If you were going mountain climbing, would YOU pack a 105mm lens?

[David.Boettcher]

OK this is another one of my dumb questions, but I have dropped the noobie bit - I have been asking these for a while now so I no longer feel that I qualify as a noobie.

A 1933 Leitz brochure "Directions Leica Camera Model II" says that the Elmar 105mm (10.5cm) f/6.3 lens is a "relatively small and light distance lens" weighing 7 ounces, and "is particularly favoured by mountaineers". It goes on to say "Its lesser aperture is in most cases perfectly sufficient, as when photographing distant views one mostly has to stop down to 6.3 in any case, in order to overcome unsharpness which may arise due to distance haze."

We know that the 105mm "Berg" (mountain) Elmar was made by taking a lens already computed for a medium format camera and putting it in a Leica mount, so any suggestion that the lens had been designed from the outset to be a lightweight lens of deliberately modest maximum aperture goes out of the window. And I don't think that you can remove the effects of distance haze by stopping down. To me, the description sounds like typical of what comes out of a marketing department when they are presented with something that the engineering department has already made and they have to dream up some flim-flam to make it sell.

If I were going mountaineering I would personally be more inclined to take a wide angle lens rather than a 105mm long lens.

So my question: If you were going mountain climbing, would YOU pack a 105mm lens?

Regards - David

 

[tj01]

yes. I pack my 90, if I had the 105, I would. It's great for landscape.

 

[peterm1]

Too many photographers suffer from wide angle fever when shooting landscapes. Shoot some longer lenses and get closer. Nine times out of ten you end up with better photos. I personally do not like the tendancy for many scenic photographers to strand back with a wide angle to "fit it all in" It seldom works or conveys a sense of place. IT just ends up with tiny details too small to see and no sense of the grandure of the whole scene.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear David,

Here's yet another vote for longer lenses in mountains, for eactly the reasons Peter gives -- and the big advantage of the Mountain Elmar was that it was tiny and light. In other words, they had a lens that cost nothing to develop and very little to mount; was more than fast enough for landscapes; and might be expected to appeal to walkers, because it was so small and light.

Cheers,

R.

 

[David.Boettcher]

Three out of three so far, very interesting.

How about posting your best landscape/mountain pictures taken with a long lens so that I can see what I have been missing?

Regards - David

 

[maddoc]

I like short tele lenses a lot for mountain climbing, that much that I brought with me my 90/2.0 Summicron-M a couple of times (heavy beast) and later bought a tiny 9cm 1:4 Elmar LTM.

 

[j j]

Apologies for the triple sin of digital, SLR and use of a lens longer than rangefinders...

These are not necessarily my best landscapes, but I like them and they suit this purpose because they are the same subject from the same spot at the same time.

Field of view roughly equivalent to 40mm


humbolt was here by jj birder, on Flickr

Field of view roughly equivalent to 600mm.


fresh white & blue by jj birder, on Flickr

 

[tritiated]

I would, if one was available to me.
Not exactly a mountain and not that long a lens, but here's Prague with a voigtlander 75 2.5

and here is Fuji San and Shinkansen with the same lens

 

[kosta_g]

I would, if one was available to me.
Not exactly a mountain and not that long a lens, but here's Prague with a voigtlander 75 2.5

and here is Fuji San and Shinkansen with the same lens

amazing shots friend, absolutely beautiful light.

 

[Ade-oh]

Here we go: shot in the Spanish Pyrenees a couple of weeks back with an 85mm Nikkor...

 

[MartinP]

Answer is yes. I have a 90mm/f4, but it's the same principle - get rid of boring foregrounds etc. When a person "concentrates on the view" visually, one is often actually looking at an area much smaller than the normal 45 degrees. It helps the photo match what you think was there, if you see what I mean. Sometimes, when you have an especially interesting foreground (the lunchtime brew on a little ledge etc), then a 35mm or wider might be ideal but a longer lens is surprisingly good for distant 'views' or colleagues ahead of you etc. etc.

 

[Vics]

We're going back to SW France in the spring, and I'll be taking a Nikon F kit with 35, 50, 85, and the all-important 105 f2.5. That's about all I can hand-hold. The 105 will shoot about ten pictures in six weeks, but oh, Baby!

 

[Ezzie]

My own favourite mountain landscape was taken with 55-200 zoom @ 90mm on a 1.5x crop digital camera. I agree with Peter and Roger, being able to pick out the more compelling features of a mountain range is often more interesting than fitting the whole sea of mountains into the frame at once.


Matterhorn by Eirik0304, on Flickr

 

[Nikon Bob]

You can't go wrong with a medium telephoto lens in the mountains. Cramming it all in with a wide can diminish majesty of the mountains. Learned that lesson in the Rockies. I would not be without a wide though. I think what Leica did with the mountain Elmar was pretty clever.

 

[MartinP]

Is this the first ever thread where everyone agrees????!!!!
😉

 

[Steve Bellayr]

This depends on what you mean "mountain climbing." If it refers to hiking on a designated trail then there would be no problem with any lens or lenses. However, if you mean, rock climbing with pitons and rapelling then I would put more emphasis on the climbing and the camera secondary. Will you be hanging the camera from a carabiner from your packback? Do you want to hang an M7 with a 90mm Summicron from you packback so that as you ascend you can take those wonderful photos? Back in the day while standing on a 8 inch ledge 150 feet above ground the last thing I needed to concern myself with is a camera. It all depends on the climb.

 

[umcelinho]

Is this the first ever thread where everyone agrees????!!!!
😉

no, i've seen another one tha- ops 🙂

 

[Jeff Day]

I was up by Mont Blanc in the French alps a couple of weeks ago, and what I ended up using the most was a wide angle instead of a tele. My 90 stayed in the bag.

 

[Tompas]

Yes, take it with you. But take a wide also.

 

[Turtle]

longer lenses are very important in mountain photography. While great wide angle shots can be taken, you have to ensure you dont end up with lots of 'field' with some small mole hills in the distance!

If mountaineering, I wold have thought long lenses would be very useful for picking out climbers on distan slopes and showing the individuals in context. I'd want wides too, but leaving out the long lenses would be a really bad idea I think.

I was recently shooting in Connemara (hilly/mountainous) in Ireland and used my wides, but also a short tele a lot. Had I needed to pick out individuals, I would have wanted longer lenses still.