p.1 #1 · How often are you using >200mm for landscapes?
I'm finding myself with an internal debate as to a long lens purchase for general/landscape usage (70-200 vs 100-400). I traditionally favor longer focal lengths for landscapes, however that has been on specific landscape focused trips; because of this in the past I would have easily went for the 100-400. Lately however I'm more and more going on local trips (In the northeast, not near large mountains or expansive locations) and just wanting a bit more reach, and for more general purpose use the 70-200 is becoming appealing. I'm not really worried about wildlife because I have the 180-600 pre-ordered. I also have the 1.4xTC to make anything longer in a pinch.
Both are great options I think I'm struggling as my photography style is changing. There's always cropping, but I'm wondering who among us quite often use longer focal lengths in nature/landscape settings?
p.1 #2 · How often are you using >200mm for landscapes?
I've always preferred a 100-500 or in Nikon case, 100-400 over a 70-200 for landscape. I think it's just having the wider included range (400mm or 300mm covered vs 130mm)
With that being said though, if you already have the 180-600 ordered I would think the 70-200 would make more sense for you
In my mind there is not much point in owning both the 100-400 and the 180-600.
I'm probably about 70/30 for my landscape shooting between telephoto and wide angle. Usually my trips are more wildlife focused, so I have a 100-400 with me at all times which makes shooting quick and easy.
For me, the wide angle stuff requires more planning, ND, CPL filters, tripods, etc. My style of shooting landscape with the telephoto is just long distance, high shutter speed, handheld pop offs.
p.1 #3 · How often are you using >200mm for landscapes?
I really enjoy telephoto landscape myself. That said, for such shots with a high resolution sensor I find there tends to be diminishing returns for a long focal length vs cropping. Often resolution for very *distant* telephoto shots typical in telephoto landscape (as opposed to sports/wildlife) is severely limited by atmospheric scintillation.
As a result on something like a Z7 there is often little gained over cropping at 200mm or 300mm compared to using a longer focal length. As a result I've gone with the Tamron Z 70-300 for my landscape telephoto (paired with the 24-120/4S) as it is substantially lighter and compact compared with the 70-200/2.8 + 1.4x or the 100-400.
Now, of course if you are planning to shoot more than just telephoto landscape then the size/weight of the 70-200/2.8 or 100-400 may be very much worth it! Far more versatile lenses to be sure. But if only thinking about telephoto landscape it seems rare to find atmospheric conditions that support more than 300mm on a 45MP FF sensor.
A possible exception is midday shots where the shutter speed is very high. In this case scintillation results in microscale distortion rather than blurring (i.e. the high shutter speed freezes the blurring). Here a really long focal length can give a perception of sharpness better than cropping, even if everything is a bit wavy at pixel peeping levels. But once you are in twilight and shutter speeds are becoming a substantial fraction a second and longer than the time constant of the scintillation you are essentially getting blurring and a longer focal doesn't help much.
So there is a lot of variation in results depending on conditions. In the most ideal conditions I'm sure longer focal lengths can help, but that is in my experience a fairly rare case. And on a 24 MP sensor longer focal lengths would help as well.
One last note, if using this "cropping" trick the other thing worth doing is averaging multiple exposures in post. These distant telephoto shots often are low contrast and require clarity/contrast boosts in post which amplify shot noise. Cropping in the sense of "equivalence" is like boosting your base ISO as far as noise goes. Averaging can get you back to where you started.
So these days if I'm taking a long telephoto shot I'm likely to shoot at 300mm, crop, and then average four to eight exposures in post.
p.1 #4 · How often are you using >200mm for landscapes?
BPsmith511 wrote:
I'm finding myself with an internal debate as to a long lens purchase for general/landscape usage (70-200 vs 100-400). I traditionally favor longer focal lengths for landscapes, however that has been on specific landscape focused trips; because of this in the past I would have easily went for the 100-400. Lately however I'm more and more going on local trips (In the northeast, not near large mountains or expansive locations) and just wanting a bit more reach, and for more general purpose use the 70-200 is becoming appealing. I'm not really worried about wildlife because I have the 180-600 pre-ordered. I also have the 1.4xTC to make anything longer in a pinch.
