FrankS
Registered User
I use a 50mm lens for 95% of my shots including landscapes. Misty Lake in my gallery was made with a J-8. Hope you find this info helpful.
VinceC
Veteran
>>...long lenses do not compress depth. Standing at the same spot and aiming the camera in the same direction, take a picture with a 135mm and a 35mm. If you crop the 35mm shot so that it has the same field of view as the 135mm shot, they will look exactly the same as regards perspective/depth. If you don't believe me, try it and see for yourself.<<
That is correct. But a longer lens allows you to create a usable image from only the compressed area of your field of view instead of, say, cropping out 95 percent of the frame. The wider lens captures the compressed area as well as lots of other areas. The 135mm is particularly useful because it's in the realm where compression and flattening start to really be noticeable as an element of composition in the 35mm film format.
That is correct. But a longer lens allows you to create a usable image from only the compressed area of your field of view instead of, say, cropping out 95 percent of the frame. The wider lens captures the compressed area as well as lots of other areas. The 135mm is particularly useful because it's in the realm where compression and flattening start to really be noticeable as an element of composition in the 35mm film format.
richard_l
Well-known
Very well stated, Vince.
K
Kin Lau
Guest
richard_l said:
True if you're cropping down to the centre, but that would be because you've cut out everything that's closer. Try cropping down to only 1 corner, and you'll see the effect much better... of course, not many of us would shoot that way. The whole point of using a wide angle often to include something of interest in the foreground, and a tele to isolate. I find wides hard to shoot with for this reason, finding that shot/scene with good foreground, middle and background to hold the interest, unless I do some creative cropping and end up with a panoramic image instead.
VinceC
Veteran
In my experience, the human eye tends to isloate the subject it is looking at, even if much else is in the field of view. That's one reason why many people like the look of midrange telephotos.
Also, for an example of how a wide-angle lens behaves when cropped, check out point-and-shoot digital cameras. My Canon G1 uses a 7mm to 21mm zoom to accomplish the equivalent of 30mm to 100mm lenses, because the sensor is so much smaller than 35mm film. The 21mm lens is capable of very pleasing portraits, but it's very hard to isolate the subject from background because of extreme depth of field.
Also, for an example of how a wide-angle lens behaves when cropped, check out point-and-shoot digital cameras. My Canon G1 uses a 7mm to 21mm zoom to accomplish the equivalent of 30mm to 100mm lenses, because the sensor is so much smaller than 35mm film. The 21mm lens is capable of very pleasing portraits, but it's very hard to isolate the subject from background because of extreme depth of field.
sf
Veteran
long or short for landscapes. . .
long or short for landscapes. . .
It depends on the nature of the scene. Sometimes, I certainly wish I had a long lens for my 4x5, because the beauty of the trees on the lake is diminished by an excessively wide shot. Sometimes, I am glad I shoot at 75mm (4x5) because I like its capabilities with city shots and with emphasizing foreground object, skies, etc.
SOmetimes, I will angle the lens down and get lots of foreground and leave the actual subject in the top third of the frame, or grab lots of sky and leave the subject at the bottom third, or fourth, etc. The use of the lens depends on what you want to accomplish. Shooting flowers, I like the telephoto / macro. But sometimes, the wide angle is nice because it can bring the world around the subject into the frame.
It depends.
long or short for landscapes. . .
It depends on the nature of the scene. Sometimes, I certainly wish I had a long lens for my 4x5, because the beauty of the trees on the lake is diminished by an excessively wide shot. Sometimes, I am glad I shoot at 75mm (4x5) because I like its capabilities with city shots and with emphasizing foreground object, skies, etc.
SOmetimes, I will angle the lens down and get lots of foreground and leave the actual subject in the top third of the frame, or grab lots of sky and leave the subject at the bottom third, or fourth, etc. The use of the lens depends on what you want to accomplish. Shooting flowers, I like the telephoto / macro. But sometimes, the wide angle is nice because it can bring the world around the subject into the frame.
It depends.
richard_l
Well-known
Yes, the flattening effect is due entirely to the distance from the camera to the subject. I just wanted to make the point that the flattening effect has nothing to do with the focal length of the lens (except indirectly, as it pertains to the field of view).Kin Lau said:
In the same way, a wide lens appears to exaggerate perspective (the big nose effect) only because we tend to move in closer to the subject with such a lens. A longer lens used at the same distance would show exactly the same exaggerated perspective. Perspective changes due to distance are mathematical phenomena resulting from projecting a 3-dimensional scene onto a 2-dimensional plane (the film plane).
As stated succinctly in the National Geographic Photography Field Guide, "In truth, perspective depends on the distance from the camera to the subject."
