Ansel's Focal Length - (Blog/Article)

[raydm6]

A lot of this is common knowledge but an interesting analysis on Ansel's choice of focal lengths, technique, and compositional approach:

Ansel's Focal Length — Wine Country Camera

For many, Ansel Adams is considered the greatest landscape photographer of all time. His accomplishments as a fine art photographer are astonishing. In addition to having an impeccable eye for composition and true mastery in printmaking, Ansel also helped develop the zone system of exposure and work

www.winecountry.camera

 

[wlewisiii]

Nice write up though. I am reminded of how I don't care for the modern fashion for superwides in landscapes. I own a couple but use them sparingly. 28 & 50 are my preference by far.

 

[JohnGellings]

I hate the extreme wide trend in landscape photography. I much prefer the way Ansel did it.

 

[Retro-Grouch]

Interesting piece that confirms what I've learned over many years of landscape photography. Originally, I felt that there was no such thing as "too wide", and a lot of that had to do with a desire for easily achieving greater depth of field, rather than seeing. Using a field camera with movements cured me of that habit, as I could then get all the depth I wanted without the imposition of the extreme wide-angle perspective. Now, even with a 'blad that doesn't offer movements, I've settled on the 60mm as my standard; it's the rough equivalent of the 35mm the writer recommends. I'll carry a 50mm and an 80mm, but both (especially the 50) just sit in my bag.
I've reached the point where I just want the subject to speak for itself, rather than have an image that is about how the subject looks when shot with an extreme lens. I suspect that most of us who are serious about our work eventually come to the realization that, with equipment, simpler is better, and less is often more.

 

[Bingley]

Agree with the comments above. My go to landscape lens is a 50 on a 35mm camera. I’ve found 85 to be useful for isolating detail, and 28 to be useful in forest settings. I’ve used the 35mm equivalent focal length a bit (the 60mm Distagon is my go-to lens on my Hasselblad) but the article will inspire me to use that focal length more for landscapes. BTW, Ansel’s famous Moon and Half Dome was made using a Hasselblad and a 250mm lens.

 

[raydm6]

BTW, Ansel’s famous Moon and Half Dome was made using a Hasselblad and a 250mm lens.

I always like his Hasselblad images.

Did he crop this as it is not square? Or did he is a 645 back?

The Story of Moon and Half Dome - The Ansel Adams Gallery

Read the iconic story of Moon and Half Dome by Ansel Adams.

www.anseladams.com

Ansel Adams, Moon and Half Dome, Yosemite National Park

This picture was taken one winter afternoon during a stop while driving towards the Ahwahnee Hotel in the Yosemite Valley. The moon rising above half dome as the shadows of the setting sun were creeping on the dome's 2000 foot cliff drew attention to a picture that could not be missed. The moon here is gibbous - between half full and full. Adams was using a spot light meter with an angle of view of only half a degree so he was able to take a light reading from the moon alone in the scene and placed it in zone VII of his system.

As so often a coloured filter was used to darken the sky relative to other parts of the picture - black and white film tends to be more sensitive to blue light and so photographs including the sky that we perceive as dark come out with the sky being very bright and featureless. On this occasion a strong orange filter was used, the camera being a Hasselblad with a 2 1/4 in square (6cm) negative. This camera being smaller than the 8 x 10 in and 4 x 5 in view cameras usually used, was quicker to set up and use, and more pictures could be taken readily on the film that is stored in the camera on a roll.

The camera was set up on a tripod and the mirror locked out of the way (the Hasselblad is a single lens reflex camera where the photographer views the scene through the taking lens via a mirror which flips up just before the film is exposed) to prevent camera shake during the exposure. Several exposures were taken with different lenses and Adams made his usual notes regarding the development of the film to suit the conditions and his visualization of the final printed image.

Adams photographed Half Dome many times in his career and it appears in many of his most famous pictures. He said that despite this "..it is never the same Half Dome, never the same light or the same mood". Changes in lighting, perspective, cloud and weather change such great features of the landscape so that while familiar, they are forever capricious.

 

[Bingley]

I always like his Hasselblad images.

Did he crop this as it is not square? Or did he is a 645 back?

The Story of Moon and Half Dome - The Ansel Adams Gallery

Read the iconic story of Moon and Half Dome by Ansel Adams.

www.anseladams.com

Ansel Adams, Moon and Half Dome, Yosemite National Park

Ansel cropped the image. His camera had a light leak and this was the only salvageable negative on that roll. I have that on authority from Alan Ross, who prints from Ansel’s negatives for the Ansel Adams gallery. The framed print from this negative is quite beautiful… it jumps off the wall as it were…

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I do most of my own landscape work with longer lenses. Right now, my most-used lens for landscape is a 45-150mm zoom I use on my Olympus OM-D E-M1 mk II. Thats like a 90-300mm on a 35mm or fullframe camera. I can't remember the last time I used a wideangle for a landscape.

