90mm

U

ujjwaldey8165

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,842
Name
Ujjwal
Edit My Images
No
Just came back from a trip to Scotland and Lake district.

I usually use 50mm lens, and expected to use the 28mm a lot for the landscape type shots out there. Strangely though, I ended up using the 90mm much much more, especially up on the hills and passes etc. The 90mm seem to frame the composition much better, when the 28mm actually included a lot of stuff in the shot and lost the 'focus' of the composition.

Has anybody else experienced that ( I know TBY goes up the hills photographing a lot, so Mark, is that how you felt as well?)
 
ujjwaldey8165 said:
Just came back from a trip to Scotland and Lake district.

I usually use 50mm lens, and expected to use the 28mm a lot for the landscape type shots out there. Strangely though, I ended up using the 90mm much much more, especially up on the hills and passes etc. The 90mm seem to frame the composition much better, when the 28mm actually included a lot of stuff in the shot and lost the 'focus' of the composition.

Has anybody else experienced that ( I know TBY goes up the hills photographing a lot, so Mark, is that how you felt as well?)
Click to expand...

Your question is impossible to answer...with lenses and subjects it's the same as "horses for courses".
 
excalibur2 said:
Your question is impossible to answer...with lenses and subjects it's the same as "horses for courses".
Click to expand...

I agree with what you say, of course.

May be it was just me who always used a long lens for portrait - and never experimented with a long lens for landscape-ey type shots. This time I was surprised at how effective a 90mm was - may be its the hills and hillsides view.

Of course, the proof of the pudding is in the eating - so unless I see the prints I cant be sure the shots actually look ok.
 
Yep been there with many lens

Done the wide angle with lots of fore ground looking dull.
Standard lens changes the view and looks different
All the way up to 300mm which is great fun to use when doing landscapes :D

I have use the 90mm on the Xpan loads and think it is a very underated lens for doing landscapes.
 
ujjwaldey8165 said:
I agree with what you say, of course.

May be it was just me who always used a long lens for portrait - and never experimented with a long lens for landscape-ey type shots. This time I was surprised at how effective a 90mm was - may be its the hills and hillsides view.

Of course, the proof of the pudding is in the eating - so unless I see the prints I cant be sure the shots actually look ok.
Click to expand...


...and you'd be lucky to get everyone to agree what lens to use in a particular scenic view, you judged the 90mm to be the best at the time and I assume you are an amateur so it's all about what pleases you.
 
excalibur2 said:
...and you'd be lucky to get everyone to agree what lens to use in a particular scenic view, you judged the 90mm to be the best at the time and I assume you are an amateur so it's all about what pleases you.
Click to expand...


Wasn't particularly looking for anybody, much less everybody, to agree - its hardly a matter for a debate. Was sharing my thoughts and a nugget of experience with my fellow amateurs, as it were.
 
Well - first off, hope you had a good break up in the Lakes and Scotland Ujjwal - there's some rather photogenic bits up there.

Second - and I'm sure you will, in due course, but "get some shots posted" as I've been missing it up there recently.

And third, in answer to your question - I definitely use longer length lenses on landscape shots where appropriate. Sometimes the broad sweep of views you get in the hills is wonderful to look at, but when you come to put a frame around it, there's just not enough going on to make it worthwhile taking the shot.

I started out (as most fillmies did back in the day) with a single fast 50mm lens on the camera - I couldn't even afford a proper camera for the first 4 years and had to use a MLT5 :lol:. There were definitely times when I wished for a wider lens, mainly for rock-climbing shots where you had a fixed stance and couldn't walk back or forward to frame things as you'd like. Eventually I destroyed the Practika, and bought a Canon AE-1 (again initially only with 1.4 50mm lens) and when finances allowed (finally working by this time) picked up a 28mm and 75-200 zoom (all of which lenses i've still got and are still in use) I found the wide and the long zoom both to be useful for shots in the hills.

I will confess, I do like the occasional wide angle shot, but they're very much something that are dictated by special locations. I've been as guilty as anyone of taking the wide landscape with the hills in the distance, a nice sunset and a foreground of MAMBA (Miles And Miles of B***** All) :lol: Now I'll only go wide if there's foreground interest to justify it, and it usually dictates me lying on the floor, with the camera on a tripod about a foot above ground... not something I can get away with when I'm out on a days hill walking with my mates. Okay - maybe once a day - if they've got some sandwiches that they can eat while I'm faffing around for half a hour :shrug:

But for general hill walks, i'll probably have the all-round lens on the EOS-3 - 28-105mm zoom (or the kit lens on the digital - 29-88mm equivalent) with me, and I'll use whatever length suits. If I'm on my own, and "on a mission" so to speak, there'll be a couple of (borrowed) old lenses in the bag - 17-35 2.8L, 80-200 2.8L and a 28-80mm f/2.8-4L on the EOS-3... (One day I'll get around to buying the modern equivalents for myself) ... and (shameful admission time) the EOS450D and sigma 10-20 in the bag also. Of course with all that and 3 kilos of redsnapper tripod on my back, in addition to the usual hill walking kit, I'm happier with 6-7 miles than an all dayer!

I certainly use longer lenses such as the 80-200 to isolate certain sections of the landscape, and also use it to trick the perspective and make the distand ranges of hills "stack up" and appear closer.

So - like everyone else I guess - the right lens is the one that makes the picture you like. So what if "the rules" say wide angle for landscapes - Be like Barbossa - Know when to break the rules. Sometimes "codes" are merely guidelines!
 
Thanks Mark.

The most important thing I did this time was to drive up the Hardknott pass. I have vertigo, so it was a personal challenge. Failed the first day to drive up the Wrynose pass, my nerves simply failed me. The next day I simply had to do the Hardknott. For almost everyone else, its a simple thing to do, for me it was nerve wracking ( and physically challenging) to the extreme. When I finally reached the top of the pass, I was enjoying the moment of personal triumph along with the view.

You said it Mark. The eyes/brain have the ability to look at an open vista, enjoy the view in panoramic and ignoring the dull foreground. But the 28mm lens just takes in so much, even the beautiful peaks fade to the background. With a 90mm ( and I guess a 135mm would have been even better), the shot with enough of the valley and little house with the peak rising in the background just looked so good.
This is first time I went to the Lake district and the lower highlands; and it was lovely. Once the prints come in - and it will take a week I guess - I'll post up a few ( and will send you the negs from the Xpan, Mark. Some should be good).
 
Last edited:
.....and a problem I've often found doing landscapes is haze...ok if you live in a nice area and can wait for a clear day, but on holiday you are stuck unless a polariser can cut thru it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top