You can take great landscape photos at any focal length, of course, but that doesn’t mean we can’t have favorites! Is there a particular perspective that calls your name for landscape photography? Whatever focal length you prefer, I think the answers can be very revealing.
For that reason, in today’s article, I’ve brought together my thoughts on each of the major focal lengths for landscape photography. I want to stress that this is just how I see it for my own work, and I expect (and hope, frankly!) that your ratings will be different. The point, however, is that an exercise like this can give you useful insights into which lenses suit you photographically. Even if you prefer to carry a full set from 14mm to 400mm, it should help you realize which lenses you should prioritize buying and carrying on a given trip.
FYI, all of these are meant to be full-frame focal lengths. Divide by your crop factor to see the equivalents for your camera. Also, I’m going to try to share a photo that I like from each focal length, even the focal lengths that annoy me!
12mm and Wider
No thank you. I don’t like the corners of my photo to look like they were stretched. And exaggerated foregrounds aren’t my cup of tea. Some landscape photographers swear by the widest focal length they can find, but that approach never worked for me.
Rating: 2/10
14mm
It’s a classic ultra-wide focal length, but not my first choice. Again, there’s the corner stretching problem. You can avoid it if you choose your subjects carefully, but if you don’t, the edges of your photo will look spaghettified.
That said, I’d pick a 14mm any time I found myself photographing a slot canyon or an ice cave. Also makes a great Milky Way photography focal length.
Rating: 4/10
16mm
I like this focal length just a little better than 14mm. I’m often zooming with my 14-30mm f/4 ever so slightly and shooting it at 15mm or 16mm. I don’t know why, maybe it’s because it fixes the stretched corners just enough that they don’t bother me so much? It’s still not where I’d reach first most of the time, though.
Rating: 5/10
20mm
We’re getting warmer! 20mm no longer feels like an exaggerated focal length and isn’t distracting in most landscapes (although I would still want something longer in a forest, usually). If I have any criticisms, it’s that 20mm feels a little bit like an awkward in-between focal length at times – like the scene would either demand a 14mm lens or it would demand a 24mm. I’m not sure what causes that impression, but I can’t totally shake it.
Rating: 7/10
24mm
Perfect. Exceptional in every way. No notes. Is it “not wide enough” as some photographers claim? No. Is it “too ordinary” because everyone has a 24-XX zoom? No. I will live and die loving 24mm.
Rating: 10/10
28mm
Call me crazy, but it reminds me too much of my iPhone. I don’t hate 28mm, and I’ve taken a lot of photos at 28mm that I like, but somehow it’s not the perfect gem in my eye that 24mm (or 35mm) is. I’d still give it a good rating, but I expect that most landscape photographers would rate it higher still.
Rating: 7/10
35mm
Unbelievable. Stunning. Right up there with 24mm as a perfect focal length. What is it about 35mm that feels so intuitive, creative, and unpretentious? It offers just enough ability to exclude unwanted details from your composition, while still looking like a wide angle. Anyone who says that 35mm is boring for landscape photography would be voted off my island.
Rating: 10/10
50mm
I won’t lie. 50mm may be the perfect focal length – a versatile, do-it-all lens – but it never meshed properly with my landscape photography. I tried to make it work, I really did. But somehow the whole personality of 50mm, where it’s neither a wide angle nor a telephoto, has always thrown me off as a landscape photographer. I still like it for some landscapes, but it definitely doesn’t remind me of “how my eyes see” – it’s either a little too long or too wide for the landscapes that I’m drawn toward. Well, not all of my opinions can be correct, and I’m willing to accept that this one is wrong :)
Rating: 5/10
70mm
We’re getting back to business. It’s still a little wide for the intimate landscapes that I love, but I think it’s just right for classic, “grand landscape” photos if the background deserves to be emphasized. That might sound like a special case, but it comes up a lot for me, especially for photographing mountains. I find that 70mm is a good fit to make the mountain feel large and imposing, without totally eliminating the foreground.
Rating: 7/10
85mm
I feel very similarly about 85mm as I do about 70mm – although maybe a touch better for intimate/abstract landscapes. I could be very happy with just a 35mm and 85mm for landscape photography. That’s also a common wedding photography duo – maybe I’m secretly a portrait photographer at heart! (I’m not.)
