Going to a long hike in mountains, which lens to choose?

I've put myself through this hypothetical mental exercise many times -- what FL would I pick for hiking/landscape if I were condemned to a single prime? I love the look of telephoto landscapes but I would have to choose something on the wide side if I could only bring one lens with me. Thus, in the interest of your question, I'd choose the 14.

I have the Pergear 25 (close in FL to the 23) and have gone hiking with it on a few occasions and don't love it as a single FL for most landscapes, it's neither here nor there. Though 23mm would be more flattering for the family shots.

As another poster has questioned, you really can't bring both?

My usual kit for long, strenuous hikes in the mountains is the 16-55 and 55-200.

Rightsaidfred wrote:

The more prominent and the closer the foreground, the more difficult I guess. So one should have a feeling (play around at home) where approximately the nodal point is with the lens of choice.

23 mm seems a good fl.

AFAIK a polarization filter is not recommended since the sky will become unevenly dark, depending on the angle to the sun.

That normally shouldn't be a problem with the 23mm and a circular polarisers. In my experience, it's much wider FOVs where the polarisation loses its evenness, making transitions more obvious in a stitch.

If I had to make the choice I would go with the 23.  In fact I wouldn't think twice about grabbing my X100F and be on my way.  Since that's not an option for you, the 23 would yield the same results.

FTOG wrote:

Rightsaidfred wrote:

...

23 mm seems a good fl.

AFAIK a polarization filter is not recommended since the sky will become unevenly dark, depending on the angle to the sun.

That normally shouldn't be a problem with the 23mm and a circular polarisers. In my experience, it's much wider FOVs where the polarisation loses its evenness, making transitions more obvious in a stitch.

Thank you FTOG.

Not so sure whether this depends on the fl if you do panorama stitching. Isn't it more the angle of the sky you cover overall?

But I'll give it a try. One stich with, one without. Just need find a chance to go for a hike and currently don't know when this will be the case

This gives me the time to figure out the nodal point. I'll probably use my Viltrox 23 mm f/1.4. Could also try my XF 33 mm f/1.4.

Edit. Ah I see I am honored to be a senior member from now on. It's my 1000th post

Martin

I'd take the 23 without thinking twice about it.

But the 14 is so small that I think you've set up a false choice.

Thank you all for your comments.

Sorry but my profile wasn't up to date - I sold the x100s a while ago and upgraded my XT1 to XT2 so now my only option is XT2.

Your comments gave me a lot to think of.

Some of you prefer the 23 and some the 14.

I believe everyone agree that taking one of them is a compromise so I need to re-consider my decision to take one lens only

One with and one without is always good advice for polarising filters, perhaps all filters!

The angle of view at which polarisers will produce objectionable unevenness of sky is about 30mm full frame 20mm APS-C.  I never saw it (film days) with my 35mm lens and it was pretty much invariable with my 24mm.  In those days 35mm was my almost invariable lens for general scenery.

I'd take the 23mm as the sole lens (actually I'd take my 27mm) unless you are close to huge subjects or want to shoot close in to foreground subjects with scenery in the background.  You'll already know if that is something you do.

Practice panoramas.  MS ICE is very good at stitching if you run a Windows machine.  Overlap by 30% or a bit less and shoot in portrait.

Don't worry about tripods or panoramic heads unless you want objects close to you in the foreground, hand held works well with modern software even so.

Practice rotating the camera around a point within the lens, truthfully it doesn't matter where for distant or middle distant objects.

(Oh and PS the no parallax point is not either of the nodal points, it is the entrance pupil, but you don't need to worry about it or know where it is unless you've a tripod and pano head for shooting with foreground detail.)

A lens that wide is difficult to use well unless you are really close to a big subject.  Otherwise the sort of image you can take needs a lot of practice.  If you are asking on here you may need to spend more time on it before taking it as your only lens.  It is easy to take a lot of pictures with a tiny subject surrounded by dull stuff you never really wanted.  This isn't a work of art it is about the plant and its habitat but this is the sort of image very wide lenses are best at.

I mentioned in an earlier post the value of longer lenses in the mountains, rather than ultrawides such as the 14mm. I noticed at the end of a review of the X-E4 that there were a couple of quite successful shots that are good examples of what I mean… taken with the 70-300!

see https://www.5050travelog.com/camera-and-lens-reviews/fujifilm-x-e4-first-impressions

23mm f2 + 16mm f 2.8 these are very small lenses, light, excellent and WR

The 16mm is an interesting add on for AWA frame does add too much weight and volume