Wide angled lens for mountains?

I'm lucky enough to be spending a couple of weeks in Nepal in early November, and will be doing some trekking up in the mountains.

I've currently got an EM-10, and the only lens I've got at the moment is the panasonic 14-140mm.  This is a great lens and is really versatile.

I've not really done much photography of/in mountains before, so am wondering whether 14mm will be wide enough? or if I can make do with what I've got?

I like travelling light so if I can get away with the lens I've got, then that would be ideal,  however I don't want to be up a mountain and wishing I could fit more in!

If I were to get something wide, then I think I'd be looking at the olympus 9-18mm or the panasonic 7-14mm to compliment the 14-140.   I've been doing a bit of reading and they both seem to be great lenses with their relative strengths and weaknesses.

Im also not sure how much I'd need the full range of the 14-140, so wonder whether a 12-35, or 12-40 would work well on its own instead of taking the 14-140 + a wider lens.  Having said that, both these lenses seem quite large?

Basically Im a bit lost, so any advice is welcome!!

14mm may not always be wide enough but then you turn the camera in portrait orientation and shoot a panorama. In the mountains that should not be a problem.

If you do want a wider lens plus travel light the Oly 9-18 adds hardly any bulk and weight to your setup. It's a pretty good (but not pro quality) lens.

In the mountains light is likely to be available in abundance so there should be enough light to get away with an f/3.5-5.6 zoom lens.

I think in Nepal if you are on a trek there is so much vertical relief (10000' is not uncommon) in some of the valleys that tend to be rather narrow that you would do well with ultra wide. Personally, I think the 8mm F1.8 fisheye Pro is a great choice with the added bonus of being a terrific lens for shooting star shots. It also fits the bill for being lightweight and rather small.

On the ultra wide end of the spectrum, unlike mid and longer length lenses, I don't think a zoom is as valuable - just the wide end.

Although this shot shows curvature (which looks good to me here) it is very easy to avoid curvature in most cases by keeping the horizon near the center in the image.

I last did a trek around Manaslu in 1999 with my film camera and lenses 20, 35, 55, 105 and 180. I mostly used the 105 and 180 for cultural shots of the local people. The lenses from 20 to 55 were what I used for the vast majority of my mountain scenery shots. I carried this kit plus at that time plus a 5 lb. tripod throughout the 22 day 200 mile journey. With m4/3 a much lighter tripod will suffice. If you are going with porters, which I would recommend both for convenience but also culturally your pack needn't be heavy. Yours could easily weigh less than 15 pounds, perhaps even ten.

There is not only a great deal of relief to the snow-capped peaks but the mountains are very large, extensive. The width is valuable to encompass the great height and breadth of scenery.

rashid7 wrote:

Gary from Seattle wrote:

I last did a trek around Manaslu in 1999 with my film camera and lenses 20, 35, 55, 105 and 180. I mostly used the 105 and 180 for cultural shots of the local people. The lenses from 20 to 55 were what I used for the vast majority of my mountain scenery shots. I carried this kit plus at that time plus a 5 lb. tripod throughout the 22 day 200 mile journey. With m4/3 a much lighter tripod will suffice. If you are going with porters, which I would recommend both for convenience but also culturally your pack needn't be heavy. Yours could easily weigh less than 15 pounds, perhaps even ten.

There is not only a great deal of relief to the snow-capped peaks but the mountains are very large, extensive. The width is valuable to encompass the great height and breadth of scenery.

We fall into 2 main camps re gear on the trail. I m of the persuasion that ultralight is nirvana. I am a helicopter pilot, and an ultra-light back packer, and I DETEST carrying too much. I find it robs me of the joy of going foot-loose and fancy-free. By being ruthless in slashing weight, I go further w/ much greater enjoyment.

I love my FF Nikon & glass, but definitely not on the trail!

i am very impressed by you Gary.

I suppose porters (or your personal lama) might change the equation. (Ansel Adams used pack mules)

But it can't be feasible to have them constantly at your side on the trail. (?)

We used porters to carry camp and food (there were no guest houses at the time), but even today I would use porters to support the local economy but also for cultural enrichment of my trip. I carried all the camera gear on my back as I did not feel it fair to so burden the porters.

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 also backpacked all summer with camera gear selected for each individual trip. The big item is the tripod. If I do not envision shooting astro and have rocks to set the camera on, I carry only a table top 8 Oz. tripod.

stringy wrote:

I'm lucky enough to be spending a couple of weeks in Nepal in early November, and will be doing some trekking up in the mountains.

