TP: What's the optimal wide angle for landscapes?

Yeah, thats part of my feelings too. I really don't think Landscapes mean wide, and wide means landscapes.

I think a common mistake we all have done is found ourselves on some beautiful vista, we put on the widest thing we got and take the shot. It's an awe inspiring view.

Get home, look at the shot, and it's just dull. That's where you learn those big vistas really need something going on and something more than a wide lens to do them right. All you have is a shot of a lot of nothing, everything is small and boring.

Personally, I think wides are good for tight spaces, like in the woods, and urban stuff at times (though really need a TS/PC there). But a 400mm lens can be a landscape lens too.

I have to say that despite having a 20-35 in my bag during a recent trip through the most scenic areas of NZ, I mainly used the 28-75 D as there was nothing wrong with the perspectives it gave of grandiose vistas.

I still would have loved to have the 10-20, which I expect to arrive tomorrow.

Edited by brettania - 13 May 2007 at 09:50

of course it makes sense. And if you have a good panorama software, you can shoot 4 pics and stich later then :)

So do we all agree that Tokina 12-24 f:4 should exist in our mount?

I think to some people, "landscape" means "wide vista" ... I've taken to calling a lot of my photography "scenic" instead of "landscape" just to get rid of that mis-expectation that I've got a portfolio full of scenic vistas !

Landscape photography in New England is vastly different from landscape photography in, say, Utah. There aren't very many places where you can see for miles and miles, what with all the hills and trees, and when you can see for miles and miles, you've either got hazy skies or a landscape full of power lines, buildings, roads or other signs of civilization. Landscape photography in this part of the country frequently features signs of rural civilization ... covered bridges, barns, etc.

Even when travelling to places where I did occasionally find those sweeping vistas, I was always content with the WA coverage of my old Sigma 21-35 (on film). When I upgraded to the 17-35G, a found virtually no use for the extra coverage - I can remember two shots that I took at 17mm, one of which was a fair "keeper".

I shot in Utah with the 17-35D and the 7D and found 17mm on APS-C to be barely adequate and would have preferred just a tad more coverage.

So I've come to the conclusion that for me, 24mm on FF is a necessity while 20mm on FF is a luxury. If I got back into doing landscape (scenic :) photography today, I'd probably get the CZ16-80 for APS-C and live with that, and not worry about anything wider until full frame sometime down the road. As I'm not doing much nature photography, 17-35D does the trick for the moment.

I love my sigma 10-20mm. Its tough to use. Its specialized. It has compromises. Blah blah blah. 16mm is great for landscapes, so is 20mm. So is 90mm. 10-15mm is fun, but requires you to be VERY careful and restrained (don't be that nut with a gallery full of "Look I have a 10mm! WeeEEeEee!").

I have many 10-20mm shots that look like they could have been taken with a normal lens, at least at first look. These are my favorites.

I could live with a 16mm, 28mm, 50mm, and 90mm for landscape. I had a NICE 17mm, but eventually our relationship fell apart. I needed something... just a little.... different.

I've got a min 28-135 which I use for almost everything, if I need wide I make a panorama with my A200, 3 shots 30MP minus the overlap of course

Dave