Landscape photography: Opinions on format and shortest focal length

[jamais]

Which format and which shortest focal length do / would you prefer for MF landscape photography and why?

- A 6x6 camera with 40mm lens or
- a 6x7 camera (6x6 capable) with 50mm lens?
- Other?

Thank you.

 

[wlewisiii]

6x9 with a 105 produced the best MF landscapes I've done. That said, I prefer 4x5 and my 127 Ektar or 135 Tessar or else my Leica and a 50 these days.

MF gives extra weight & cost for little extra benefit, for me, in landscapes. I either want something I can easily carry someplace or I want something I can contact print and 4x5 is the minimum for that. If I could afford to, I'd probably make the jump to an 8x10 and a Turner-Reich Triple Convertible.

William

 

[ferider]

40 on 6x6 is too wide for most landscapes.

 

[barnwulf]

I shot landscapes for several years. I used a Pentax 67II and usually used a 55 to 75mm lens. I had a 45mm lens but rarely used it. Sometimes I used a 135mm or even a 165mm. I don't think I would want to go out with a fixed lens but it's a personal preference. There are some very famous landscape photographers that used only 35mm format, Art Wolfe and John Shaw to name a couple. I liked the 6X7 format myself. I later used a Nikon D300 and D700. You could use a 50mm on a 6X7 or even on a 6X6 it just depends on your shooting preference. Some prefer the shorter lens on a 6X6. There is no right answer here. Good luck with what ever you pick. - jim

 

[barnwulf]

I would only choose a ultra wide angle lens for a special situation. I didn't feel ultrawide angles were that useful for me most of the time. - jim

 

[Doug]

Normal-to-long lenses are quite useful in landscape photography, and so are zoom lenses since shooting location is often restricted and it may take a lot of moving to affect the perspective much. Back when I still subscribed to Modern/Popular Photo, the landscape columnist used a Pentax 645 with zooms as I recall; his choice of portability with IQ.

I would not choose a 6x6 format, but that's just my own dislike of square! 🙂

 

[filmfan]

Most definitely none of the above.
I like the 80mm lense on 645 (Mamiya) and 75mm lens on 6x6 (Rolleiflex) the most for landscapes. I think these are somewhere around a 50mm focal length in 35mm format.

 

[PKR]

I would pick which ever lens worked best for the scene at hand and the format in use.

Is this a serious thread.. ?

 

[Matus]

I find that 6x6 is in general not the most suitable format for classical landscapes. However very interesting compositions can be done on square format. For the wide lenses - the widest I have for 6x6 is 50mm and for landscapes it is mostly wide enough (for other uses I would love to have a wider lens too). Needles to say I ahve only 50, 75 and 150 lenses.

with 4x5 I use mostly 125 and 240 lenses, but I also use 75 and 400. With 6x6 50 and 75 probably see the most use for landscapes. For panoramic shots (stitched from several 6x6 shots) 75 would be my main choice.

The very wide lenses (like 75 with 4x5 format) usually get used if I am closer to the subject - like THIS ONE

 

[Bingley]

While middle format and large format work great, there's no reason you can't make good landscape photos using 35mm.

In terms of lenses, I prefer a "normal" lens for most landscape photography, but also occasionally use a moderate wide when the need arises.

 

[jamesdfloyd]

What I used today...

Mamiya 645 w/ 35mm (approximately 24mm on a 35mm format). But I do second wlewisiii, as I like 6x9 format on a 4x5 camera with 90mm lens...incredible options with that combination.

 

[oftheherd]

A 6x9 folder will give good landscapes. A normal lens with whatever format will give good landscapes. If you have an interchangeable lens camera, you have the option of choosing what will work best for the landscape that presents itself. I have used 35mm cameras with normal, down to 18mm lenses. I have used 6x6 TLR and been happy to have it. Go with what gives you the results you like best.

 

[chris000]

I would pick which ever lens worked best for the scene at hand and the format in use.

That would be my answer too.

By their very nature the more extreme wide angles (or indeed extreme telephotos if you have one) are probably less often used than those nearer to mid range, but if the scene needs it I would use it.

 

[semilog]

It depends on your style. I will say that the "I got an ultrawide and here's a thingy in the foreground and here's a distant thingy in the background and the saturation is Velvia-like and I used a split-ND filter (or worse, HDR)" thing is getting pretty old, IMO.

Especially when there's water blurred to mist by a loooong exposure. I'm especially tired of that.

Not to say that there is not original work to be done in that mode. But it's getting harder.

 

[narsuitus]

I prefer a 65mm lens (28mm equiv on 35mm) on a 6x9cm format because ...

1. The large image size gives me the detail I want.

2. The rectangular format gives me the shape I want.

3. The lens gives me the angle-of-view that I want.

4. The camera size is a good compromise between the large format camera and the small format camera.

 

[Brian Legge]

For those arguing 'whatever is appropriate', would the question be more palatable if phrased as 'what focal length do you use most frequently?'.

I picked up a Bronica SQA a while ago partly for landscape photography. I love TLRs but wanted the ability to go wider at times. That meant needing to pick a lens I thought would be most frequently useful, as I don't have the money or desire right now to invest in several. I ended up adding a 50mm to the 80mm that came with the kit. It would have made sense to talk with others with similar styles to see if they had a suggestion for a single lens addition to the normal lens.

 

[pvdhaar]

When I still shot on 6x6, I never felt restricted by the 80mm for landscapes. An 80mm on 6x6 already feels wider than a 50mm lens on small format. And when you're shooting in a country that's essentially as flat as a pancake, anything too wide makes for uninteresting shots, as it's so difficult to pull off the near-far thing. Instead, I'd take a 2x converter along to isolate details, or to compress a layered view.

 

[FrozenInTime]

I managed for many years with just the 80mm and took just it to Australia and New Zealand and was perfectly happy.
On a outback trip along the Gibb river dirt trail to Broome, there was a fellow Hasselblad user with just a 50mm.
We swapped lenses from time to time, but I was happiest with my 80mm and he his 50mm.

Now, if pressed to choose it would be the 60mm, with the 38mm a close second.
I cannot explain why, but the 50mm still sits uncomfortably in the middle and I find it the most difficult to use.

I plotted this as I find it easier to compare horizontal angles of view rather than diagonal angles especially when there is an aspect ratio change.

 

[mfogiel]

More often than not, I find the equivlent of a 35mm lens on the 135 format to be most useful for landscapes. In Hasselbladland, this translates to either the 60mm or 50mm lens. Here are a couple of examples:
60mm:

50mm:

 

[chris000]

For those arguing 'whatever is appropriate', would the question be more palatable if phrased as 'what focal length do you use most frequently?'

I was thinking that the 'whatever is appropriate' answer was errr.... appropriate. 😀

However, in my case shooting 6x7:

Most used wide angle 65mm

Also used (reasonably frequently) 43mm