Landscape Prime Lens

[squirrel$$$bandit]

+1 for trying a short tele or zoom! You usually don't need something terribly fast, and a zoom would give you plenty of flexibility.

the Martin Parr "large litter bin in front of diminutive scenery" school

heh heh

 

[Godfrey]

I most often shoot landscapes with normal to portrait tele focal lengths. A 75-90mm lens produces what I like in landscapes most of the time. Sometimes, I use a 600mm mirror lens...

I tend to shoot close-in subjects with ultrawides.

G

 

[Roger Hicks]

+1 for trying a short tele or zoom! You usually don't need something terribly fast, and a zoom would give you plenty of flexibility.

Indeed. Remember the 105/6,3 "Mountain Elmar".

I quite like my 135/2.8 Elmarit-M.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Bingley]

My go to focal length for landscapes with 35mm film is a 50.

Jellys Ferry Road by bingley0522, on Flickr

 

[Vics]

John Shaw used to say start with 24mm and go up in rough doubles, like 24, 50, 105, 200, etc., making either the 50 or the 105 a macro (55tmm micro Nikkor 3.5 works well.)

 

[Jockos]

My go to focal length for landscapes with 35mm film is a 50.

Jellys Ferry Road by bingley0522, on Flickr

Had you used a 90mm, you could have avoided the distracting shador in lower right, just sayin'

 

[Ronald M]

As the lens gets wider, the contents gets smaller and smaller. 24 may be a better choice than 28, but that horse is out of the barn.

I would suggest a 90 or perhaps 75.

I have been a landscape guy for 50+ years, and ultra wide is seldom used. Buy a GOOD panoramic set up and pan with 28 or 40. You will get a nice big file that prints well.

 

[Contarama]

I have recently been exploring photography made by people in Singapore. They are the masters at super wide angle. Their landscapes are more cityscapes but look at some of their stuff and you will understand.

 

[Bingley]

Had you used a 90mm, you could have avoided the distracting shador in lower right, just sayin'

True, but then it would have been a different sort of photo.