Both are great options I think I'm struggling as my photography style is changing. There's always cropping, but I'm wondering who among us quite often use longer focal lengths in nature/landscape settings?...Show more →
I use 100-400 (100-500) more than 70-200 lately since the newer cameras support auto focus stacking which is often necessary for the larger panoramas. If you mostly shoot individual frames or single-rows, then I think 70-200 would usually be better. I will have both in the bag for short distances.
Unfortunately Nikon is sadly lacking a Z 70-200/4 and hauling around the f/2.8 would not be my first choice over 100-400.
p.1 #6 · How often are you using >200mm for landscapes?
I decided to go with 100-400 instead of 70-200/f2.8 for landscape for Z. I was waiting for Nikon to make Z version of 70-300 but I gave up waiting. The lighter70-300 would have been a bit more preferable for taking the lens to hiking. I still own 70-200 VRII F lens for indoor shooting especially for shooting performance. However, for landscape. I often found 70-200 be too limited, wanting more reach for compositional reasons. I am in the NE region and still finding an over 200mm be useful, especially for regions like. Adirondack,New Hampshirite, Maine, etc. For Z lens, 70-200 and100-400 are technically the same weight and bulk, so the decision was relatively easy for me.
p.1 #7 · How often are you using >200mm for landscapes?
In my opinion and my limited experience, I found that landscape photography is much more difficult to impress than portrait or BIF. In portrait or BIF there is no discussion what is the subject. Off course skills and experience make the difference.
For landscape, I learned that increasing the depth of field help in that regards. Like if I am photographing a mountain in the far back ground while standing very close to a tree, the photo will be nicer if I can show part of the tree even if the tree is slightly not in focus.
p.1 #8 · How often are you using >200mm for landscapes?
I find myself liking the 400mm f4.5 for landscape.
It is light and compact and I can stitch easily if I need wider. It is the reason why I prefer it over the 100-400mm. I would of course look at this differently if my focus were wildlife.
p.1 #9 · How often are you using >200mm for landscapes?
Depends on the location. Around where I live (Ohio), I very rarely use more than 200mm because most of what we have to shoot landscape wise are forests and gorges and waterfalls. Going out somewhere like Death Valley, or a place with rolling hills or similar, I’d want a 100-400.
p.1 #10 · How often are you using >200mm for landscapes?
I usually take out 100-400 rather than 70-200 for landscape (or whatever other non wild life photos that I take). I think I use 100-200mm a lot more often than 200-400 mm but still
it is nice to have that option there and since both are similar in size and weight, I would rather
have the added flexibility. If it is going to be more portrait oriented session, I would definitely take out 70-200 rather than 100-400.
p.1 #11 · How often are you using >200mm for landscapes?
Good points here. I echo that shorter focal lengths (under 50mm say) require more work.
I shoot longer focal lengths for pano images, but like to do single images with wider focal lengths. It's too bad Tamron's 35-150 f/2-2.8 isn't available for Nikon. Maybe something else similar.
nmerc_photos wrote:
I've always preferred a 100-500 or in Nikon case, 100-400 over a 70-200 for landscape. I think it's just having the wider included range (400mm or 300mm covered vs 130mm)
With that being said though, if you already have the 180-600 ordered I would think the 70-200 would make more sense for you
In my mind there is not much point in owning both the 100-400 and the 180-600.
I'm probably about 70/30 for my landscape shooting between telephoto and wide angle. Usually my trips are more wildlife focused, so I have a 100-400 with me at all times which makes shooting quick and easy.
For me, the wide angle stuff requires more planning, ND, CPL filters, tripods, etc. My style of shooting landscape with the telephoto is just long distance, high shutter speed, handheld pop offs....Show more →
p.1 #12 · How often are you using >200mm for landscapes?
dugaut wrote:
Good points here. I echo that shorter focal lengths (under 50mm say) require more work.
I shoot longer focal lengths for pano images, but like to do single images with wider focal lengths. It's too bad Tamron's 35-150 f/2-2.8 isn't available for Nikon. Maybe something else similar.
