Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/09/16
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>I just wanna say that landscapes are not really a wide angle thing so much. >Lots of landscapes, when you get out there, end up done on a normal or short >tele lens. >I was reluctant us shoot landscapes with my Hasselblad because all I had >was a 150 >when a few years later i added a normal and wide angle lens I took that >Hasselblad system out. >Ended up using the old 150(c) for the majority of my shots. > >The framelines for a 50 in an M6 .58 are going to look positively telephoto. >They do already with the .72 >someone who wants to do landscapes I'd recommend the .72. >I've shot lots and lots of landscapes with both my 90 AND my 135. >Lots of land is OUT there! you need some REACH! You don't want the road your >standing on! >Mark William Rabiner i've also come to this conclusion: my first impulse for landscapes was a wide angle, which really minimized the impact of the image, 'cause everything interesting got removed to the background. i much prefer using a 50 for landscapes, though i'll occasionally use a 35, if i need to get a little more of the 'sides' in the picture. the wide angle landscape seems to work best for me when there's interesting foreground stuff i want to include. guy