Long Lens Landscapes

[Donald]

I was very lucky in that I bought a long lens for landscape photography before I read that perceived wisdom (amongst some people) was that landscape photography was best done (or, if you believed some of the people writing on the subject, could only be done) with a wide-angle lens. Naivety does have its advantages!

This one is made from my 100-400 f4.5-5.6 L IS MkII mounted on a Canon 5DS body and set at 278mm. I like it. You might not. But it's a picture that could not have been made without the long lens, both in terms of getting the angle I wanted for the shot and for creating the sense of compression that brought those background trees in as an important element in the image.

As always, your comments are welcomed.

'A Peaceful Morning'

[John 2]

...................................I read that perceived wisdom (amongst some people) was that landscape photography was best done (or, if you believed some of the people writing on the subject, could only be done) with a wide-angle lens. .................................................. ............

That as a view defies logic Donald. To believe that is to believe that the lens composes the image whereas as photographers we hopefully "see" the image we want to capture and then select the tools we need to make it happen......IMHO of course.

Nice image BTW and a lovely conversion/PP.

[Mike Buckley]

There are certain situations such as yours when a 300mm focal length is the ideal selection for making a landscape photo. Your photo proves that in my mind.

This works really well for me insofar as the subject, composition and conversion are concerned. The leaves throughout the image (not just the tree) appear overly sharpened to my eye, perhaps because you're not yet used to the ideal sharpening when using your new camera.

[Shadowman]

Image shows that you really work with your gear and want to get the most out of the gear and your photography. Nicely captured.

[Davidgypsy]

Hmm, this will probably get me into trouble, but... I like the black and white portrait of a tree, Donald. However, I would not class it as a landscape shot. I use a Sigma 150-500 for birds and sometimes for similar shots to yours. I have always taken the term "landscape" to mean a broader rendition of the landscape. Otherwise, any shot taken outdoors could be termed a landscape��
David

[rpcrowe]

I agree with Donald that a long focal length certainly has its place in landscape photography. I tend to use my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens on my 1.6x cameras quite often.

Here is a shot I did in Utah using my lens at 121mm (193.6mm equivalent). IMO, the compression of that long lens makes this into a fairly nice shot. Without the compression, I did not like the shot at all.



This shot, also in Utah was done at 200mm (360mm equivalent). I allowed the noise in this image because it seemed to improve the tempestuous sky. In fact, I increased the structure of the sky to show the cloud formations. But, that is neither here nor there in a comment about focal length!



When I use a wide focal length, I tend to like a significant object in the foreground. Like the ripple effect of this red rock which I shot at 21mm or 33.6mm equivalent...



BTW Donald - if you get tired of Yosemite next year (a virtual impossibility), the various national parks of Utah are also great places to shoot!

[Mike Buckley]

I would not class it as a landscape shot.

That's understandable. There are no precise characteristics that indisputably categorize an image as a landscape.

Even so, Donald's point is still valid that many, many people ignore that lenses with relatively long focal lengths are very much appropriate for making excellent landscape shots. The best demonstration of that is that so many people ask what focal length is ideal for making landscape photos, as if any relatively narrow range is appropriate. I tend to think of the ideal focal lengths as ranging from about 10mm to 400mm on a full-frame sensor, not that some that are shorter or longer can't be effectively used when applied to a particular situation that may not be the norm.

[Hallen]

Why be restricted to a partial toolset? That's my opinion. Use the right tool for the right job. And the right tool is the tool that gets you the shot you want. I know in photography, just like in writing, there are a lot of "rules". Some say it's good to know the rules so you can know when and why to break them. I think "guidelines" is a better word than rules. There's a reason behind them, but if you want to do something different, why not?
I have a 18-200mm Nikkor zoom. Yeah, it's not a flawless lens by any means, but I really like it for travel because it's versatile. And, it gives me the ability to set the zoom level I need for a lot of shots. I like the zoom for some landscape shots because it gets me the detail I need from locations where it isn't possible to get close enough to use a wider lens.

[Donald]

The leaves throughout the image (not just the tree) appear overly sharpened to my eye, perhaps because you're not yet used to the ideal sharpening when using your new camera.

