55mm landscape lens?

Hello all, I know you can use a variety of focal lengths and get great landscape shots (provided you're a great photographer, which I'm not :lol, but I have a dilemma regarding lenses and could use some help.

After 2 years of using a 5DII, I'm making the exciting switch to a Sony A7R. 95% of my shots are at ISO 100, on non-moving targets, so I'm excited to see what results I'm going to get with the A7R. Now that said, my only two lenses right now are a 17-40 f/4L and a 70-200f/4L IS. I could of course buy a metabones adapter, but honestly, I'd prefer to save the $400 dollars since I'm making the transition to a different system and put it towards starting a new lens set better tailored to the new body.

I could afford to buy the 55mm Zeiss (Sony branded) lens that everyone raves about, but I'd have to sell my Canon L's to do it. And I'll be honest, if I'm going to sell one of my L Lenses I'm going to sell both...no point in paying for an adapter with only one lens left to use it.

So my question is, just how limited will I be with only a 55mm for landscapes until I can slowly build my lens set? I've never owned a prime before but I actually think it might be fun to start learning to "see" from a specific focal length. I have an upcoming backpacking trip to the high Sierra and if I think I can get by with 55mm (it's full frame of course), I would probably make the switch by jumping in with both feet.

Any advice would be appreciated.

If you're ONLY going to have the 55 for landscapes, you'll feel very limited. You will have to do a lot of zooming with your legs. The other concern is the wide side. Most of my landscape shots fall at the short end of my 24-105. I'm even going shorter with a new 17-40. I feel that 55 will be very limiting.

I remembered this article by a guy who also switched from Canon to Sony, you might get something from it. I think you'd feel quite limited with a single prime lens. One thought is to browse through your photos and see what focal lengths you are using the most, if you have a wide range or stick to a narrower range, that might give you an idea of how a single lens will work out. There is software to do that, but I don't know the name of it.

His comments on the camera at the end of this post. Sounds like a great camera.

http://www.mountainpho​tographer.com …he-canyonlands/#more-5529

I appreciate the feedback Gents. I'll do some more looking into it.

Patrick, great link, thanks for posting it. He points out that with the incredible resolution it really points out the soft focus of some lenses. That's one thing pushing me towards the 55mm Zeiss...supposedly it is one of the sharpest lenses available, from edge to edge. I wonder if this would be the right time to start learning how to stitch photos. Haha

As a side note, I haven't gone and checked all my photos, but even from looking at this review you linked, I preferred the composition from his zoom over the photos he took with the 24 prime. And I almost always had my 70-200 lens on my 5DII instead of the 17-40.

Brett Weston shot his entire career with 2 lenses; normal, and wide. And that's it. The Sony 55 is a great lens for landscape. In a scene with objects far from the camera it will act as a wide angle and for objects near to the camera as a normal lens. And you can stitch 2 images side by side and get a 1:3 (6x17) panoramic shot.

Unless you need a zoom for other work I recommend a 1-2 lens solution. It travels light and will produce high quality images.

jetcode wrote in post #17101661
Brett Weston shot his entire career with 2 lenses; normal, and wide. And that's it. The Sony 55 is a great lens for landscape. In a scene with objects far from the camera it will act as a wide angle and for objects near to the camera as a normal lens. And you can stitch 2 images side by side and get a 1:3 (6x17) panoramic shot.

Unless you need a zoom for other work I recommend a 1-2 lens solution. It travels light and will produce high quality images.

I appreciate the response, that is encouraging. Now that said, I've been pouring over landscape photos lately and it does seem like every one that jumps out at me, I check the Exif and it's somewhere between 17 and 22. When you stitch photos together do you still get the same "feel" where the background is sort of minimized compared to the foreground?

Jedi5150 wrote in post #17101735
I appreciate the response, that is encouraging. Now that said, I've been pouring over landscape photos lately and it does seem like every one that jumps out at me, I check the Exif and it's somewhere between 17 and 22. When you stitch photos together do you still get the same "feel" where the background is sort of minimized compared to the foreground?

My best landscape lens is a canon TSE 17mm F4 L my 2nd choice is my TSE 24mm MK 1
1 .3 .

Sorry I know nothing about Sony or Sony lenses, I use my Canon 5Dmk 2

I am not a expert in photography but from my understanding the TSE 17MM lens is one of the best lenses that could be used for landscape.

Farmer

Jedi5150 wrote in post #17101735
I appreciate the response, that is encouraging. Now that said, I've been pouring over landscape photos lately and it does seem like every one that jumps out at me, I check the Exif and it's somewhere between 17 and 22. When you stitch photos together do you still get the same "feel" where the background is sort of minimized compared to the foreground?

Wide angle is useful for perspective shift. I have wide angle lenses in my kit. I find that the d800e is not enough camera for the 18mm. You really need 4x more resolution to get detail with the 18 300' out. It won't likely matter much in print at standard sizes but I am a detail junkie.

