Wide angled lens for mountains?

Dheorl wrote:

Gary from Seattle wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

Gary from Seattle wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

Gary from Seattle wrote:

I just completed a ten day trip to the Rockies last week. I carried the EM-1 with 12-40, 35-100 (the 40-150 is too heavy and large), and the 8mm on all day hikes, the longest of which was 27-28 km on and off trail and with photography it worked out to an 8 hour day. If I am going to the best places I want to have the best camera gear. On certain trips, depending on the scenery, I leave the 35-100 behind.

I feel that should be changed to the best camera gear you can be bothered to carry but hey ho, now I'm just picking hairs because I disagree with what I'm strongly getting is a "my way is the only way" sort of attitude.

"my way is the only way" Which is exactly what I get from you , but you may have trouble seeing that.

How do you get that feeling from me when my advice was that the OP go look at flickr and see what they themselves personally like?

Horsepucky. Your first comment was a personal value judgement that you didn't like the wide angle image. That is you and I'm fine with that but it didn't add a bit to the discussion. If you don't like wide angle, fine. Personally, I think it makes photography more versatile. And, of course, in narrow valleys with huge, broad mountains folks are suggesting stitching images. And that is fine if you have the perspective and distance from the mountains - but in Nepal, once into the mountains, you don't have that luxury, you will seldom get the perspective. It was later that you brought up the Flickr bit.

So we've both contributed personal judgements to the thread. You provided an example of why you like wide angle images which coincidentally acted as a nice example as to why I don't like wide angle images, hence suggesting the OP look on flickr where he can find brilliant examples of both and make up his own mind.

I just find your attitude of saying people are essentially wrong kind of grating. I fully concede some people like wide angle images, I just feel it should be pointed out that in Nepal as much as any where it is not the only way of conveying the feeling and beauty of a place.

And essentially, they are wrong. There are not a lot of trips I do where I have to have a wide angle lens in NA. Certainly not in Colorado, California, in the BC Coast Mountains (a few exceptions). But in the Selkirks, certain deep valleys in the Rockies, North Cascades, etc. and deep in the Grand Canyon it is very helpful. And that is true especially in Nepal. Most places we hike we are not stuck in deep valleys, but in Nepal you will be unless you are a climber. Without a wide angle you will be limited to shooting out the ends of the valleys, and not across them (except rarely) or unless you are a climber. Take for instance this shot (not great and with film of a 20mm Nikon at Lake O'hara with Mt. Victoria above.)

. The relief is 6000', the valley just about 1/2 mile wide.