I've currently got an EM-10, and the only lens I've got at the moment is the panasonic 14-140mm. This is a great lens and is really versatile.

I've not really done much photography of/in mountains before, so am wondering whether 14mm will be wide enough? or if I can make do with what I've got?

I like travelling light so if I can get away with the lens I've got, then that would be ideal, however I don't want to be up a mountain and wishing I could fit more in!

If I were to get something wide, then I think I'd be looking at the olympus 9-18mm or the panasonic 7-14mm to compliment the 14-140. I've been doing a bit of reading and they both seem to be great lenses with their relative strengths and weaknesses.

Im also not sure how much I'd need the full range of the 14-140, so wonder whether a 12-35, or 12-40 would work well on its own instead of taking the 14-140 + a wider lens. Having said that, both these lenses seem quite large?

Basically Im a bit lost, so any advice is welcome!!

I think Paul De Bra had given an excellent suggestion on pananorma. The following 2 were stitched of 4~5 images by Microsoft's free ICE from 14-45 during a trip to Riederalp, Swiss, shooting at the Alps:

In fact, although I like to shoot with 7-14 on landscapes, and had that lovely lens with me, I had shot a lot by the 14-45 at that location:

Depending on your mode at that time, and the connection to the scenery, it'll be hard to pre determine what focal length be better for the job. If size and weight would be essential (long trekking at high attitude), I would think a 14-140 could be quite sufficient. I would also consider a small table top tripod for human body stabilization (2 legs on shoulder, 1 leg at stomach) suggested by Andre for slower shutter speed. Thin Dof from fast f/stop might not what you want for the mountainscape shooting.

Just my 2 cents and wishing you a lovely trip.

stringy wrote:

I'm lucky enough to be spending a couple of weeks in Nepal in early November, and will be doing some trekking up in the mountains.

I've currently got an EM-10, and the only lens I've got at the moment is the panasonic 14-140mm. This is a great lens and is really versatile.

I've not really done much photography of/in mountains before, so am wondering whether 14mm will be wide enough? or if I can make do with what I've got?

I like travelling light so if I can get away with the lens I've got, then that would be ideal, however I don't want to be up a mountain and wishing I could fit more in!

If I were to get something wide, then I think I'd be looking at the olympus 9-18mm or the panasonic 7-14mm to compliment the 14-140. I've been doing a bit of reading and they both seem to be great lenses with their relative strengths and weaknesses.

Im also not sure how much I'd need the full range of the 14-140, so wonder whether a 12-35, or 12-40 would work well on its own instead of taking the 14-140 + a wider lens. Having said that, both these lenses seem quite large?

Basically Im a bit lost, so any advice is welcome!!

Without carrying a bandolier of lenses, the 14-140mm II is extremely versatile and as long as you've got enough light, I found that it's images compare quite favorably to the 12-40mm.

The only downside is the 14mm end, which is kind of a meh focal length. So for wide angle, nothing beats a 7-14mm. One of my favorite things is shooting landscapes at 7mm with 16:9 aspect ratio.

Add a 20mm for low light and you're done. Those three lenses will do pretty much everything you want.

Dheorl wrote:

Gary from Seattle wrote:

I think in Nepal if you are on a trek there is so much vertical relief (10000' is not uncommon) in some of the valleys that tend to be rather narrow that you would do well with ultra wide. Personally, I think the 8mm F1.8 fisheye Pro is a great choice with the added bonus of being a terrific lens for shooting star shots. It also fits the bill for being lightweight and rather small.

On the ultra wide end of the spectrum, unlike mid and longer length lenses, I don't think a zoom is as valuable - just the wide end.

Although this shot shows curvature (which looks good to me here) it is very easy to avoid curvature in most cases by keeping the horizon near the center in the image.

See, I personally just don't like these type of images. I feel that you loose all the majesty of the mountains shooting them in such a way. Obviously though some people do like them.

I think I'd advise the OP go and flick through flickr at pictures taken in the Nepalese mountains and see what the widest focal length that regularly crops up in images they like are.

