Top Landscape Photos with Telephoto prime lens 135/180/200..

[immortalblue]

Hi

I would like to know your point of vue about one question if it is possible.

I have a camera with a multiplying factor of 1.5 (this will influence this question)

I'm currently using wide angle for my landscape photography and I'm also using longest lenses, like one 90mm



I would like to know if you have an opinion on the long lenses for landscape photography

By long I have theses one in mind theses days for example :

135mm

180mm

200mm

and as we speak about all this maybe it could even be interesting to speak about 300mm even if now I have big Doubts ahaha.

This question is ONLY related to landscape photography


For the moment I am ONLY impressed by this type of picture:

- Photos with landscapes of hill (usually with fog / haze it is even better)
I find that the crushing of differents plans take all its interest

- some sunrises

nothing else=) thats why I had created this topic, and as soon as I time I will look at some pictures to illustrate this topic


thanks a lot for sharing your point of vue!!

PS:sorry for my approximative english level =)

[ahblack]

I don't have much experience in doing Landscape with a tele lens, but I have some friends who have been doing it for quite a while. It's quite refreshing, as the usual UWA landscape is like squeezing everything in a frame, while using tele lens flattens everything. The challenge is different though, as you really need certain height and distance to make it works. As for the composition, usually works well when you have layers and layers of object to play with.


The Pearl of The Orient by Lee Wooi Chun, on Flickr

I did this when I was back in my hometown, Penang. Vantage point from Penang Hill, using CZJ Sonnar 135mm f3.5 (on FF, so works about the same like your 90mm on crop). Might not be the best example (to be honest, this is my one and only landscape shot with tele lens haha...), but you can get the idea of "layers".

[bernhardas]

edited

[visualopsins]

To review:

Wide angle makes details smaller, distances bigger, spreads landscape away from camera. Use Wide angle for landscape with a lot of closeby details, or, to take advantage of perspective distortion.

Telephoto makes details bigger, distances smaller, squeezes landscape toward camera. Use telephoto for landscape for a lot of far away details, or, to take advantage of perspective distortion.

Normal lens shows details & distances in proper proportion.

My preference for landscapes is the normal lens, 'normal' as defined here: http://forum.mflenses.com/earth-is-round-earth-is-flat-t74137,start,28.html

135mm:


17mm:


50mm:

[paulhofseth]

The longer the lens= the more sensitive to wind and vibration even on a tripod AND more to carry.
Hot weather= atmospheric distortion even with Apo-Telyt etc.
Moist air or airpollution= photogenic haze OR fuzzy distances OR redfilter\ monocolour from the red channel

Conclusion: borrow a telezoom and see what suits you.

p.

[immortalblue]

thanks for your reply

currenly I had found this video, of Mr Andreas Feininger, and it is really interesting cause he is used to shoot with telelenses in city =)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Iby7p7BN-k

[visualopsins]

Another way to use telephoto for landscape is making panoramas by stitching together adjacent photos...

Mflenses member NikonD has posted some fine stitched panoramas of landscapes in his beautiful country -- I remember in particular photo of mountain showing incredible detail! Search for posts by NikonD

[WNG555]

I believe it all depends on your composition. Landscapes are a personal favorite and I've used everything from 8mm fisheye to 500mm telephoto.
As mentioned above, one underlying fact is our eyes' normal view seems to be the most pleasant FOV... I personally gravitate towards 24mm or 28mm for APS-C.
They yield a 35-43mm range respectively. And a digital stitch of shots should make for a very accurate pano landscape of what our eyes perceive.
On full frame, a 35-45mm prime is applicable.

[cooltouch]

It all depends on what you're after, really. I've used some very long lenses for "scapes" in order to focus in on particular details I was after, or to magnify the size of the sun in a shot. I've also used some very wide lenses for their rather obvious abilities. It just all depends.

Here are a few shots I took with a 600mm Sigma mirror telephoto. Most of these shots are dupes of old slides and I haven't cloned out all the dust spots yet.

Just the sun at sunset. I think I had a 2x TC added for this shot, so 1200mm. Canon F-1, Kodachrome 64:


A ship and a sailboat offshore at Waikiki, Hawaii. Canon FTb, Kodachrome 64:


Los Angelese Skyline at sunrise, circa 1986. Canon F-1, Kodachrome 64:


West Los Angeles Skyline in B&W. Canon F-1, Tri-X:


An offshore platform, somewhere off the Southern California coast. Canon A-1, Kodachrome 64:


This shot was taken with a Century Precision Optics 500mm f/5.6 telephoto -- a very sharp lens. Sierra Nevada Mountains in eastern California. Nikon F2, Fujichrome 100:


I'd like to make a comment about the Sigma 600mm mirror I used for the above photos. I bought it in 1984, so it was an early version. Sigma made it at least until the late 1980s -- I know this because I have one in EOS mount. The one I bought in 1984 was a tack-sharp optic. Easily as good as the Tamron 55BB 500mm I own now, and that Tamron is one of the sharpest telephotos I own. But the later model one in EOS mount I own isn't nearly as good as the early one I used to own. So there must have been some considerable variability in quality control at Sigma when it came to these 600s. And apparently it wasn't just the case of the early ones being better than the later ones. There was an informative thread here some months back where members with various models reported on how their Sigma 600s performed. Some were good -- even excellent. Some, well, not so. And it didn't seem to matter much when the lens was made.