Rating: 8/10
105mm
Now we’re really talking – what a truly fantastic focal length! It’s still wide enough that it can do classic landscapes in a pinch, while being optimal for larger intimate landscapes. It gives a great sense of compression without making the scene feel totally flat – a focal length I wouldn’t want to be without.
Rating: 9/10
135mm
Again, wow. I don’t know how to explain it – 135mm draws you in. Just a great perspective. It’s also the longest focal length that I would commonly use for classic-style landscapes. Anything longer than 135mm, and I’m really focused on abstracts and intimate details. Of course, 135mm can do those well, too. It’s like 105mm all over again.
Rating: 9/10
150mm
Let me be frank. I only included 150mm here because going straight to 200mm felt like too big of a jump. Sometimes I forget that 150mm exists. Does that even make sense? I don’t feel qualified to speak on it.
Rating: Undetermined
200mm
Exceptional. Whoever invented 200mm was having a truly inspired day. (I know that’s not how that works.) 200mm is perfect for abstract and intimate landscapes without being tricky to use, like the longer focal lengths can be. My ideal telephoto focal length for landscapes.
Rating: 10/10
300mm
Still very strong. A little less versatile than 200mm, but good for more distant scenes where you need to compose a bit tighter. Depth of field is becoming a serious issue, and the subjects are so distant that they may be losing some three-dimensionality. Even so, still a good choice.
Rating: 7/10
400mm
Whoa, the slightly lower score of 300mm was a false dip! Somehow 400mm is better? I think so, anyway. Maybe because some landscapes are so distant that you need one of the big guns if you want to capture them properly. 300mm isn’t enough of a commitment – but go too far past 400mm, and atmospheric haze is omnipresent and starts to cause a lot of problems. 400mm is the last bastion of safety before a gradual slope into the abyss.
Rating: 8/10
500-600mm
Too long! We’ve officially stared at the sun too long!
Yeah, these aren’t usually good landscape photography choices – although it can still work from time to time. For nearby intimate landscapes, atmospheric haze won’t be a problem. Other times, the haze could add to your photo, or you’ll be lucky enough to shoot on an unusually clear day. Finally, I would consider using such long lenses if I wanted the moon in my landscape photo while still including some foreground. But we’re getting into very specialized territory, to be sure.
Rating: 4/10
800mm+
Fun for the novelty, maybe? Look, if you’re shooting landscapes at 800mm, you’re going really far off the beaten path. Good for you if that’s what works for your style of photography, but it’s very far from my first choice. The atmospheric haze alone is a massive problem. Combine that with heat shimmer, shutter shock, and vibrations from the wind, and getting sharp landscapes is sometimes out of the question.
Of course, it’s not impossible to shoot at 800mm for landscape photography. I took one of my favorite landscapes last year at 800mm, but it was a fluke. In the future, I don’t see myself carrying anything longer than a 400mm with me for landscape work.
Rating: 2/10
Conclusion
I hope you enjoyed this half-silly, half-serious look at how I see the focal lengths available to a landscape photographer. I know that your personal ratings will be totally different, and that’s the point – if you’ve done enough landscape photography that you know which focal lengths you like, you can make better-informed decisions on what equipment to bring with you on a trip, or even to buy in the first place. Personally, I know not to splurge on a best-in-class 50mm lens but should prioritize a good 24mm, 35mm, and telephoto.
The real key, then, is to find an approach that matches your style of photography. Some of today’s best landscape photographers are masters with sub-14mm lenses. Others primarily shoot with a nifty fifty. It works perfectly for them even though it wouldn’t work for me. We all have a different personal style; ideally, our equipment should complement it.
I’m curious, do you have a favorite focal length or range of them for landscape photography? Let me know in the comments what you think!
When I had my GFX100S, I had only a few choices of lenses (and could afford only a couple), so I often shot with the 23/4, which is an 18mm full frame equivalent. It was, in many cases, too wide. My other choice, then (and what I could afford) was the 45/2.8, a 35mm equivalent. Now that I have switched to Nikon Z gear, I plan on getting a wide, and this article was helpful. I’ve narrowed my choice (to be purchased this week) to either the 35/1.8s or the 24/1.8s. