Long lens for isolating/flattening landscape, impractical with RF?

[nightfly]

I'm a longtime 28 or 35mm street photographer but getting a bit more interested in longer lenses for isolating and flattening subjects for landscape or more abstract street work.

An RF was a great choice for 28 or 35 but does it become the wrong tool for the job for work like Franco Fontana:

http://www.photoandcontemporary.com/artistartworks.aspx?ar=3

Wondering if a 75 or 90 could get this sort of effect or if it's time to pick up an SLR and a long zoom after years of wanting nothing to do with them.

Incidentally Fontana claims to use just a a 17–35mm zoom, a 35–350mm, and a 14mm prime lens (Canon film).

Think of this for travel so want things as small and light as possible.

 

[NeeZee]

Most of this looks longer than 90mm at a first glance. Using telephoto lenses is not really a strength of RF's but if you don't like SLR's - why not? I think it doesn't matter much for landscape where you usually have more time to prepare each shot than on the street. Also, if you have a camera that can mount LTM lenses, you can get 135 or 90mm lenses for not too much money...

 

[Brian Legge]

It depends on how much you crop. 😉

I'm not sure what focal length was used for those photos. Assuming they are full frame and uncropped, I'd wager something longer than 200mm. I'd go with an SLR and something in the 300mm or higher range.

Edit: From this site, "Fontana relies on a Canon 35mm film camera and uses only three lenses: a 17–35mm zoom, a 35–350mm, and a 14mm prime lens"

 

[nightfly]

I briefly tried the Leica 135 on my M9 and it worked but it sorta defeated the purpose of having a rangefinder it was so big and heavy.

I have an old Pentax MX, I'm sure I could find a long lens for but I'd probably want something digital as I'm done messing with film for color.

Was thinking the Tele Elmarit 90 would probably be as far as I'd go on RF. I guess in this instance a cropped sensor DSLR would actually be an advantage. Just shudder at the thought of another camera.

 

[Bille]

Incidentally Fontana claims to use just a a 17–35mm zoom, a 35–350mm, and a 14mm prime lens (Canon film).

What´s "just" about a range of 14 to 350mm? 😉

 

[x-ray]

Very nice work! I'd bet he's using a 300 up to 600mm if it's 35mm but it could be a long lens on a 4x5. This is where an slr comes in.

 

[michaelwj]

Wondering if a 75 or 90 could get this sort of effect or if it's time to pick up an SLR and a long zoom after years of wanting nothing to do with them.

No, and Yes.
SLR's are actually good for some things, especially long lenses.

Why not an OM with something like a 4/200? The whole kit could be had for less than a 75 or 90 leica lens.

 

[Godfrey]

I have used two long lenses on the M-P: M-Rokkor 90mm f/4 and Hektor M 135mm f/4.5. Both provide the kind of perspective flattening that I look for occasionally. That's a matter of how you frame. I've also used the Elmar-R 180mm f/4 on the M-P but with Live View and EVF, since it's not rangefinder coupled. It also works very well, although I usually want a tripod for a lens that long and no image stabilization.

These three are fairly petite as long lenses go. When you get to 135/2.8, etc, these long lenses get heavy...

G

 

[nightfly]

I realize I had the 135/2.8 (since sold), which was a beast, the 135/4 might work.

Thinking about it more, I don't think an SLR is tenable for me especially for travel. Maybe an m4/3 something but the 135/4 is a lot easier to stomach.

 

[Rob-F]

A small SLR like an Olympus and a single 135mm lens out to slip into your carry-on bag well enough. C'mon, it's the right thing to do. Using a 135 on an RF sucks. And 90 isn't really long enough.

 

[Doug]

On a trip to Spain many years ago I slipped an Olympus OM into the bag with a 500mm f/8 mirror lens. I didn't use it a lot, mostly shooting with a Minolta CLE, but in open country it was fun to scan around the area and pick out compositions and items of interest. Hard to hold steady. It's a very compact kit for a hike in the country. 🙂

 

[Godfrey]

I realize I had the 135/2.8 (since sold), which was a beast, the 135/4 might work.

Thinking about it more, I don't think an SLR is tenable for me especially for travel. Maybe an m4/3 something but the 135/4 is a lot easier to stomach.

Olympus E-PL7 + 50-150/4-5.6 lens + VF-4 ... up to 300mm eqiv. field of view, image stabilization, very tiny and pretty inexpensive. Cheaper if you go with one of the previous E-PL models (5 or 6) as there are plenty of those going at bargain prices.

G