Lenses for landscapes

[louisb]

I was wondering what lenses R-D1'ers recommend for landscape photography.

I currently own a 28/2.8 Elmarit, 15 CV and a 50 cron. I find that increasingly I am leaving the cron on for everything, including landscapes.

I was wondering if the 21/24/35 asph lenses are worth the money when it comes to landscape photography?

LouisB

 

[peter_n]

I assume that for landscapes one attruibute you look for is edge to edge sharpness (I'm not a landscape photog). I have the 24mm & 35mm ASPH lenses and they are certainly sharp. But the 50mm/f2.8 Elmar-M is also very sharp edge to edge at smaller apertures.

 

[FrankS]

You can do landscapes with any lens from wide angle to telephoto and those in between. You need to find what works for you, not necessarily what works for others.

 

[oscroft]

What Frank says.

Personally, I prefer a longer lens for landscapes (I don't have an R-D1, but my thoughts are general), because I like a more compressed perspective and I like to pick out interesting features and shapes. Other people prefer (and some are brilliant with) wide angle lenses, though I find it hard to use a w/a for landscapes (and I've seen so many very poor "look, there's the sky and there's the ground and there's a distant wavy line in between" attempts at landscapes).

So no, I don't think there can sensibly be any "recommended" lens for landscapes - you simply have to develop your own style and the lens choice will follow.

 

[FrankS]

It kind of depends on the particular landscape you are picturing as well - what you have to work with.

 

[dazedgonebye]

I should think that most decent lenses would work well for you.
FL, of course is a matter of style.
Given the 1.5 crop you are dealing with, edge to edge sharpness shouldn't be a problem on any decent quality lens. Add to that the fact that most landscapes are shot stopped down and the demands on a lens for should be pretty easy to meet.

 

[iml]

I use 50mm for most of my photography, including landscapes (that means a 35mm on the R-D1, given the crop factor), but I like the CV 21/4.0 too, even though it vignettes a lot on the Epson (an effect I often leave in, or minimise by a bit of cropping). It seems to give a FOV around 28mm on the R-D1.

On a film camera I rarely go wider than 35mm, and the full 21mm FOV of the CV 21/4.0 usually feels too wide to me. But it's all down to personal style, as Frank says. For me, an R-D1 with 35mm lens is good for 90% of my digital photography, the 21mm covers the other 10%. I very occasionally use a 50mm on the R-D1, giving a FOV around 75mm, but it never feels quite right to me. Others swear by a mid-telephoto for landscapes, but I've never got comfortable with it.

Ian

 

[Terao]

I've used the 12 and the 21 CVs *a lot*
The more I use them the more I gravitate to tighter lenses though, think I used the 12 about 2% of the time in Portugal recently, shot the 21 a fair bit, and ended up walking around with the 50mm f/1.2 slapped on it most of the time. Looking forward to using the 35mm f/1.2 Nokton that arrived today from Ffordes...

 

[Gid]

Its a personal thing - what you like. I mainly use a 35 on the R-D1, followed by a 50, for just about everything. Sometimes I'll stick the 21 on - gives a sense of openness or scale that is not apparent with longer lenses and can be useful when the main subject is isolated within a large expanse of landscape.

 

[louisb]

Thanks for the input

Thanks for the input

Thanks for all the responses. I just wanted to compare experiences. So far, I've found that my 50 cron, which is really a 75 cron on the R-D1 gives me the best results for landscape shots (actually the best results for most shots).

(Bignor Hill, West Sussex)

R-D1 Summcron 50/2