 

[wlewisiii]

I took my 17/3.5 along on my drive down the Mississippi in the middle of November because I wanted to see what it's like. I ended up not using it much and the only shots I got that I felt were good were rather "gimmicky" shots (close up of a statue, a train & river tug passing each other at sundown). The rest of the shots were almost all at far more typical 28mm ~ 50mm range with a few more at 105. I'm much more comfortable both in taking and looking at landscapes in those ranges.

 

[Rayt]

Ultra wide angles are necessary if you need to accentuate a key piece of the foreground like boulders or whatever and LF movements really brings it out. Otherwise it just look unnatural and annoying. Just my opinion.

 

[Bingley]

Ultra wide angles are necessary if you need to accentuate a key piece of the foreground like boulders or whatever and LF movements really brings it out. Otherwise it just look unnatural and annoying. Just my opinion.

Galen Rowell’s most used lens was a Nikkor 24mm … and many of his best known photographs taken w/ that lens have a strong foreground element.

 

[Rayt]

Galen Rowell’s most used lens was a Nikkor 24mm … and many of his best known photographs taken w/ that lens have a strong foreground element.

Galen Rowell was brilliant and an inspiration.

 

[x-ray]

I started collecting Ansel’s and others original prints in the 60’s and own an original signed copy of Moon over Halfdome. Beautiful print.

I did a week long workshop with Ansel in 1975. Great experience and learned a great deal. Although I don’t consider myself a landscape photographer his application of visualization applied to much of the photography I’ve done since.

Ansel used a wide variety of focal lengths. I’m not sure he gravitated to any particular FL. It just depended on the scene.

If you’re interested the photo attached is not Ansel's personal lens but one just like the one he used to shoot Moon over Hernandez. It’s a very rare Cooke series XV triple convertible lens. Both front and rear cells combined give a 312mm focal length. The front alone is 645mm focal length and is swapped around to the rear of the shutter and used as a single cell. The rear cell alone and used on the rear of the shutter is 476mm. Notice the 3 aperture scales, one for each FL.

Edit: 300mm on 8x10 is considered a normal with about the same angle of view as a 50mm on a 35mm frame.

Although pictured on my 5x7 the lens covers 8x10 with ample movements.

Many companies made their convertible lenses like the Zeiss B&L Protar and Turner Reich triple convertibles. Different focal length front and rear cells were made and could be combined in different configurations to produce a wide variety of different FL lenses.

Several companies made what was called casket sets which were a variety of different FL with a universal diaphragm and mount. They were supplied in a neat little case that would remind you of a casket, the casket set.

I’ve owned both the B&L Protar Va triple convertible which was an outstanding lens despite a big gouge in the front element and being closer to 100 years old. I’ve also owned several Turner Reich Triple convertibles with some being better than others. Still good lenses though.

The Cooke is the one that’s most highly regarded though. They were produced in small quantities and quite expensive. In the past 15 or so years Cooke made a few more with modern coatings which I believe ruined some of the beauty of the lens. Images from an uncoated lens or lightly single coating have a fuller shadow range. Anyway Cooke only made a few runs if 50 lenses per run. I think the price was north of $5K.

Should anyone be interested I could be talked out of this beauty.

 

[Evergreen States]

I distinctly remember in The Camera Adams mentioning that he tended away from moderate focal lengths and more towards dramatic wides and telephotos.

 

[DownUnder]

Nice write up though. I am reminded of how I don't care for the modern fashion for superwides in landscapes. I own a couple but use them sparingly. 28 & 50 are my preference by far.

This is such an informative thread. Thanks to all who have posted (and those who will, I hope, in future).

I read a lot of this (= what has been posted so far) in the 1980s when I bought all the Ansel Adams original (1950s) photo technique books, found by chance in a rural charity shop and priced as cheap as chips. Many younger photographers here may not know about these outstandingly worthwhile books, so the information we post will surely be of value.

Even in this digi-everything age many of us still do our basic photography as it was done 70+ years ago. My two favorite cameras when I (alas, rarely now due to my age) do street work are a Nikon D800 and a 1952 Voigtlander Perkeo I, for my B&W work on Ilford films the folder outshoots any Nikon F or D by a hundredfold.