Here's a 2 shot stitch panoramic with a 5DII and Contax 100/2 Planar lens. That's a fantastic lens by the way. Super sharp with that awesome Zeiss color and rendering. In this image the 5DII was the weak link in the image chain. Wish I could have shot this with the d800e. But hey here it is and it works. See the birds in the sky? It's the same pair of birds in 2 frames. This is not a standard format size. It is cropped. I use a 3 lens set consisting of a Zeiss 25/2, Nikkor 55, Nikkor 105 micro on a d800e. I also have a 18, 85, and 200 nikkor as well but they do not represent the core landscape lenses. In fact I will likely sell them.

Nicasio Ranch West Marin County

Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Thanks for attaching the outstanding panoramas, Jetcode. I was hoping to see stiched photos to give me an idea of what is possible with a narrower lens and those are great.

Here is a link to a gentleman's photos I recently came across on Flickr. He shoots the kind of landscape style that really appeals to me, and I'd love to try and learn to take similar photos. Obviously his skill level at both photography and PP is so far beyond mine it's not even funny. But I'm curious if, by stitching, it would bepossible to take a photo like this one I'm linking using a standard lens instead of a wide. In other words, could it still have a similar feel being stiched instead of a single image:

https://www.flickr.com​/photos/sierralara/924​2442187/

Just so nobody gets the wrong idea...I'm not one of those peole who likes to do stuff harder just to be different. I'm sure a wide angle would be more ideal. This is just a short term solution since I can't afford both a standard and a wide, and I don't want a wide as my sole lens (tried that once before). If I get the 55, I'll absolutely be adding a wide down the road.

The last two images are not stitched. The first one is. The shot on the page you submitted can be had by showing up early or late to one of the great scenics around the world. Looks like a 25-50mm lens was used. You might be surprised to find that wide in a landscape is often not necessary unless there are close objects in the scene that will be emphasized. Stitching will fail when water or moving objects are in the scene.

~50mm is a great starting lens along 35mm.
then work from there if you want wider or narrow FoV

be creative and challenge yourself, work around the lens limitation

these are landscape shots taken with 50mm lens, it was the only lens I had with me at the time

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/jauD​2L

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/kCNF​DU

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/nbUT​tn

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/na9Q​UR

jetcode wrote in post #17103633
The last two images are not stitched. The first one is. The shot on the page you submitted can be had by showing up early or late to one of the great scenics around the world. Looks like a 25-50mm lens was used. You might be surprised to find that wide in a landscape is often not necessary unless there are close objects in the scene that will be emphasized. Stitching will fail when water or moving objects are in the scene.

Thanks Jetcode, the Exif shows his focal length was 17mm, on a D800 (I think that's a FF body).

Thanks for the tip on stitching not working with water, I hadn't considered that. Most of the landscape shots I'm going to start off with will be at lakes/ streams, so that is good to know beforehand.

Sorry I assumed all three panos were stitched. I am not familiar with the 6x17, so I didn't know how the focal lengths would compare to a full frame. My mind only thinks in terms of FF focal lengths.

Thanks for the great photos Taemo! I absolutely love the shot of Mt. Rundle, I'd know that mountain anywhere. I spent 6 months living in Banff in my younger years.

You and Jetcode have inspired me to be optimistic about my new 55 lens. I'm going to go out and have some fun with it when it arrives on Thursday. The second week of September I'll be backpacking in the high Sierra, where it will really get put to use.

I personally would be hesitant making a move that would just leave me with a 55mm for landscape.

55mm is a nice focal length and you can definitely get some nice landscape shots with it, but it would be fairly limiting for me. A lot of times when I go out, I find a cool scene that I want to photograph and more often than not I end up putting something in the foreground of the image. A lot of times that foreground something is relatively small and I need to get pretty close to it in order to give it a scale that works with the composition. If I was using a 55m lens I would need a LOT of focus stacking to get adequate DOF and perhaps some photo stitching as well.

I would recommend seeing if you can get something a little wider if your getting a prime and going to be using it for landscape work. If your going the prime rout you also may want to check out a tilt shift lens if they make one for the Sony.

Hi Robert, I'm sure I will be limiting myself in the beginning. I've got my eye on something like this 21mm Zeiss, using a metabones adapter:
http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …istagon_T_21mm_​f_2_8.html
...down the road. But for right now that is well beyond my price range and I can only afford one lens. I looked at the 35mm version of the 55 I'm getting and although many people like it, it doesn't have near the rave reviews that the 55 does. Cost-wise, for a short period of time I'm limited to one lens, so I mostly chose the lens based on how happy I think I'll be with it (from a lens quality standpoint, not necessarily a "most often used" standpoint). I tried having my only lens be wide angle once and REALLY didn't like it.

Long story short, you make a good point, but this is sort of a calculated risk I have to take at the moment. I've played with zooms for years and now I'm switching to primes to give that a try. A 21mm prime and something like a 100 or 135 prime are definitely in my future. If the quality of the 35mm Zeiss was close to what I've read on the 55 I would have gone that route instead. But one point of logic I keep coming back to is that eventually I want a wide angle prime. I think a 55 and wide would cover more bases than a 35 and a wide.