Telephoto for landscapes?

M

Moreorless

Suspended / Banned
Messages
989
Edit My Images
No
I'm off to Switzerland in a few days and I'm weighing up a last minute tele lens buy. The trouble is I really don't have any expereince of using a lens longer than my 15-85/100 macro either on an SLR or P&S, its easy to see the benefits for wildlife and people shooting but my main interest is still landscapes. It seems like a basic question I know but does anyone else tend to go much longer than 160mm in 35mm terms for landscape work in more exotic enviroments(picking out mountains etc)?

If so what would you recommend? the 70-200 f/4L was the first thing that came to mind but I'v seen a 70-300 DO used for £550 and the size and features(IS, ring USM) are tempting.
 
Last edited:
Do you mean 70-200 F4 IS? If yes, then I'd go for it hands down, very sharp and IS very useful as well.
 
I've done some landscapes work with the 70-200 with no problems. The only thing you may struggle with is trying to do them hand held as at F16 or so you may need quite slow shutter speeds. Remember the rule of thumb with the shutter speed being equal to or faster than the focal length.:thumbs:
Use a tripod and you're fine.

Gareth
 
wippers said:
I've done some landscapes work with the 70-200 with no problems. The only thing you may struggle with is trying to do them hand held as at F16 or so you may need quite slow shutter speeds. Remember the rule of thumb with the shutter speed being equal to or faster than the focal length.:thumbs:
Use a tripod and you're fine.

Gareth
Click to expand...

Yeah thats the problem I'm seeing, I don't really want to carry a tripod with me but the IS version of the 70-200 f/4 is simpley too expensive(really the DO at £550 is a bit much aswell) for me to justify buying.

Have you used the 70-200 on a crop or just FF for landscapes? my existing lenses would cover up to 160mm in FF terms.

Guess I should look though my Shiro Shirhata books and workout the equivlient focal lenghts for his mountain shots. ;)
 
If I remember rightly, they were taken on a Canon 50D which is a crop sensor. One thing you may find is that the longer focal lengths can compress the image so the mountains may seem closer to the forground than they actually are.
You could always rest the camera on a rock or something if you don't want to carry the tripod. :shrug:
I would say if you mainly want to do the landscape stuff, then don't bother with a long lens. At 200mm, you're nowhere near long enough for most wildlife (unless you're in a zoo) so won't be gaining anything but losing the wider angle for the landscapes.
Just my opinion of course.:thumbs:

Gareth
 
I've done plenty of landscape work at 135mm, don't think I'd want any longer though tbh.
 
I've done landscapes at 200mm. Note that there cannot be *any* wind at all, or ground movements (train tracks nearby, heavy machinery, etc...). The slightest breeze will ruin your shot as any vibrations are magnified in proportion to zoom.
 
I do a lot of landscapes at 200mm. I'm sure if my zoom went longer I'd use it longer too.

The concern that a mountain may appear to be nearer to you with a telephoto than is actually the case is a strange one. It's true, of course, but a wide-angle makes that same mountain seem further away, and no-one bats an eyelid!

Why limit yourself to certain focal lengths for landscapes?

It is true that a tripod is pretty useful for telephoto landscapes. You might get away with a higher ISO and and IS lens, but a tripod helps in other ways too. You could try a tiny travel pod or a monopod. The former is certainly better than nothing. You need to worry more about DoF with a telephoto, of course.

I used the Canon 70-200 non-IS lens for many years and it's a great lens - really sharp. I've just upgraded to the IS version and I wonder if I wasted my cash! I heard it said that the optics are the same in both lenses but I don't know if that's true.

I'd suggest getting, borrowing or hiring a telephoto zoom (plus tripod) if you possibly can!
 
I was in Zermatt for a week recently. The only lens I had on my 40D was my 17-85 (I would have borrowed a 15-85 from the office, but they were all out with customers!) and I didn't really feel I missed not having anything longer.

Yes, from high viewpoints there are mountains in the distance and it can be tempting to try to bring them closer with a telephoto. But I find that the results of doing that can be strangely disappointing - perhaps because it's essentially a two-dimensional view. Using a wider angle gives more depth to the landscape, in my opinion.
 
wippers said:
I've done some landscapes work with the 70-200 with no problems. The only thing you may struggle with is trying to do them hand held as at F16 or so you may need quite slow shutter speeds. Remember the rule of thumb with the shutter speed being equal to or faster than the focal length.:thumbs:
Use a tripod and you're fine.

Gareth
Click to expand...

Just like to add remember to add in the crop factor to what Gareths telling you :thumbs:
Regards
Richard
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top