort of depends on how much foreground you want in the photo.

Now lenses.... whatever one has the least diffraction with a high DOF you will be using for landscapes. I have not read up on enough tests about your lenses to know which one.

Wide angles are strange to use for landscapes because it is sort of like fake panoramic. You get too much corner chromatic aberration and compound it with diffraction and it can get ugly depending on the talent of the lens. However if you use a program to correct it then they becomes more useful, but then you are printing and not processing; if you are ok with that.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/dxo/optics-pro.htm
Click to expand...

Thanks for bringing up the issues of the wide angle. For the Mamiya, I have only 2 lenses, an 80 (normal) and 50 (wide).

For the Hasselblads, I have: 40 CFE IF, 50 FE, 80 CFE, 110 FE, 60-120 FE, 150 FE, and 180 CFE. Unfortunately, filter sizes are multiple with either bay 60, 70 or 93 depending on the lens.

I guess the longer focal lenses will work better. Would the 150 or 180 be considered long enough for landscapes?
 
ymc226 said:
Thanks for bringing up the issues of the wide angle. For the Mamiya, I have only 2 lenses, an 80 (normal) and 50 (wide).

For the Hasselblads, I have: 40 CFE IF, 50 FE, 80 CFE, 110 FE, 60-120 FE, 150 FE, and 180 CFE. Unfortunately, filter sizes are multiple with either bay 60, 70 or 93 depending on the lens.

I guess the longer focal lenses will work better. Would the 150 or 180 be considered long enough for landscapes?
Click to expand...

A normal and a long one. 80 + 180 should work well on 6x6, 250 might come in handy.

Roland.
 
Anything can do for landscapes. I am using a combination of wide angle (17mm), 50mm and 135mm. I mostly use 50mm and 135mm.
 
Herjulfr said:
Anything can do for landscapes. I am using a combination of wide angle (17mm), 50mm and 135mm. I mostly use 50mm and 135mm.
Click to expand...

I totally agree. I can do street shooting with just one lens for months, but for landscapes I prefer to carry at least a wide, a normal and a tele.

Cheers,

Juan
 
It all depends on the landscape you are attempting to shoot. In narrow places I prefer to use wide angles, and in some situations the exaggerated perspective adds to the image. My favorite lens (for 35mm cameras) is a 50mm. I have used lenses as long as 300mm in landscapes to compress perspective, but again, it all depends on what you are trying to shoot.

In MF, I use a Pentax 67 with a 90mm lens, though in the city a 75 or 55mm can come in handy.

The king of landscape photography is the large-format camera, with it's ability to control perspective and DOF. I use a couple of LF lenses, a 210mm and a wide-angle 90mm. A Graflex Super Graphic or Super Speed Graphic is a good choice as it is not expensive, and offers a decent range of movements.
 
Most recommended lenses (by tradition/schools) are normal and short tele ones.

But although I can't use one always, going to do landscapes without a wideangle makes me feel "worried"... :) When the place is great or you need foreground/background, it's necessary for communicating a landscape instead of making small crops for compositional fun...

Cheers,

Juan
 
Frontman said:
It all depends on the landscape you are attempting to shoot. In narrow places I prefer to use wide angles, and in some situations the exaggerated perspective adds to the image. My favorite lens (for 35mm cameras) is a 50mm. I have used lenses as long as 300mm in landscapes to compress perspective, but again, it all depends on what you are trying to shoot.

In MF, I use a Pentax 67 with a 90mm lens, though in the city a 75 or 55mm can come in handy.
Click to expand...

Does the exaggerated perspective mean lots of foreground in addition to background and compressed perspective mean just mostly background without too much foreground?
 
ymc226 said:
Thanks for bringing up the issues of the wide angle. For the Mamiya, I have only 2 lenses, an 80 (normal) and 50 (wide).

For the Hasselblads, I have: 40 CFE IF, 50 FE, 80 CFE, 110 FE, 60-120 FE, 150 FE, and 180 CFE. Unfortunately, filter sizes are multiple with either bay 60, 70 or 93 depending on the lens.

I guess the longer focal lenses will work better. Would the 150 or 180 be considered long enough for landscapes?
Click to expand...

You have these lenses? Why don't you try them and find which work best for you and your vision. There is no objective answer to your question that someone else can give you.
 
How big of prints do you want to make? How serious are these? I think those questions might control what you do.

Large format... mmm so good for landscape.
 
