Wide angled lens for mountains?

I have not read all the posts.

SO,

depending of where you will physically be with the camera/lens and said mountain even a telephoto lens could be better than wide angle. I would know that variable and look at telephoto.

OR

Look at a p&s camera that has a wide angle lens range and get a telephoto lens for your MFT's camera.

OR

really travel light and do something like a bridge camera, Canon GX-3, Sony RX-10, Panasonic FZ-1000

Just think about what money you are ready to spend on a lens vs other options to think outside of what you have.

It is also important to know that if you buy a new camera or lens to cover what you need will you still use it after your vacation for other things. How practical is it. If it is a fisheye lens will you really use or need a specialized item like that for a arbitrary example.

*Last, this could be the time to revamp your MFT's lens set up all together and sell your 14-140 and get a fast 2.8 wide zoom like the Panasonic 12-35 mm 2.8 or Olympus whatever if you rarely use the telephoto range of said lens.

Their are many options and sometimes the p&s or bridge camera etc, makes more sense for versatility after the fact for sake of a vacation. That is not to say you can't bring your Olympus and a second camera. My taste is depending on the destination I may take a P&S and my main camera.

***

I forgot:

Think about if you will use or need filters for landscapes etc.. IF so forget my p&s idea. Look at the LEE Seven 5 filters, It is not inexpensive but a idea specifically for landscape that is very versatile IMO.

wow, thanks for all of the comments guys.  I've had a busy few days so not much time to stop by here.  I think I need to have a read through all the comments and have a think about how I want to approach this trip from a photography perspective, how many lenses I want vs travelling light etc.

There's loads of differing opinions and loads of great photos, so I'll have a look through and a think.  I'll also get on flickr and see what kind of shots I like etc.

Thanks for the help guys.  I'm sure I'll be back shortly with a bunch of questions!

Thin_Ice wrote:

Pics of just mountains are boring most of the time ( i am a mountaineer with 30 years experience).

ha ha, my wife would remove the "most of the time" thing... but you know it is just jealousy

the pictures get interesting because of the other elements in the picture. The mountains are just an interesting background.

Yep, but I would still argue that moutain pictures can still be great, but they are hard to take, on mountain trips : they should be taken in photo trips in the mountains, when the goal is too find the right composition with the right light at the right moment of the year.

The 12 mm makes subjects in foreground larger and mountains in background very small. A simple mountain landscape is dissapointing most of the time.

I Agree 100% (see my post above on panoramas) : I have a 9-18, but rarely use it in mountains for that reason.

People shots: oly 45 mm

Having people really helps in my experience : they make a proper scale to immediatly render the large distances involved, the steepness of a ridge, the massiveness of the mountains, or even give vertigo.

They also add that storytelling element missing in "boring" mountain shots.

So my opinion, is slightly different than yours : you say mountain background can help make the subject look better. I say foreground/element can help make the mountain look better.

Ok, so I guess now might be the time to open a Mountain shots C&C thread...

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 would definitely bring the 14-140; it's versatile and you can go wide or long without having to change lenses.

I highly recommend the Olympus 9mm fish eye body cap lens. It's very small and light, and I take it almost everywhere. I don't use it that often, but it gives a unique perspective when I want it.

I also recommend a fast lens for low light situations. My favorite is the Olympus 17mm f/1.8, but if you are shooting portraits then perhaps the 45mm f/1.8 (it does a good job of subject isolation as well). They are both small and light; I would take both.

I also always take a small tripod. My preference is the Targus 42" travel tripod (TG-42TT) with the crappy head removed and replaced with a 1/4" to 3/8" adapter and small ball head. If you will only shoot landscape, then just about any small ball head will do (I use the Joby with quick release plate, only 150g). But if you will be shooting in portrait orientation, then I recommend a cheap ARCA L bracket (see eBay for the Universal MPU100 ) and the Sirui 10x ball head. For more height, add the Manfrotto 259B extension.

Here's a recent hand held HDR shot with the 9mm

Bash Bish Falls with Olympus 9mm body cap fish-eye lens

FE