Using 28mm and 35mm lenses for landscapes...

ChrisR

ChrisR

I'm a well known grump...
Messages
11,035
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
OK, this may sound daft. I've never really understood the point of wider lenses for landscapes, as it seems they merely make that impressive mountain into a small pimple in a flat scene (I exaggerate a bit). I've mostly shot landscapes at 50mm (on 35mm film cameras), and I'm quite liking my 85mm now, for picking out those parts of the landscape I'm "looking at".

But I'm beginning to think I've been missng the point. Perhaps these lenses aren't really "wide" so much as "deep". That is, folk use them to give greater depth of field in landscapes, so as to be able to include foreground interest for compositional reasons, and keep it in reasonable focus front to back. I've got quite a few shots taken at 50 mm, focused at infinity and including really blurred foreground, and it generally looks pretty carp! (Yes, I've read through the "common landscape mistakes" sticky, and make most of them!)

I have recently acquired 28mm and 35mm lenses for my Pentax MX, and I'm off to Scotland next week for a date with the midges. I know many folk don't really consider these lenses as wide, but they're what I've got (along with the 50, 85, and a 135 I'll probably leave behind as there's not room in the bag and I rarely choose it). So, and advice on using these lenses on a full frame camera for landscapes?
 
I tend to use a 21mm mainly but as you say, it can really stretch the scene and often minimize the focal point of the picture. I did a 10 shot pano last night with a 50mm, camera in portrait mode and found it to be a bit long as there was minimal foreground interest. I reckon your 28mm or 35mm would have been perfect for me last night.

Its all about what you're trying to portray I guess, this shot was one shot from the 21mm and cropped but I did this on purpose cause I wanted the trees to look small and to be dwarfed by the clouds.

Brandon by oROSSo, on Flickr

This next one again was 21mm but 3 shots stitched. If I had my time again I'd probably use something longer to make more of Roseberry topping.

Roseberry re-visited by oROSSo, on Flickr


Moral of the story, I need more primes!!
 
I'll post the difference between a cropped 21mm shot from last night and the 10 shot pano @ 50mm once they're edited.
 
Thanks Ross; I particularly like your first shot, and I've done something a bit like that with an Oly mju II, which has a nice fixed 35mm lens. Not as nice as yours, though. I realise now that I also did a stitched pano from 3 shots from tha camera in the Lake District, and it did come out fairly well... Bit of a problem with flare on the left, and a rather dark wall in the centre, but I was reasonably happy given they were handheld. However, I still haven't really managed any foreground interest, other than a bit of texture... [EDIT: had to reduce the quality of this JPEG to upload to TP]

Vista above Grasmere-sm.jpg

Mark, you're mostly using 24-35mm in my terms, then. But I guess that MF 45mm lens doesn't give as much depth of field. In LF you can use the movements to get more front to back focus, if I understand correctly, but I'm highly doubtful of the possibility of composing with an image upside down and inverted left to right! I have enough trouble with the left-right inversion on a waist level finder...
 
Last edited:
Personally now I only ever use a 28mm lens on full frame, being used to fixed focal lengths in medium and large format. I did have a try with the Zeiss 21mm which was an incredible lens but the version i had had a couple of faults so I had to return it. It was lovely but for me a bit too wide for general all round use. For me personally 28mm feels about right, though I would not say no to the Zeiss 25mm either...
 
Thanks guys. But as I meant to say at the start, any tips for shooting with 28-35mm lenses, particularly to avoid the "tiny mountain in a arge flat space" problem?
 
ChrisR said:
Thanks guys. But as I meant to say at the start, any tips for shooting with 28-35mm lenses, particularly to avoid the "tiny mountain in a arge flat space" problem?
Click to expand...

Include something of interest in the foreground.


Steve.
 