This image was all about the breadth of the larch-covered terrain, here over 20 miles wide. It is all about color.

cfh25 wrote:

With LR Photo Merge or Microsoft ICE, panoramas are easy:

But this ignores the fact that the mountains in Nepal, not New England, often rise 10000' or more - in narrow valleys. Although I've not trekked to the Everest area, the relief there goes from around 16000' to 29000'. On the Manaslu trek (photos are film) we camped in a meadow at 11,200' with Manaslu towering more than 15000' directly above rhododendron covered forests within 1/4 mile of us. And the scene was equally as wide. You would be stitching until the cows come home.

Dheorl wrote:

Gary from Seattle wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

Gary from Seattle wrote:

I think in Nepal if you are on a trek there is so much vertical relief (10000' is not uncommon) in some of the valleys that tend to be rather narrow that you would do well with ultra wide. Personally, I think the 8mm F1.8 fisheye Pro is a great choice with the added bonus of being a terrific lens for shooting star shots. It also fits the bill for being lightweight and rather small.

On the ultra wide end of the spectrum, unlike mid and longer length lenses, I don't think a zoom is as valuable - just the wide end.

Although this shot shows curvature (which looks good to me here) it is very easy to avoid curvature in most cases by keeping the horizon near the center in the image.

See, I personally just don't like these type of images. I feel that you loose all the majesty of the mountains shooting them in such a way. Obviously though some people do like them.

I think I'd advise the OP go and flick through flickr at pictures taken in the Nepalese mountains and see what the widest focal length that regularly crops up in images they like are.

This image was all about the breadth of the larch-covered terrain, here over 20 miles wide. It is all about color.

Sorry but whatever the intent the image really doesn't do it for me and I stand by my initial statement when it comes to wide angle lenses in the mountains.

And I find "majestic" images absent great lighting to be repetitive and boring. It has to be a very dramatic and rugged scene (sharp toothed peaks) with shadows on glaciers and wind ridges or good alpenglow for me to find it interesting....and so there you go. Only about 15% of my mountain scenes are telephoto. The vast majority are shot at 14-17mm (Olympus), usually with a floral foreground.

Dheorl wrote:

Gary from Seattle wrote:

rashid7 wrote:

Gary from Seattle wrote:

I last did a trek around Manaslu in 1999 with my film camera and lenses 20, 35, 55, 105 and 180. I mostly used the 105 and 180 for cultural shots of the local people. The lenses from 20 to 55 were what I used for the vast majority of my mountain scenery shots. I carried this kit plus at that time plus a 5 lb. tripod throughout the 22 day 200 mile journey. With m4/3 a much lighter tripod will suffice. If you are going with porters, which I would recommend both for convenience but also culturally your pack needn't be heavy. Yours could easily weigh less than 15 pounds, perhaps even ten.

There is not only a great deal of relief to the snow-capped peaks but the mountains are very large, extensive. The width is valuable to encompass the great height and breadth of scenery.

We fall into 2 main camps re gear on the trail. I m of the persuasion that ultralight is nirvana. I am a helicopter pilot, and an ultra-light back packer, and I DETEST carrying too much. I find it robs me of the joy of going foot-loose and fancy-free. By being ruthless in slashing weight, I go further w/ much greater enjoyment.

I love my FF Nikon & glass, but definitely not on the trail!

i am very impressed by you Gary.

I suppose porters (or your personal lama) might change the equation. (Ansel Adams used pack mules)

But it can't be feasible to have them constantly at your side on the trail. (?)

We used porters to carry camp and food (there were no guest houses at the time), but even today I would use porters to support the local economy but also for cultural enrichment of my trip. I carried all the camera gear on my back as I did not feel it fair to so burden the porters.

Out of curiosity why do you advocate the use of porters so much. I understand it can be fun to have some locals around to get to know but from what I've heard as much as it might enrich their economy they are also hugely underpaid for dangerous, sporadic jobs. It's a business which is obviously potentially beneficial to the communities, but I feel along with any recommendation to use porters there should be a huge caveat about how they are hired and through whom.

Sorry, but the pay is much better than other local jobs. The vast majority of Nepalis grow up in a rural setting but are in rather large families; not all can inherit the same small sustaining plot of land. So, the other siblings go to Katmandu, where there are no jobs. And being a porter (not a Sherpa) is not a risky job. Support should be hired through reputable local companies and the help should be (and is typically) well tipped.

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.

I also backpacked all summer with camera gear selected for each individual trip. The big item is the tripod. If I do not envision shooting astro and have rocks to set the camera on, I carry only a table top 8 Oz. tripod.