As for this thread, like Lewisiii (#2), my two favorite lenses are Nikon D 28 and 50. Like Bingley (#85), I now and then use the 85 for the same purpose(s) or a 180/2.8 ED, a lovely lens but used too little by me, and my recently acquired 300. I also have a 20/2.8, 24/2.8 and 35/2.0, all wonderful lenses but whoever buys these after I pop off will get almost mint items. As you can well imagine, my kit is heavy ...

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Here's some examples of some of my recent landscape work, with info about the focal lengths used.



Micro Four Thirds camera with 45-150mm f4-5.6 Panasonic lens. Shot at 93mm (186mm equivalent). Long lenses let you compress depth to give more dramatic cutoffs between foreground, subject, and background.




Micro Four Thirds camera with 45-150mm f4-5.6 Panasonic lens. Shot at 49mm (98mm equivalent). Long lenses let you isolate a single subject in the landscape.




Micro Four Thirds camera with 7-14mm f2.8 Olympus Pro lens. Shot at 12mm (24mm equivalent). Wideangle lenses are good when you have a prominent subject in the foreground, and you also want a wide vista showing behind it.




Micro Four Thirds camera with 45-150mm f4-5.6 Panasonic lens. Shot at 45mm (90mm equivalent). Long lenses help when an interesting, but small, subject is located in an inaccessible place that prevents you walking close to it; like this beaver lodge 20 feet from the edge of a wetland.




Leica 35mm film camera and 50mm lens. A standard lens worked well for this scene.




Micro Four Thirds camera with 12-40mm f2.8 Olympus Pro lens. Shot at 40mm (80mm equivalent). Normally a wideangle lens is used for scenes like this that have a lot of depth that you want to emphasize. Interestingly, this one was shot with a short-tele focal length!

 

[bjorke]

Musing on this....

A lot of photo tasks seem to lend themselves to prime-length pairs, usually about 2:1.

35+80mm (Ansel?), 28+50mm are common cases.

I find 35+85 to be my usual kit, sometimes 50+90. I used to carry 28/50/90 but can't recall a time when the 28 and 90 were both used on the same day/shoot.

I'm sure others are wiser than I but that was a reason for giving up on zooms, it felt like all the shots were at max-wide or max-tele and not a lot between.

 

[CMur12]

My "normal" lens has generally been an 85mm, complemented by a 28mm for wide angle. I would say I have used these two focal lengths for 90% of my work. In the case of the 28mm, I normally focus it with the DOF scale on the lens, as I'm focusing on an area rather than on a specific object.

In medium format, however, I have been pretty happy with the normal 75 - 80mm focal length.

- Murray

 

[wlewisiii]

Musing on this....

A lot of photo tasks seem to lend themselves to prime-length pairs, usually about 2:1.

35+80mm (Ansel?), 28+50mm are common cases.

I find 35+85 to be my usual kit, sometimes 50+90. I used to carry 28/50/90 but can't recall a time when the 28 and 90 were both used on the same day/shoot.

I'm sure others are wiser than I but that was a reason for giving up on zooms, it felt like all the shots were at max-wide or max-tele and not a lot between.

For me, it depends on the camera I'm carrying.

Leica M 240 - 28, 50 & 90

Nikon D810 - most of the time my 28-105 zoom. I find it ends often in the three usual positions, however.

Nikon F4 - 35, 50 & occasionally 105 manual focus lenses. Rarely I'll take the zoom off the D810. But it really is the best manual focus AF camera ever made

Nikon S2 - 35, 50, 105 - but what else _would_ you use on a Nikon RF?



I've always been predominantly a 50 mm shooter but have been trying to learn 28 & 35 more, especially since I prefer doing landscapes.

 

[bjorke]

Leica M 240 - 28, 50 & 90

Maybe I just have a low tolerance for lens changes 😅 but have never warmed to 90 on M. L-mounted, yeah.

if at a wedding or similar, 35/85, two bodies. Less-intimate event like a rodeo or car show, 28/50, two bodies. Sometime, rarely, 35/50 paired. The wide always gets the bulk of the work, with the longer one mostly for faces.

For a portrait session, just one body, 50/85, and rarely a pre-AI Nikkor 105 for, umm, sentimental reasons (also because the 85 weights a freaking ton). In that case, lens swaps are not a big deal.

I basically never shoot landscape though, and the Ansel split was intriguing. Was he really swapping lengths on the fly, or using one for a long while, then another for a long while.... ? Hard to tell, based on the article.