I shoot most of my landscapes on the RB67 at either 50mm or 65mm (~25mm or 30mm) though some of my favourites have been with the 127mm and, as you said, picking out a target and isolating it in its environment; almost like a portrait of a landscape. I like to get the tripod really low easy with the wlf not so easy with a pentaprism (take something to sit on) and have either a nice bit of long grass or a strong lead in line for the foreground.

As you've observed its not really about getting it all in its more about getting closer and getting a more unusual point of view.
 
I personally like really wide lenses for landscapes so I can get a nice sense of 3d and depth. I actually find it harder to pick stuff out with a long lens but I do try it from time to time.
 
I've been looking for a 28mm shot but I use a D200 mostly, so here's an 18mm- 28 equivalent roughly :)
I use a 28 frequently with film. I just find it a great lens for most of what I do.
017new by kendo1111, on Flickr
 
Personally I find 28mm and 35mm are neither here nor there, not wide enough to give any dramatic perspective or include a whole scene and not tight enough to really hone in on anything in particular. If I had nothing but a 24mm I'd be happy, though as with others above I've also had a lot of success with 85mm or thereabouts as well.

The difference between 24 and 28mm is staggering, but it tends not to get much better IMO the wider you go beyond that.
 
Well I'm kinda stuck there as I don't have a 24mm lens*. I generally like wandering about with one lens stuck on the camera, rather than keep swapping. I know I should choose a lens for the shot, but it seems to work the other way for me; it taks time to get my eye in for a particular lens. The 35mm is a Pentax-M f/2 which I really like and feel quite comfortable with. The 28mm I'm thinking about is a Pentax-M f/3.5, although I also have a Vivitar series 1 f/2.8 (can't remember which make, but one of the better ones I think). The Pentax 28 is said to be one of their sharpest lenses, but I haven't used either of them enough to get comfortable with them.

*It appears Pentax didn't make a 24mm M lens; there is a 20mm f4, and there are 24mm lenses in both the older K series (non-SMC?) and the later A series. The latter tends to be more expensive as the digi boys like them better, but I didn't like the build and performance of the only A series lens I bought. And none of these options take 49mm filters, as nearly all of my other lenses do. However, this is off the point.

Oh, did I read somewhere not to use a CPL with the wider lenses?
 
I'm with you on that, I'll generally only take one lens out at a time. If I'm out for the day I might toss the 127mm in as well as either the 65 or 50mm, the 127 is relatively light.

WA's can cause issues with uneven polarisation due to their large FOV.
 
In my experience it seems to be okay at 28, though it is visible. I don't find it a problem as it can add to the charm of the pic!

I've only ever lusted after a 24 :)
 
ChrisR said:
Well I'm kinda stuck there as I don't have a 24mm lens*. I generally like wandering about with one lens stuck on the camera, rather than keep swapping. I know I should choose a lens for the shot, but it seems to work the other way for me; it taks time to get my eye in for a particular lens. The 35mm is a Pentax-M f/2 which I really like and feel quite comfortable with. The 28mm I'm thinking about is a Pentax-M f/3.5, although I also have a Vivitar series 1 f/2.8 (can't remember which make, but one of the better ones I think). The Pentax 28 is said to be one of their sharpest lenses, but I haven't used either of them enough to get comfortable with them.

*It appears Pentax didn't make a 24mm M lens; there is a 20mm f4, and there are 24mm lenses in both the older K series (non-SMC?) and the later A series. The latter tends to be more expensive as the digi boys like them better, but I didn't like the build and performance of the only A series lens I bought. And none of these options take 49mm filters, as nearly all of my other lenses do. However, this is off the point.

Oh, did I read somewhere not to use a CPL with the wider lenses?
Click to expand...

I didn't rate my SMC M 28mm at all, but they are dirt cheap. The 24mm Ks are incredibly hard to find and expensive, though by all means very good. The 35mm f2 is a really good lens, I have a roll I need to develop shot entirely with it but have not got round to it yet.

I've not had a problem with CPL at 24mm on my Zuiko, but then I'm never shooting clear skies, which are where you're going to see any issues with unevenness most.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top