Beginner Landscape lens

D

devondunc

Messages
13
Name
Duncan
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all looking for recommendation for a decent and hopefully inexpensive lens for landscape micro four thirds mount

I’ve got the kit zoom and 40-150 and 45mm prime and a legacy canon 50mm macro

‘’if you post a recommendation and possibly sample that would be great
 
I am assuming as you don't say its the 14-42, this one https://www.mountaintripper.com/olympus-mzuiko-14-42mm-f35-56-iir-lens-review/ if so have a look at the authors comments particularly the section at the bottom called The Bottom Line where the guy waxes quite lyrically about it as a landscape lens.
Before you go out spending loads of dosh on a lens if you have not got one already get a decent tripod.
If its not this lens then I apologise.
 
With those lenses looks like you have what you need? What sort of landscape images do you like? I’d suggest studying those to see what focal length they use and try and creat your own. In my view, there is no “landscape” lens, great landscape images are possible at all focal lengths.
 
It’s the pancake ez zoom lens I assumed I needed wider angle


never really done any landscape really I used to enjoy handheld macro mostly but I want to have a go with landscape and night sky
 
Very wide angle for landscape is difficult to pull off well. What looks impressive to our eyes can end up looking small and boring. I would start with what you have at some of your favorite locations and see how it goes. If you do want a wider view you can always take several pictures and create a panorama afterwards.
 
devondunc said:
It’s the pancake ez zoom lens I assumed I needed wider angle


never really done any landscape really I used to enjoy handheld macro mostly but I want to have a go with landscape and night sky
Click to expand...

If you've never done landscape before then you won't know what you haven't got so you don't know what you need. Keep your money in your wallet.

I shoot most of my landscape images at 40mm full frame (so 20mm equiv on M4/3?) I do have a 21mm lens but I usually prefer the results from a 40mm panorama if it's possible in all honesty. I also use my 85mm more often than the 21mm so don't be fooled into thinking landscape = wide angle lens.

The only thing I'd recommend is a CPL in your biggest filter size and some step rings to use it on your other lenses. Hoya HD or Haida are a nice balance of quality vs cost.
 
See Tut: - Ultra-Wide-Angle vs Kit & Stitch, featuring a fish!
Basic point is "More Land, does not more 'Landscape' make".
And I exemplify with a few, deliberately 'boring' shots from an 8-16 UWA and a 180 FoV 'full-round' fish-eye, and what you get with the kit 18-55, with and with out pano-stitching.
There's many ways to skin a cat, as they say. but....
You don't 'need', and in fact it's often perverse, to go 'wide angle' for Landscapes. If you go very wide, all you do is shrink subject elements in the frame so they are far less prominent and loose impact, and pack in wide expanses of 'boring' sky and grass or whatever, to even more loose your subject.
Wide angle photography is a very demanding topic, and as far as Landscapes go.. beyond the cliche of a prominent rock in the foreground against a wide expanse of desert or whatnot, it's actually VERY much more demanding than other genre's, particularly things like portrait, macro or action, where the 'impact' and interest tends to come from making your main subject element very large and prominent in the frame, which with a tele-lens the lens can almost do for you.
Eg.. imagine a chocolate box 'landscape' of cows in a field, with a river and trees behind them... and a peculiarly annoying fluorescent crisp packet of ten caught in the hedge! With a 'wide' it grabs everything that's in sight, and such 'clutter' or distracting detail you could exclude from the shot with a narrower FoV is going to get in there.
With a more 'normal' or even tele lens, the more restricted FoV is likely to clip out a lot of such clutter.... and WHO the bludy hell though that it was a good idea to put bludy DOGS in Hi-Vis ?!?! (just to vocalise on one of my pet hates!)... but the narrower angle lens will help you far more easily isolate what is the subject of interest.

So to answer the question; start with wot-choo-got. The 'Kit' lens is as good a place to start as anywhere. It's probably as wide as you would often 'want' to go anyway, and for the few instances you may want to go wider, pano stitching offers pretty good intro into how much more wide you may need. Plus a proper pano, only stretching the field on the horizontal, a bit like a tele, tends to clip, that 'boring' expanse of sky and foreground.
 
troutfisher said:
I am assuming as you don't say its the 14-42, this one https://www.mountaintripper.com/olympus-mzuiko-14-42mm-f35-56-iir-lens-review/ if so have a look at the authors comments particularly the section at the bottom called The Bottom Line where the guy waxes quite lyrically about it as a landscape lens.
Before you go out spending loads of dosh on a lens if you have not got one already get a decent tripod.
If its not this lens then I apologise.
Click to expand...

I dabbled with m4/3 for a while and found the 14-42 to be quite a capable lens.
I took it to the Lake District and while changing lenses, I dropped it and it landed in deep water.
I managed to rescue it and water was pouring out of every orifice.
When I got home 2 weeks later I placed it in the airing cupboard and forgot about it.
Later in the year I found it and put it on the camera and it worked perfectly!!
Thumbs up for the 14-42 :clap::clap::clap:
 
Trying to capture the essence of Dartmoor or similar in a wide angle shot is close to impossible, far better to go for narrower angles to get specific features in rather than try to get it ALL in (IMO!) I've used everything from an 8mm fisheye on an FF body up to a 400mm with a 2x teleconverter behind it on a 1.5x crop body for landscapes (equivalent FL range on an M4/3 is 4mm - 2400mm IIRC), usually (now, after much faffing and associated swearing!) using an 18-135 on crop or 24-120 on FF when I'm not playing with a compact.
 
I am guessing you are using Olympus the 14-42 will do nicely to start with.
If you can find one the 12-50 will offer a slightly wider angle of view in an inexpensive lens. At some point you can move to the 12-40 or 12-45 when money allows.

https://www.ffordes.com/p/SH-18-029683/micro-43rds/12-50mm-f35-63-ed-mzuiko

An old 4/3 12-60 and adapter would serve well too but is quite large
 
Last edited:
I'd take all the advice from @alfbranch - the results speak volumes compared to my own efforts.
I sort my photos into albums based on lens so you can see what I've done with the selection of lenses I have.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/amcuk/albums

FWIW there are two Olympus 14-42mm kit lenses. The II R and the EZ (there might be the odd earlier version of the R used).
The EZ is a pancake zoom with motorised action, the II R is a manual collapsable lens which is a bit bigger.
Jessops and John Lewis had a habit of bundling the R II with the Olymous E-M10 to make kits that looked like better value than the competition with the EZ.
I own both and think there is little to choose between them optically (though I'm no expert).
The EZ wins on portability but the II R manual zoom is nicer to use at the expense of size.
I'd probably choose the II R over the EZ if I were a tripod landscape shooter.

As others have said you should be able to do lots of good stuff with either - especially if you choose to take mutliple shots to bracket the exposure or to stitch a panorama.

If you wanted a general purpose prime then the Olympus 17mm f1.8 is my favourite but I don't think it's needed to get great landscape shots and in lots of situations it will be a bit too wide.

I held out for years against the 12-40mm f2.8 PRO lens because it's size goes against the portability which lead me to the E-M10ii BUT then I saw one used at a great price.
I figured I could try it and sell on if I didn't like it. I'm completely converted and if I had to choose a single lens then that would be it hands down.
Used around £350-400 they're expensive but I'm delighted with the pictures I've taken with it - I should probabluy have bought that instead of the succession of primes I've got and rarely use (25mm, 45mm, 17mm f2.8)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top