Which lens is best suitable for mountain top photography?

[narsuitus]

If forced to limit myself to one prime lens on a full-frame camera, my first choice would be a 35mm and a 28mm would be my second choice.

 

[Jdsegra]

Location matters a lot.. I personally think a 35 would be the most versatile, but I'm a 35mm guy.

My wife and I went to Iceland last summer. It was beautiful, but because of the terain, I hardly ever reached for my 21.. There were mountains everywhere. Due to the lack of trees, you could see stuff way in the distance, but it was really difficult to get an interesting foreground subject when the thing that was taking your breath away was 15-30 miles ahead. I shot much more at 50-85mm that trip.

 

[retinax]

Location matters a lot.. I personally think a 35 would be the most versatile, but I'm a 35mm guy.

My wife and I went to Iceland last summer. It was beautiful, but because of the terain, I hardly ever reached for my 21.. There were mountains everywhere. Due to the lack of trees, you could see stuff way in the distance, but it was really difficult to get an interesting foreground subject when the thing that was taking your breath away was 15-30 miles ahead. I shot much more at 50-85mm that trip.

I had exactly the same experience in Iceland. In the alps, a bit shorter will work well though.

 

[xia_ke]

If only one lens, I always go 35mm. My favorite combo is 28mm and 50mm. I tend to go fast and light though. If I'm just leisurely hiking/backpacking, I will take additional options like second body plus a 20mm and/or 80-200mm. The latter 2 lenses though I find more useful for people shots than I do capturing the landscape.

 

[ColSebastianMoran]

Wow. Great thread.

Definitely UV at altitude. A must.

Focal length greatly depends on what you are shooting. From super-wide to medium tele.

Key for me is the sky. If the sky is good, then I'll often want a medium-wide.

 

[pepeguitarra]

Leica M 21mm f2.8

Leica M 21mm f2.8

Alquézar by carnuzo, on Flickr

 

[Phil_F_NM]

No one has mentioned the Mountain Elmar... 🙄

Phil Forrest

 

[peterm1]

No one has mentioned the Mountain Elmar... 🙄

Phil Forrest

:^) I was considering mentioning it doing so would have been in jest too (I assume yours is) given how hard it is to find them (and to buy them no doubt, given they are collectors items). I have seen exactly one in 30 years and that was probably 20 years ago in a private (not for sale) collection of Leica LTM lenses in a display case of a camera store specializing in Leica in Melbourne Australia. Besides I have no idea how one might perform in practice.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

:^) I was considering mentioning it doing so would have been in jest too (I assume yours is) given how hard it is to find them (and to buy them no doubt, given they are collectors items). I have seen exactly one in 30 years and that was probably 20 years ago in a private (not for sale) collection of Leica LTM lenses in a display case of a camera store specializing in Leica in Melbourne Australia. Besides I have no idea how one might perform in practice.

I've seen one in my life as well. That was back in Camarillo, California in early 2004, if I recall correctly. It was a small lens, surprisingly so. Pretty light too. It was in the same estate sale load that I saw an original 8.5cm Summarex with caps, hood, the whole meal deal.

Phil

 

[JB-Dancer]

Peter M and Phil,

10.5cm f6.3 Mountain Elmars.
Not as scarce as you think,here are 4 available now.

See:- http://www.leicashop.com/vintage_en/leica/leica-screw-mount-lenses/mountain-elmar-6-3-105mm.html

 

[raid]

I do not like to change lenses frequently....so my most used in the Alps are my 50 and 35.

here 50 on M 7

and here is the equivalent of 35 ( it's 24 on aps-c sensor of the Leica x1)

This is th CV 12/f 5.6 on the Bessa R

On the other side if you like details this is the 75 cv always on the Bessa R

At the end it depends a lot on you photographic style. In your case I think 35 + an alternative wider or small tele could be the ideal solution.

Gear can be heavy...do not forget 🙂

robert

Robert: Thank you for the posted images (and Thanks to all who have posted here), and for your tips. I am tempted to use the newly purchased 16mm/8 plus 35/1.4 and maybe a small and light 90/4 thrown in too. That would be 3 small lenses. I know that heavy equipment removes all fun from walks.

