Tree on a hill

Lez325 said:
400mm for landscapes?? Something I've never considered

Works though

Les :)
Click to expand...

They can - but the problem is with very long lenses the photographer is stood very far away from the subject (here the tree) and the perspective changes with objects in the distance (here the hill with the light) appear very close. It's a common misconception that long lenses compress scenes - they don't - but rather the distance between the camera and subject that does it.

The shot would have been more effective shot by standing a lot closer and using a much shorter focal length and maybe shot in portrait so the side of the hill isn't cut off.
 
I'm with you all the way Rory on your choice of lens. It has provided a dynamic image (IMO) which if taken on a wide-angle lens would have been quite boring and just like any other. Your shot, however, gives something different and is certainly an eye-catcher. I absolutely love it!
I too, often use a long focal length for my landscape shots, using a Nikon 28-300mm as my 'walkabout' lens. There are times when I might want to isolate something in a scene without distracting surroundings, and with this lens, I have the choice. ......I do sometimes use my Nikon 18-35mm lens (a lovely little lens) but feel limited with it.
 
Trappe said:
Mirror lock up and a remote release or a 10 second timer is essential...I ruined a few by forgetting these basic rules in the early days of using a long lens for landscapes!
Click to expand...

Personally, Rory, I always handhold (years of practice) but mainly for the reason that the majority of my pics are taken on one of my moorland walks, and carrying a tripod would be far too cumbersome for me! The camera and lens combination is heavy enough! .....Mind you, I have to watch my shutter speed at the 300mm focal length, though the lens vibration reduction feature is a godsend!
 
SFTPhotography said:
They can - but the problem is with very long lenses the photographer is stood very far away from the subject (here the tree) and the perspective changes with objects in the distance (here the hill with the light) appear very close. It's a common misconception that long lenses compress scenes - they don't - but rather the distance between the camera and subject that does it.

The shot would have been more effective shot by standing a lot closer and using a much shorter focal length and maybe shot in portrait so the side of the hill isn't cut off.
Click to expand...
Here is the same tree at 43mm. Taken ten years ago with the posts now gone.

IMG_8618 by Rory Trappe, on Flickr
 
Super first image (although another tick in the box for beating the conditions and getting out there for the second).
Composition, exposure and lighting all come together well.
 
Much prefer the second shot - the perspective is much more natural as you are stood much closer to it.

Whilst long lens shot's have their place in landscape photography often due to the distance between the photographer and subject they don't convey a realistic perspective and the pictures that come from them don't really relate to how we see the world. Sometimes that is ok - and quite often it isn't. The 2nd shot is much more three dimensionsal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top