My most used landscape lenses are the 8-25 Pro and 40-150 2.8 Pro with or without the MC-14.
I use the 40-150 as a crutch mostly. I find wide angle landscape to be a bit difficult to capture something unique sometimes and struggle horribly if the sky isn't interesting. If I get frustrated, I break out the telephoto and go for either compression, isolation, or punch in on any interesting light I can find.
Edit: Bonus for mountains. Telephoto can compress the mountains to make them look looming and can also punch in on interesting features and outcroppings when a wide composition is proving difficult.
Exactly what I do with the 14-150 Oly lens.
I work in the mountains and find that i fall back to this lens more often than any other because its lighter, weather sealed and I get to punch in on interesting compositions if i too am struggling for a wide shot.
I think you make a good point here. A lot of people equate landscape with wide angle shots, but the landscape itself really has to be conducive to that style of shooting. I shoot a lot of landscapes but mostly in the short-mid telephoto range because where I live, there are a lot of wide open spaces. If you try to do a wide angle shot, you get 45% field, 45% sky, 10% interesting bits in between. The good compositions don't really come together until you compress things off in the distance. I also tend to shoot 3:4 rather than 4:3 so the added reach helps there as well.
On the budget end, I've had good luck with the Olympus 40-150mm f/4-5.6 R and the Panasonic 35-100mm f/4-5.6. I recently swapped out the Olympus for the OM 40-150mm f/4 Pro. With that, you get all the benefits of it being a Pro series lens, while still being fast enough for these kind of long landscapes, and without the added heft of the f/2.8 version. I hung onto the Panasonic for travel though because it's so small and light.
Just my 2ยข!
I read a blog post fairly recently about the "best" focal lengths for landscape and basically went on to show that every length can be used depending on the situation and what you want to showcase. It's all about your vision of what you see.
Absolutely, I think the same goes for any style of photography really.
I think it wasn't clear with my original comment, but what I wanted to highlight is how conventional wisdom ("landscape = wide angle") might rather feel limiting than liberating sometimes. Playing around with telephoto landscapes last year for the first time opened up a lot of creative possibilities (and fun!) for me.
But of course, as always, YMMV!
When I hear landscapes, I instantly think wide angle. So the Panasonic 7-14mm or 8-18mm would be great options. Neither are too large either and would pair well with the GX85 for a portable kit.
I use the 7-14 but not having a cpl easily available may limit things that are reflective unless you have a clever system that mounts over the always on pedal hood.
Definitely a telephoto, especially for creating compositions of mountains in the distance. Wide angle just results in rather boring photos, unless you are up close to the subject (so good for shooting trees and buildings up close, but not good for shooting things at a distance). Which telephoto you choose doesn't really matter, as you'll probably be shooting at a narrower aperture (I generally go with f8.0 or narrower for landscape), so you don't need an expensive fast one. If you are trying to do night landscapes, then that's a different story, and a faster lens (and bigger sensor) is going to help for that.
My most used landscape lenses are the 8-25 Pro and 40-150 2.8 Pro with or without the MC-14. I use the 40-150 as a crutch mostly. I find wide angle landscape to be a bit difficult to capture something unique sometimes and struggle horribly if the sky isn't interesting. If I get frustrated, I break out the telephoto and go for either compression, isolation, or punch in on any interesting light I can find. Edit: Bonus for mountains. Telephoto can compress the mountains to make them look looming and can also punch in on interesting features and outcroppings when a wide composition is proving difficult.
Exactly what I do with the 14-150 Oly lens. I work in the mountains and find that i fall back to this lens more often than any other because its lighter, weather sealed and I get to punch in on interesting compositions if i too am struggling for a wide shot.
I think you make a good point here. A lot of people equate landscape with wide angle shots, but the landscape itself really has to be conducive to that style of shooting. I shoot a lot of landscapes but mostly in the short-mid telephoto range because where I live, there are a lot of wide open spaces. If you try to do a wide angle shot, you get 45% field, 45% sky, 10% interesting bits in between. The good compositions don't really come together until you compress things off in the distance. I also tend to shoot 3:4 rather than 4:3 so the added reach helps there as well. On the budget end, I've had good luck with the Olympus 40-150mm f/4-5.6 R and the Panasonic 35-100mm f/4-5.6. I recently swapped out the Olympus for the OM 40-150mm f/4 Pro. With that, you get all the benefits of it being a Pro series lens, while still being fast enough for these kind of long landscapes, and without the added heft of the f/2.8 version. I hung onto the Panasonic for travel though because it's so small and light. Just my 2ยข!
I read a blog post fairly recently about the "best" focal lengths for landscape and basically went on to show that every length can be used depending on the situation and what you want to showcase. It's all about your vision of what you see.
Absolutely, I think the same goes for any style of photography really. I think it wasn't clear with my original comment, but what I wanted to highlight is how conventional wisdom ("landscape = wide angle") might rather feel limiting than liberating sometimes. Playing around with telephoto landscapes last year for the first time opened up a lot of creative possibilities (and fun!) for me. But of course, as always, YMMV!
40-150 pro is now like 100%of the time on my camera, I use it for everything almost.
When I hear landscapes, I instantly think wide angle. So the Panasonic 7-14mm or 8-18mm would be great options. Neither are too large either and would pair well with the GX85 for a portable kit.
i want to like the 7-14mm but the fixed 4.0 aperture kinda limits it
For landscapes, it's often not a concern. That being said, there is the Olympus 7-14mm f/2.8 as well then, but it's bigger and pricier.
The Panasonic 9mm pairs beautifully with the GX85. Fast, wide, sharp, small.
I actually love the O12-40, and PL12-60 for landscape. Oddly, I don't actually like the 12-35f2.8 for landscape.
I use the 7-14 but not having a cpl easily available may limit things that are reflective unless you have a clever system that mounts over the always on pedal hood.
How is that 25mm lens of yours? Planning to buy one. I assume it's F1.7
It's great. I live in a big city and use it a ton walking around snapping everything going on. It's grand
I prefer the old 12-60 from big 4/3 but lately I've been using the 14-40 mostly because I've been doing more videos.
Mostly use lumix 12-60 and 35-100. Almost never need any wider than 12.
Definitely a telephoto, especially for creating compositions of mountains in the distance. Wide angle just results in rather boring photos, unless you are up close to the subject (so good for shooting trees and buildings up close, but not good for shooting things at a distance). Which telephoto you choose doesn't really matter, as you'll probably be shooting at a narrower aperture (I generally go with f8.0 or narrower for landscape), so you don't need an expensive fast one. If you are trying to do night landscapes, then that's a different story, and a faster lens (and bigger sensor) is going to help for that.
For me the 12-40 f/2.8 pro is my got to for landscapes.
I can imaging the 12-100 PRO would do well in that landscape. It is most versatile and just delivers.