It has been announced. Just no firm release date as of yet. Should be here by the fall I’d imagine.
p.1 #13 · How often are you using >200mm for landscapes?
All good points here. I think what is throwing me off is the incoming addition of the 180-600 and the overlap that has with the 100-400, although I should be looking at that lens as the extra 400-600 when compared to the 100-400. I did look at the 70-180 2.8 yesterday, and it is nice. No tripod collar or VR bug me, but at half the price of the 70-200 2.8 it's tempting.
Aug 08, 2023 at 06:42 AM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.1 #14 · How often are you using >200mm for landscapes?
I use longer lenses, but it is often the <1 lb 55-250 canon. The 100-400 or 70-200/2.8 is a bit bigger and bigger and heavier than I'd like.
The 75-150 E is pretty good imo, though I haven't put it through the paces on landscape on ff. More an f/8 lens, or at least 5.6-11, but that's not a negative on landscape a lot of the time. KR has a really good review of the 80-200/4 AIS, it'd be interesting to see how good it is. The ~70-200 1980's lenses I already have are excellent imo
p.1 #15 · How often are you using >200mm for landscapes?
Highly situational depending on the depth of the landscapes I’m in but always have a 100-400 in my bag. Love trying to sus out detail shots like this (560mm). I would NEVER carry the 180-600 around for landscapes. In general I’d say the gap I rarely shoot at is 200-300. It picks back up around 350 and beyond.
p.1 #16 · How often are you using >200mm for landscapes?
RoamingScott wrote:
Highly situational depending on the depth of the landscapes I’m in but always have a 100-400 in my bag. Love trying to sus out detail shots like this (560mm). I would NEVER carry the 180-600 around for landscapes. In general I’d say the gap I rarely shoot at is 200-300. It picks back up around 350 and beyond.
Love that shot! Stunning. And it showcases the situation I use 100-400 for. It is a great tool to eliminate / reduce visual noise aka clutter to abstract the scene. Often 180, 200 mm isn’t long enough for scenes such as this.
p.1 #17 · How often are you using >200mm for landscapes?
BPsmith511 wrote:
All good points here. I think what is throwing me off is the incoming addition of the 180-600 and the overlap that has with the 100-400, although I should be looking at that lens as the extra 400-600 when compared to the 100-400. I did look at the 70-180 2.8 yesterday, and it is nice. No tripod collar or VR bug me, but at half the price of the 70-200 2.8 it's tempting.
Well, 180-600 would be a bit heavy and big for landscape for me. Many seems to say 100-400 is too short for wildlife. From such perspective, overlap between 180-400 does not make much meaning if one focuses on one or the other scenario ?
Lack of VE, limited FL, makes 70-180 less interesting. Do you know the corner performance ? If it is event/portrait type, corners may become weakness depending on how you use it.
p.1 #18 · How often are you using >200mm for landscapes?
What's interesting for me is that I have never once gone out with the intent to use long focal lengths for landscapes, but some of my favorite landscape shots are from long focal lengths as there is no substitute for compression. Also, telephoto lenses are usually way better in the corners than a typical UWA.
In your case, if you have the 180-600 on order, a 70-200 probably makes more sense to add as it perfectly overlaps with the 180-600. Sounds like you might find the 70-200 useful elsewhere as well. The 100-400 is a phenomenal lens but if you have the other two, it may not get much use. Downside of the 180-600 is it will be bigger but it's only ~500g heavier than the 100-400. 100-400 is a nicer lens to carry around especially handheld.
p.1 #19 · How often are you using >200mm for landscapes?
CanadaMark wrote:
What's interesting for me is that I have never once gone out with the intent to use long focal lengths for landscapes, but some of my favorite landscape shots are from long focal lengths as there is no substitute for compression. Also, telephoto lenses are usually way better in the corners than a typical UWA.
In your case, if you have the 180-600 on order, a 70-200 probably makes more sense to add as it perfectly overlaps with the 180-600. Sounds like you might find the 70-200 useful elsewhere as well. The 100-400 is a phenomenal lens but if you have the other two, it may not get much use. Downside of the 180-600 is it will be bigger but it's only ~500g heavier than the 100-400. 100-400 is a nicer lens to carry around especially handheld.