Richard
Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
Many thanks for all contributions, I agree (almost) to all and and everything ! And I am very surprised that opposite to my expectation the wide-patrty has only 32% !! I had expected around 65 or so.
It confirms that my thoughts are going in the right direction now, but it confirms also that again I have found out a truth others have found out a long time ago !!
))
@Han: Enjoyed your careful description of what and how and I visited your galleries too and I was really impressed !! A bunch of perfect landscapes, perfect also the monitor presentation, a pleasure to watch these pics. !! Somehow the landscape looks pretty familiar to me, is that in Germany?
Best regards to all,
Bertram
It confirms that my thoughts are going in the right direction now, but it confirms also that again I have found out a truth others have found out a long time ago !!
))@Han: Enjoyed your careful description of what and how and I visited your galleries too and I was really impressed !! A bunch of perfect landscapes, perfect also the monitor presentation, a pleasure to watch these pics. !! Somehow the landscape looks pretty familiar to me, is that in Germany?
Best regards to all,
Bertram
peter_n
Veteran
A long focus lens can be really useful if you have subject matter that contains unusual juxtapositions, for example a boat and buildings.
J. Borger
Well-known
Bertram2 said:
Almost Bertram .... i live in the most southern part of the Netherlands close to the border. About 5 miles from Aachen.
For urban shooting i am mostly off to Cologne or Duesseldorf ....... 3/4 of an hour drive from my home.
THe landscapes were all taken on the dutch side of the border though. The dutch "hills" ..... squeezed between Eifel and Ardennes.
Kind Regards
Han
Poptart
Screw Loose & Fancy-Free
Unless there's somebody naked in the frame I'm not usually too keen on "landscape" photography.
Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
Ah, interesting, it's a shame but I really did not know that there are such hills up there. You caught it all very nicely, both albums have a constant top quality,J. Borger said:
"all for the wall"
Best,
Bertram
R
Roman
Guest
Does anybody remember that 1980s pop son 'In the Dutch Mountains' by The Nits?
Roman
Roman
J. Borger
Well-known
Bertram .... thanks for the compliment.
Roman ... yes .. i remember the song .... did not know the Nits were known as far as Austria.
To clarify on the geography..... within a circle of approx 30-40 km you can see ALL of our dutch "hills" . It really is a small area.
Highest pount is about 325 meters above sea level.
Besides these natural hills we have some other mountains, also only in this part of the country, ......... some relics from the past ....called coal mountains! For outsiders sometimes hard to distinguish nowadays ....
Kind Regards
Han
Roman ... yes .. i remember the song .... did not know the Nits were known as far as Austria.
To clarify on the geography..... within a circle of approx 30-40 km you can see ALL of our dutch "hills" . It really is a small area.
Highest pount is about 325 meters above sea level.
Besides these natural hills we have some other mountains, also only in this part of the country, ......... some relics from the past ....called coal mountains! For outsiders sometimes hard to distinguish nowadays ....
Kind Regards
Han
PeterL
--
I'm afraid that I can't vote in your poll, because my lens selection depends on the situation and the landscape. I've used anything from 28mm to 200mm for landscape with success varying more with how I coped with the situation, than with the lens length. And those are resp. the widest & the longest lens I haveBertram2 said:
I've never used my 200mm for anything but landscape and a few beach shots, taken in the week after I bought it, because I hated carrying that big a lens around Peter.
S
scottmcl
Guest
I don't shoot a ton of landscape except for vacations and weekend trips. But I find the 135mm focal length just about perfect for "selective landscape." It just seems to match up with what my eyes see.
My 135 isn't an RF lens, it's a Nikkor 135/2.8 AIS which I shoot with an FM3.
My 135 isn't an RF lens, it's a Nikkor 135/2.8 AIS which I shoot with an FM3.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Stuart demonstrated what I learned from my tutor a long time ago. A short tele is really good for mountains and similar environments, as it compresses space and emphasizes the size of the background elements. But in a crowded scene such as a forest or woods, or when showing wildflowers close in a meadow, a wide angle is wonderful.
yossarian
Well-known
I live in Florida. Scenics can no longer be photographed here. Unless you are prepared to Photoshop out all the condos. But when I made trips to Arizona, too
many years ago, nearly everything was wide. It makes compositions more complicated, but it just felt right to me.
Fred
many years ago, nearly everything was wide. It makes compositions more complicated, but it just felt right to me.
Fred
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
I use different focal lengths depending on where I am and what I want to do. I have to agree that short telephotos are good in the mountains.
Nikon Bob
Nikon Bob
F
FrankG
Guest
Generally, I use a "normal" for landscapes but often use a short tele as well---to zoom in a bit on the nice portion of the landscape. I guess about 60% with a normal, 40% with a tele. I never use a wide for this kind of shooting but sometimes I miss a good shot because the lack of one.