A good point, Mike.

I was so blown away with how the leaves looked in the full size image with just a slight capture sharpening of the raw file. The detail is just incredible. I didn't have the 7DMkII body with me and wish I had so that I could have captured the same photograph with it to compare.

I think where I may have been too zealous is in the output sharpening phase. I did the capture sharpen on the raw file. Still getting used to what happens to an image when you downsize it from the much bigger original to a size for posting on online.

I have always taken the term "landscape" to mean a broader rendition of the landscape. Otherwise, any shot taken outdoors could be termed a landscape��

That's a very good point. What is the definition 'landscape'? I've never gone looking for that before. An interesting discussion point in its own right.

BTW Donald - if you get tired of Yosemite next year (a virtual impossibility), the various national parks of Utah are also great places to shoot!

When I spent two summers in the US in 1989 and 1990, my aim at the end of the summer camp season was to go the national parks of Utah. I never did make it. But the idea has never left me. So, they are still on the 'to do' list. Maybe 2017?

Thanks to everyone for contributing comments.

[IzzieK]

This is a delightful image, Donald...even though I am confused at first as to whether it need straightening or not...because the tree is leaning to the left and the field ground is going downwards towards the right...anyway I think all lenses are good for landscapes anyway...it just depends on what you have at the time you saw something you like out there when you did not have a planned shoot. Either way you go nearer, or move farther to get your best shot...or zoom to a particular subject...just my opinion...

[chauncey]

I would submit that, assuming that your lenses are of decent quality (horizontal MTF lines),
determining what lens was used in a particular landscape print is a total exercise in futility.

BTW...Donald has a new lens, 11-24 f/4, that, by all accounts, is a truly superior lens for WA work.
It has those horizontal lines that I lust for.

[Davidgypsy]

That's a very good point. What is the definition 'landscape'? I've never gone looking for that before. An interesting discussion point in its own right. from Donald.

I wouldn't look too far Donald. On reflection the definition is always going to be subjective so what is the point of trying to nail it down to specifics. There is far too much nit picking on photographic forums in any case. Though I would hasten to add that this one is relatively free of the disease. Attached "Landscape" shots are from a wintery Hobart. Yes Oz does get snow!

[Rebel]

Some lovely images in this thread, but for me a lot of the landscape shots taken at a longer focal length can appear flat and lack real depth.

[chauncey]

David, for our viewing pleasure...please leave a space between your images when posting.

[Tringa]

The definition of landscape is indeed personal and I think there will be a point where many/most would agree a shot moves from being landscape to one of a more precise and defined subject, but where that point is anyone's guess. I tend to think of landscape as being the natural landscape but having said that I'd also call a shot of a city skyline, landscape.

As far as lenses are concerned, for me it is whatever lens I want to use to get the shot I want. I think the vast majority of landscape shots are taken at with a wide angle lens but there are no rules and as has been mentioned already, there are shots that would not be possible using the 'conventional' lens.

I also think a landscape photo is a shot of the landscape and has nothing to do with the orientation of the camera.

Dave

And I agree, some excellent shots in the this thread.

[Jimr1961]

I always bring my 70 - 30mm lens when I go backpacking. There are circumstances that require the longer focal length. I wish I had taken the time to swap to the longer lens on my last trip. Forest shots are not my forte', so many of my shots that would have been very nice zoomed into the area of interest ended up too busy with no focal point. I need to work on that.

I too don't like the term "rules" and prefer the term "guidelines".

This shot needs more work, but it would not have been possible without a longer lens

[xpatUSA]

I just had to look up "landscape" . . wikipedia says at great length:

"There are two main meanings for the word landscape: it can refer to the visible features of an area of land, or to an example of the genre of painting that depicts such an area of land. Landscape, in both senses, includes the physical elements of landforms such as (ice-capped) mountains, hills, water bodies such as rivers, lakes, ponds and the sea, living elements of land cover including indigenous vegetation, human elements including different forms of land use, buildings and structures, and transitory elements such as lighting and weather conditions."

Which I take to mean "anything not underground"