Favorite Focal Length For Landscapes

[chris00nj]

I would concur with a moderate wide (35), normal and 85-100. Wider than 35 makes landscapes too "tiny" ... unless you have a larger, strong foreground object and capture that near/far effect, and a range of mountains captured with wide or normal loses its impact. The normal (50-ish) is for closer, more detailed work.

So I would take 35, 50 and 100 ... though I would be tempted to bring a 21 or 28, I would probably leave them home. And anything longer than 100 is too much bulk for travel.

After consideration about what people wrote and the amount of lenses I want to take, I decided that a four lens kit 21-35-50-135 was too much.

However, if I just dropped the 50, there would be a big gap between the 35 and the 135, so I looked at various small sharp short telephoto lenses. I picked up a Canon 100/3.5 and am forming a 21-35-100 lens kit.

The 90mm framelines on the Bessa is probably close to the actual frame, since it always seem that the framelines are conservative.

I doubt I'll use the 21 that much, but it's so small it's hard not to throw in there.

 

[chris00nj]

I would concur with a moderate wide (35), normal and 85-100. Wider than 35 makes landscapes too "tiny" ... unless you have a larger, strong foreground object and capture that near/far effect, and a range of mountains captured with wide or normal loses its impact. The normal (50-ish) is for closer, more detailed work.

So I would take 35, 50 and 100 ... though I would be tempted to bring a 21 or 28, I would probably leave them home. And anything longer than 100 is too much bulk for travel.

I pretty much glued on my 100. I didn't take a 50, although it would have been useful a few times. I used the 35 a few times for shots with a foreground, but the 21mm was useless. Basically, the opposite of a trip to Europe.