So this is just a caveat emptor to anyone who's thinking of buying one. Buy it from a party who offers a return policy, and then try it out as soon as you get it. If it doesn't deliver the results you were hoping for, then send it back. If it does, well, then congratulations! Oh, and one thing I also have to mention -- it took me quite a while to get the hang of shooting with that optic. For the first several months I owned it, I was convinced I'd bought a turkey. Most all of the photos I took with it were awful. But as I gradually became more in tune with its requirements, my shots improved. I started doing things like using an extra stout tripod, a shutter release, and a camera with mirror lock-up. I even bought an eyepiece magnifier to hep me nail focus. Eventually, once I got the hang of using it, I was able to dispense with using things like the eyepiece magnifier and even mirror lock-up if the shutter speed was high enough (1//500 or faster, even on a tripod). I even got to the point where I was using it with a monopod and panning with it at auto races. So, if you think you got a good one, hang in there -- its capabilities will come to you as you use it more.

[hpmickey]

Hello,
I live in a hilly country and I have found especially the 135mm length to be useful for landscape photos taken from the slope at one side of the valley, directed to the other side. Here are two foggy sunsets taken with Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 135/3.5:

#1


#2


I also use this lens to take details of the opposite slope at places where the valley gets narrower:

#3


I have the 200/5.6 Takumar as well but I do not use it for landscape that often. The air thermal vibrations and air pollution became a problem at this focal length.

Michal

[visualopsins]

Beautiful country hpmickey!

[TrueLoveOne]

I used to shoot landscapes with a 135mm on a crop Sony DSLR. I should go out and do it again i think!

Both taken with Pentacon 2.8/135, second cropped to a panoview, both were for sale as a tourist postcard here in my region:
Morning light by René Maly, on Flickr


A morning in autumn by René Maly, on Flickr

[uhoh7]

North Wind by unoh7, Nikkor 180/2.8 AIS ED

same:

Mt Morrsion by unoh7, on Flickr

one more:

Last Flash by unoh7, on Flickr

[uhoh7]

Here 135/3.4 Leica APO:


Yellow Flecks by unoh7, on Flickr


Boulder Knob by unoh7, on Flickr


Last Light by unoh7, on Flickr


High Folds by unoh7, on Flickr

[stevemark]

Here are a few landscape images taken with 200mm and 300mm lenses.

#1
Monte Oliveto, Umbria, Italy. Taken with Minolta AF 2.8/200mm APO at f5.6

#2

Basilica of San Francesco at Assisi, Umbria, Italy. Minolta AF 2.8/200mm APO.

#3

Crete Senesi, Tuscany, Italy. Minolta AF 2.8/300mm APO.

#4

Alpine Ibexes. Gotthard, Switzerland. Minolta MD 4/200mm.

#5

Alpine Ibexes. Gotthard, Switzerland. Minolta MD 4/200mm.

#6

Pienza, Tuscany, Italy. Minolta AF 2.8/300mm APO.

#7

Rocca d'Orcia, Tuscany, Italy. Minolta AF 2.8/200mm APO.

#8

Val d'Orcia, Tuscany, Italy. Minolta AF 2.8/200mm APO.

#9

Crete Senesi. Tuscany, Italy. Minolta AF 2.8/300mm APO.

#10

Val d'Orcia, Tuscany, Italy. Minolta AF 2.8/200mm APO.

When doing landscape work, i usually take most pictures with just two lenses - the 20mm f2.8 and the 200mm f2.8 APO. That's all i really need. Occasionally i shall use a good midrange zoom (28-135mm f4-4.5) and a 2.8/300mm APO. When i'm inthe mountains i sometimes have a 400mm f4.5 or a 500mm f8 Mirror lens with me, but that's another story.

I hope you enjoy the images

Stephan

[cooltouch]

I would love to travel to Tuscany one day. The light there just seems to be so special. I paint, too, so my time would probably be equally divided between photography and painting. It would be great to be able to spend like a month there -- have a chance to settle into the rhythm of the place and all.

[stevemark]

[cooltouch]

Thanks, Stephan. It's little more than a dream right now, but someday . . . and when that day comes, I'll be sure to look you up.

[WNG555]

Truly breathtaking scenery! And great advice Stephan, thank you!
I hope to visit Europe by bike touring it for several months to half a year. I only visited Italy once, and promised myself an extended stay upon my return.
I hear Americans are only allowed 3 months in the EU as a tourist. I will have to figure out a way around it.

[Analog lex]

CZJ Sonnar 135mm f4 Exakta

[Lightshow]

Great shots, there's just something about APO lenses that I love, I wish there were more of them, I only have the Leica M 90 APO Asph, Leica R 100 Macro APO, and Leica R 180/3.4 APO.
I wish that Wide Angle lenses came in APO, The shortest FL I've seen is 50mm.

[cooltouch]

Sigma has made a variety of APO glass over the years, as has Minolta. And then there's the dozens upon dozens of APO telescopes in many different focal lengths that can be used as long telephoto lenses, albeit wide open only.

I did a google search on 'apo "wide angle" lens' and got a few APO large format lenses meant for use with digital backs, such as a Rodenstock 35mm -- but it covers only a 46mm (or so) image circle -- not really what I'd call large format. More like the old "baby" 4x4 format. Anyway, I suspect the reason why you don't see more APO wide angles is because they don't need to be. Wide angle formulas just naturally lend themselves to better color correction because everything is being squeezed together, so to speak -- including light rays.