Wide angled lens for mountains?

Martin Ocando wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

Martin Ocando wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

Martin Ocando wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

You do rather go on don't you?

What's wrong with a detailed explanation? Is better for everyone. No need to be rude.

Nothing, it's just multiple people have said they don't really need wide angles in the mountains and he can't seem to accept it as their personal choice.

Is a matter of opinion, and everyone is entitled to have their own. Some people say the 70-200mm equivalent is the perfect landscape lens, while some others, like the late Galen Rowel loved his wide angle lenses and graduated filters. There is not one single truth, and ones does not apply to everyone.

So, let's exercise tolerance.

I don't deny it's a matter of opinion. He just doesn't seem to think people are entitled to theirs without being told that his is better. Just grates a bit after a while, that's all.

You are both venting your opinions, and are disagreeing. That is the essence of a discussion. If not, it would be merely a statement and support. Lets not get personal and continue to add up to the original intention of the question.

Oh, I agree that his is a valid opinion that he is entitled to express. He opening states that anyone with a contradicting one is wrong. As mentioned that just rubs me the wrong way. Anyways, back to the topic.

I'm personally planning on moving to the 12-32mm as my general walking lens. I guess as I mention though what I do might be classed more as mountaineering, and I need a camera that I can mount on the outside front somewhere that won't hinder me swinging an ice axe.

I'm used to using the 12-35mm (and just having to fish it out of my bag) and in the mountains I have many times wished for something longer, never something wider. I will probably end up carrying a longer lens, maybe the 35-100mm f/4-5.6 or perhaps even a 75mm for more considered compositions at camp/longer rest stops, but that will remain in my bag during movement.