 

[raid]

Raid, I have used a 24mm lens extensively in the Rocky Mountains, and the San Juan Mountains of Colorado. I have seldom found a use for anything wider. But the trick is that you must include something interesting in the foreground. The distant mountain ranges will appear too small if it is to be the main subject. But if there is something of interest in the foreground, then it works.

And as always, the 35mm lens must always be in the bag, as well as frequently on the camera.

Let me see if I can scan some chromes soon to illustrate my point.

The 16/8 could be on the M8 for a 21mm view while the 35 could be on the M9.

 

[raid]

Raid,

When I used to photograph the Colorado mountains, I used 28mm, 50mm and a 135mm in my film days. Later on digital, In used a Sony R1 with a zoom lens with the equivalent 24-120mm. I found that more than adequate, and I often shoot at the wider end. So I'd suggest that you choose your prime lenses within that range.

I often shoot at around 12,000- 14,000 ft. above sea level. With digital, I often didn't use a polarizing filter, but at those elevations, the sky will naturally be rendered darker than shooting from sea level. So if I used a polarizing filter at all, I likely would not turn it to its maximum power. I had made the mistake when I used film in my younger days---the strong action of the polarizing filter that I used almost turned the sky black.

Panoramic shots are very suitable for that type of landscape. However, if you used a polarizing filter, you'd better re-adjust the strength of your polarizing filter after a shot or two. Otherwise you'd end up with very uneven skies on the horizontal plane. I'd say that you should use a tripod when you need to make those adjustments along the way.

Granted, most of the mountains in Switzerland are not as high. I remember the one that I visited (Mt. Titlis) was just a bit over 11,000 ft. But you still should have a strong UV filter for that.

Tin

I will have my iPhone8 plus with me for panorama shots. The Hologon is a new lens to me, and if my (local) practicing with it works out well, I will take it with me on the trip for vast mountain scenes that deserve such a lens (which of course is also lots of enjoyment for me).

 

[wes loder]

Using Nikkors

Using Nikkors

Here are three images taken by my wife and I in the Summer of 1972 when we were doing spec photography in the Gros Ventre Range in Northwestern Wyoming. The first shows us on the summit of Sheep Mountain. 28mm W-Nikkor on Nikon SP. Second image shows the Jackson Hole and Teton Range from Sheep Mountain. Third image is same view as second image but using a 400mm Tele-Nikkor on a Nikon F. I found that a range of lenses all could produce good mountain photography.

 

[raid]

You were brave to haul along a 400mm lens! I chicken out at my age now. I used to bring with me the Canon 500/4.5L and the Canon 300/4 plus other lenses. Times change.

 

[Dralowid]

No one has mentioned the Mountain Elmar... 🙄

Phil Forrest

I touched on it in post 40 but there were no takers. I don't have one anymore but from memory it was a fine and light little lens.

 

[raid]

It is these days an expensive lens too.

 

[Bingley]

You might check out the photography of the late Galen Rowell, who traveled extensively in the Himalayas, Alps, and U.S. mountains. He shot Nikon film SLRs and often used a 24mm lens paired with a modest telephoto, like 85mm.

When out hiking in the Sierra Nevada mountains in CA, my kit is usually a Leica IIIc with a 28 and 50, and a pocket camera (Rollei 35 or Olympus XA) for color film. But I can see the utility of swapping the 50 for 75 or even a 90, depending on where you're going.

 

[raid]

Galen R used the Nikon 75-150 cheap (but very sharp) zoom and the 24, as you said, Steve. I have several of his books.

 

[DwF]

With my Fuji, I carried the 55-200 for landscapes with mountains and realized that shooting at about 100mm was good. Of course if I was in the mountains a wider angle lens would be in order. This is with my 90mm Elmarit f 2.8 on the Fuji XE 2 taken at sunset on New Years Day 2016. Mount Baker and Bellingham Washington