50mm for Landscapes?

Marc

Marc

TPer Emeritus
Suspended / Banned
Messages
34,670
Edit My Images
Yes
When I bought my first Sony DSLR (A100) I bought a circular polarizer for the kit lens. I no longer use the kit lens, but I still have the filter which just happens to be the same size diameter as my 50mm f1.4 lens.

My question is, How good is a 50mm lens for landscapes? I'm a bit of a cheapskate (Or skint, whichever way you want to put it! :D) so I don't want to have to buy any more filters and the 50mm is the only lens I have of that size.

Anyone got any examples of pics taken with a 50mm lens using a circular polarizer?

Cheers.
 
Ok, not the best examples by a long way, but gives a quick idea. Largely untouched as I've not had time to do anything with them since last night.

TP-7726.jpg



TP-7636.jpg


HTH. :thumbs:


EDIT: Well, there's some pretty horrible things going on with the sky here, but I'm assuming that's down to dodgey resizing. The blue in #2 looks pretty sexy in the full size image.
 
Wide aperture lens isn't ideal for landscape, unless you're doing low light/night shots. Also, the trick with thread mounted filters is to buy the one that will fit your largest lens, then buy step-down rings for the smaller lenses.
 
I use mine for landscapes plenty and gives great results. Give it a try I say.
 
sprog said:
Wide aperture lens isn't ideal for landscape, unless you're doing low light/night shots. Also, the trick with thread mounted filters is to buy the one that will fit your largest lens, then buy step-down rings for the smaller lenses.
Click to expand...

But I'll not be using it at wide apertures. Also, the point was that I already have the filter and don't want to buy another.
 
Galen Rowell reckoned that 90% of his published work could have been done with a 20mm and an 85mm, and the fifty is close enough to 85mm-equivalent on the crop format. Haven't found much use for one in landscapes myself though, perhaps I should try harder. :)
 
TBH, I prefer the 50mm than the wide-angle for landscape work.

Crude example below or 3 images stitched together (50mm, full frame on D3, portrait orientation).

c1.jpg
 
fabs said:
But I'll not be using it at wide apertures. Also, the point was that I already have the filter and don't want to buy another.
Click to expand...

The only thing about fast 50mm isn't the maximum aperture, it's the fact that the minimum is often less than f/22. I haven't got my 50 f/1.4 to hand but I'm pretty sure that it's minimum aperture is only f/16.

On the other hand, they recommend that for maximum sharpness with digital you don't stop right down so it might not be a disadvantage.
 
NorthernNikon said:
The only thing about fast 50mm isn't the maximum aperture, it's the fact that the minimum is often less than f/22. I haven't got my 50 f/1.4 to hand but I'm pretty sure that it's minimum aperture is only f/16.

On the other hand, they recommend that for maximum sharpness with digital you don't stop right down so it might not be a disadvantage.
Click to expand...

Fair point, didn't think of that, although I can't see myself stopping down that far anyway. Just had a quick check on my Sony f/1.4 and it does indeed go to f/22 :)
 
fabs said:
Fair point, didn't think of that, although I can't see myself stopping down that far anyway. Just had a quick check on my Sony f/1.4 and it does indeed go to f/22 :)
Click to expand...

That's unusual, it's usually f/16 hence my previous comment.

It would be interesting to see what the image quality is like at f/22 on that lens.
 
sprog said:
That's unusual, it's usually f/16 hence my previous comment.

It would be interesting to see what the image quality is like at f/22 on that lens.
Click to expand...

Oh no, I'm not going to start another one of THOSE threads! :bonk::lol:

Seriously, I sincerely doubt I'd use it at f/22. I'm off out shortly to take some pics along the canal. I may give it a go, just to see, but I'm not promising to post the results! :nono::D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top