DPReview.com is closing April 10th - Find out more

Telephoto for landscapes - 40-150mm f2.8 or something else?

Started Dec 18, 2017 | Discussions thread
(unknown member) Veteran Member • Posts: 4,046
Re: Telephoto for landscapes - 40-150mm f2.8 or something else?

I like the Rokinon 7.5 fisheye and 12mm f/2 when I want to go wide or bright/wide. If I go to the Palouse where you can see forever, I want a lens as long as I can get. The benefits of compression, shooting landscapes with a long lens from a distance are well known.

You can make towering mountains in the distance look much closer to the foreground than they are. It that makes them look much more impressive in the places where you go. You can bring an interesting composition to you that you might not be able to reach on your hike. You don't; have to have a long lens but its good to have one. In a place where I know I don't need one, I'll take a PM 1 or 2 with the 17mm f/2.8 prime on it because its so small and light and the IQ is good. I don't see the need for f/1.8 enough to buy one.

If you look at the photos posted by the OLY visionaries you see they take long lenses with them, even the 300mm f/4 and not just for wildlife. That's too heavy for me so I take the 75-300.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow