What is your favorite Lens for Landscape on M8

What is your favorite Lens for Landscape on M8

  • 15mm

    Votes: 27 17.4%

  • 21mm

    Votes: 41 26.5%

  • 24mm

    Votes: 33 21.3%

  • other

    Votes: 54 34.8%
  • Total voters
    155
Roger, after all the work you've published, obviously taken with wide lenses, I'm surprised. 135mm on an M8? That's equivalent to a 180! A bit long for a rangefinder, n'est-ce-pas?
 
Rob-F said:
Roger, after all the work you've published, obviously taken with wide lenses, I'm surprised. 135mm on an M8? That's equivalent to a 180! A bit long for a rangefinder, n'est-ce-pas?
Click to expand...

Dear Rob,

I don't shoot many landscapes!

But surprisingly many of my favourites have been shot with either with 135mm (on film or M8) or 200 (on film -- Nikon F). Others would have been better if they had been. I seldom go into the mountains any more without either a 135mm or a 200mm -- and remember, Leica sold the 105/6.3 as a 'Mountain Elmar'.

In fact, I sold my last 135/2.8 quite a few years ago, then bought another when I borrowed it and tried it on the M8.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
I guess, Roger, that your vision and ability so FAR supercedes mine.
I am just your average guy, shooting my 28 ASPH preferentially.
I love my UC Hexanon on the MP, so that's the landscape kit...
 
oldoc said:
I guess, Roger, that your vision and ability so FAR supercedes mine.
I am just your average guy, shooting my 28 ASPH preferentially.
I love my UC Hexanon on the MP, so that's the landscape kit...
Click to expand...

Dear Michael,

Doubt it. I'm just lazy, and find shorter lenses a lot more difficult to use for landscapes, becase of the yawning empty foregrounds.Obviously a lot depends on what sort of landscapes you shoot: flat farmland, mountains, rolling hills... I've also got a few landscapes I like on 6x17cm, with a 90mm lens, but I just find it easier to use the longer lenses. What surprised me in the original post was the assumption it had to be wide-angles.

Quite honestly, I don't think it matters much -- I'll shoot with whatever I've got -- but if I had to pick a favourite, it would indeed be the 135. Probably followed by a 50, which is also a long way from a wide-angle on an M8. Not 90 or 75, for some reason, unless I don't have a 135 with me.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
I'm surprised at the list of possibles. Why are wide angle lenses considered 'landscape' lenses??

To my mind you need one thing for certain with an ultra wide lens for landscape work, something prominent in the foreground to stop the distant objects looking like a pea on a plate. Thats pretty restrictive and of course makes me wonder what is it thats being photographed, the foreground, or the mountains beyond? OK, thats a simplistic view of things, but I would never use an ultra wide lens for landscape.

Neither do I think the best landscape images through the history of photography are even remotely biased towards wide angle lenses, and probably veer towards 'standard' or telephoto in quantity. The idea that the landscape is everything you can see is very crude and its nearly always the case that less is more.

Edit: forgot to say my favourite lenses are 35mm or 50mm.


Steve
 
Four stitched verticals with a 35mm Summilux. I made a tiny bracket with holes drilled for the nodal point. It turns on the minimalist Novoflex pan plate. Only need it if there's foreground.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Michael,

Doubt it. I'm just lazy, and find shorter lenses a lot more difficult to use for landscapes, becase of the yawning empty foregrounds.Obviously a lot depends on what sort of landscapes you shoot: flat farmland, mountains, rolling hills... I've also got a few landscapes I like on 6x17cm, with a 90mm lens, but I just find it easier to use the longer lenses. What surprised me in the original post was the assumption it had to be wide-angles.

Quite honestly, I don't think it matters much -- I'll shoot with whatever I've got -- but if I had to pick a favourite, it would indeed be the 135. Probably followed by a 50, which is also a long way from a wide-angle on an M8. Not 90 or 75, for some reason, unless I don't have a 135 with me.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...
I am glad I posted the pole. I have learned that a wide angle lens is not the way to go.

Thanks Roger Hicks for informing me and setting me straight. I am still learning.
 
For landscape I enjoy using the Nikkor 10.5/2.5 on the M8.
 
It depends on the landscape.
I am with Roger H. on this one. I live in hillside country with a lot of fences you can not cross. Telelens is the only way to go here... everything below 90mm is pretty useles!
 
I like the foreshortening effect of longer lenses for landscapes. 135 TE and 90 are favourites. The disadvantage can be lugging the gear to the top of hills etc. Hence, I'd suggest the popularity of shorter lenses for wimps.

It can be great fun standing on a vantage point with 560 Telyt and viso (on film only so far), framing strange views and weird foreshortenings. However atmospherics start to impinge and I'm not carrying that lot far either

Michael.
 
ryan: very nice shots. (halong bay in the second one?)

per the thread, i just got an 18mm and am liking it, but i also plan to add a used 135mm at some point. both extremes are good for landscape.
 
I'm with Roger on this one

I'm with Roger on this one

I use either a 90mm or the 135mm. I normally use a polarizer with either. I tried the CV 15, but like Roger, too much foreground. With a SLR, I use anything above a 100mm, but my favorite is the 300mm.
I have even used a 50 on the M8, and it just isn't enough.
 
Absolutely for Roger on landscape lens. My best shots of landscapes came from 135 and 180 on an SLR. IMHO wide angle technically is good but finding that perfect foreground to compliment infinity is something that is not easy to find. Normally, I would get some tree branches or wild grass or a rooftop etc. etc. which is quite irritating.
 
Have used 15, 35, 75 and 135 on M8.
35mm is not quite right.
A good kit would be 15, 24, 135.
I think you neeed each of these possibilities for landscape:
ultra-wide, 18-21mm equiv.
widish normal, 28-35mm equiv.
strong telephoto, 100-180mm equiv.

How can I choose just one from those? The ultra-wide and telephoto are the most dramatic and therefore the most useful in IMHO. The strong telephoto is perhaps the easiest to use because it is easier to isolate details, but it has the disadvantage of introducing problems with haze etc over long distances. It is good for close-ups of vegetation though, so serves double duty...
Okay, I've voted for the ultra-wide because it emphasises foreground detail to give much more of a sense of "being there". It transports you into the location. It allows near-middle-far compositions to be made. It may be harder to use effectively - see the "study in space" excuses some people use for empty foregrounds - but I think it's worth it.

But in reality I would ALWAYS take the 15 and 135 with an M8.... if mine didn't get stollen that is :O(
 
I don't buy into the "wide for landscape"theory. Mostly - at least when I do it-, I end up with a mess of detail all over the image that is neither here nor there. My best landshape shots have all been made with longer lenses, at least 90mm and up to 400.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom