p.2 #1 · Landscape photography with primarily >24mm?
I find this thread interesting. I recently bought a 14mm lens to shoot the milky way because I knew I wanted the entire arch of it. It accomplished that goal but I am glad I didn't spend much more money on the lens since I couldn't really figure out what else I would possibly use it for other than this 2 month out of the year shot I had planned. I honestly never knew the wide angle and lots of foreground stuff thing was a recent trend.
The vast majority of my photography has been with one camera and a single lens. Before this year, it was a 35mm lens, now its a 28mm lens. If I need wider, I stitch a few photos together into a panorama which has the benefit of improving the resolution of the image since I don't have super high resolution sensors. While there are definitely some shots the benefit from shooting with a UWA from the start instead of a composite, I really don't find that there are that many.
To each their own. I have seen so many photos on FM with varying lenses that are all spectacular that at the end of the day, I still think the saying about great photographers being able to compose fantastic images with any camera/lens is true.
p.2 #2 · Landscape photography with primarily >24mm?
Some areas lend themselves to wide angle shots much more than others. When I went to Alaska, my most commonly used lens for landscape was my 70-200. On my trips to the Canadians Rockies, it is the 16-35. The high peaks of Alaska tend to be viewed at a distance. Telephone shots emphasize the huge size of the peaks themselves. In the Canadian Rockies, the lakes are the main attraction and I use the 16-35 to show the lakes with the surrounding mountains. What focal length you use depends on your style but also depend on your subject.
p.2 #3 · Landscape photography with primarily >24mm?
takes a talented photographer to effectively and artistically use focal lengths from 12mm to 400mm to shoot landscape.
Unfortunately I dont meet the effective and artistic qualification, but its would be, for me, a bloody shame to limit myself.
p.2 #4 · Landscape photography with primarily >24mm?
Sometimes 8mm to 1200mm 😀
Some homework and a little imagination and anyone can experiment, and eventually you know what will work for you - the photos you visualize. 10mm prime is not for everyone. Try 15mm first. And try anything at the right place.
Maybe you’re missing out and maybe you don’t enjoy it. Some lenses just need getting used to.
kevindar wrote:
takes a talented photographer to effectively and artistically use focal lengths from 12mm to 400mm to shoot landscape.
Unfortunately I dont meet the effective and artistic qualification, but its would be, for me, a bloody shame to limit myself.
p.2 #5 · Landscape photography with primarily >24mm?
What I often find the most interesting is how landscape photography is still largely referred to as a singular subsection of photography, when in reality, there are many different types of landscape photography which can use vastly different types of gear.
I personally shoot with a Sony a6300 and 19mm f2.8 and 60mm f2.8 lenses. The kit weighs less than 2 pounds and I can stitch shots from the 19mm lens to create ANY (!!!) UWA focal length I wish, and it even does astro work when stitched or just single shot. Same with the 60mm lens, which can be stitched for wider than 60mm shots, or allow for heavy cropping due to the insane level of sharpness out-resolving the sensor. So, two ultra light primes can effectively give me a 0mm-100mm+ effective focal range capturing ability for around 10 ounces in glass.
p.2 #6 · Landscape photography with primarily >24mm?
I tend to roll with the Olympus 7-14 Pro lens for the majority of my shots, and only recently got a deal on a 12-40 Pro for the few farther terrain features.
It's a lot to do with the type of terrain I hike in and enjoy taking pictures of, that being either alpine glacially carved lakes or sandstone desert kind of stuff. In comparing maps to the photo areas I visit, it tends to be larger terrain features within a grid square. Stuff like the steep cliff walls surrounding a glacial lake and the like. (Plus, can't really zoom with my feet on many of those, since moving back would put me in the trees or down a talus slope.) So whenever I'm in these places, I usually try to get as close as possible in order to take advantage of the wide angle's strength.
Stuff like the overlooks at Canyonlands, where the white-rimmed canyons are further than a grid square (1km), I'll swap over to the 12-40 if I want to focus on those more distant terrain features. Anything more distant than that isn't my jam, since at least for me, zoomed in pics of distant terrain features don't really give me that feeling of being there. I think it has to do with my preference for having at least SOME foreground in a photo.
That's just me rambling though, I have no actual training or anything, I just like hiking and taking photos that remind me of being there.