Although in B&W landscape generally the bigger the negative, the better, you should also ask yourself a question, if you really want to print that large... I have chosen to go the Hasselblad route for MF, as it is the most flexible. I have several lenses, including SWC, but for a standard landscape outfit, I go out with a 50mm CF FLE, 100mm CF, 180mmCF and a 2x Mutar in my bag. I find the 100 Planar to be superior to the 80 one, the 180 Sonnar is almost as good, and the 50 FLE is as good as it gets for a moderate wide. This way I keep The same Bay 60 filter size, and I normally use yellow, orange, red, and sometimes a green filter if I want to brighten the foliage. The Fuji will give you a bigger negative, but you have to lug two bodies, and you won't have a telephoto option, the Mamiya is better, but it also lacks in the tele department, and it is limiting if you want to do any close up work. Given that you have a great lens - the 40mm, you might also consider the option of this set up:40mm, 60-120, 180mm, and the 2x mutar.
Here are some examples:
SWC+orange filter
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/2372223050/
50mm+ orange filter
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/1151897301/
60mm no filter
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/1080469249/
80mm no filter
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/2478343223/
100mm no filter
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/1454135399/
120mm no filter
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/2925138084/
135mm no filter
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/2239631967/
150mm green filter
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/2655823670/
180mm no filter
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/6075708271/
250mm no filter
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/2358481267/
180mm+2x Mutar+red filter
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/5366773968/
250mm+2x Mutar
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/3915032310/
 
Last edited:
I mainly shoot 35mm (or digital crop format) and find I mainly shoot standard and short tele's. I have some wider lenses but they seem not to suit my style of shooting so I find I do not use them all that much except when in a tight space - I often like details even in landscapes so the longer lenses suit that well. I imagine the smae principle applies for medium format.
 
As usual, opinions do vary :)



It's a 28mm "wide" image, but for such landscapes it is not enough to represent the personal impression when I stood there. I really need more FoV. Definitly looking for 15mm lens. Or do I need an X-Pan? :cool:
 
I personally have always used 35mm cameras and lenses. For mountain landscape and climbing photography I used 35mm lens and 85mm lens. A small telephoto can make a landscape a little more punchy. As far as equipment is concerned. I believe the innovator is still streets ahead of all the other manufacturers. You also need to go as simple as possible. My M6's work without batteries and you don't need fast lenses. Filters for B&W Yellow, Orange, Red, Green, Blue and UV. For colour slide a UV will be fine after all you do not want to change your view but you might want to enhance it
 
I'd be awfully tempted to start with the Fuji. If that works for you, the fixed lens gives you the simplicity you suggested you were looking for. You can alternate the two to see which you like. If the fuji doesn't work for you, move to the Mamiya.
You might find the weight of one Fuji is not a problem. Or if it is, you might use the Fuji one short trips or in cars and develop a 35mm outfit.
Half the fun will be getting to know the systems as you decide what works for you.
Giorgio
 
mfogiel said:
Although in B&W landscape generally the bigger the negative, the better, you should also ask yourself a question, if you really want to print that large... I have chosen to go the Hasselblad route for MF, as it is the most flexible. I have several lenses, including SWC, but for a standard landscape outfit, I go out with a 50mm CF FLE, 100mm CF, 180mmCF and a 2x Mutar in my bag. I find the 100 Planar to be superior to the 80 one, the 180 Sonnar is almost as good, and the 50 FLE is as good as it gets for a moderate wide. This way I keep The same Bay 60 filter size, and I normally use yellow, orange, red, and sometimes a green filter if I want to brighten the foliage. The Fuji will give you a bigger negative, but you have to lug two bodies, and you won't have a telephoto option, the Mamiya is better, but it also lacks in the tele department, and it is limiting if you want to do any close up work. Given that you have a great lens - the 40mm, you might also consider the option of this set up:40mm, 60-120, 180mm, and the 2x mutar.
Here are some examples:
SWC+orange filter
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/2372223050/
50mm+ orange filter
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/1151897301/
60mm no filter
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/1080469249/
80mm no filter
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/2478343223/
100mm no filter
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/1454135399/
120mm no filter
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/2925138084/
135mm no filter
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/2239631967/
150mm green filter
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/2655823670/
180mm no filter
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/6075708271/
250mm no filter
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/2358481267/
180mm+2x Mutar+red filter
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/5366773968/
250mm+2x Mutar
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/3915032310/
Click to expand...


All great examples. I forgot I do have SWC's to play with as well. Is it me or is there less distortion in the SWC example compared to the picture taken with the 50?

Given my preference to the pictures taken with longer focal lengths, I am probably going to start with the Hasselblad using the 150/180.
 
ymc226 said:
I am probably going to start with the Hasselblad using the 150/180.
Click to expand...

I think you've answered your own question. Forget the angst and forget the filters. Go out and take comparative photos with a selection of lenses and bodies and see how you like the results. That's more important than seeking technical perfection in lenses. Having at least narrowed the choices by practical field work you can look at the filter issue. But it might not be as simple as you wish. I tried it once and the filter I wanted was always mounted on anther lens!
Choose the format and accompanying lenses first, then think about the filters you might need for them, rather than trying to make your lens choice starting with a forced criteria of a single filter size.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top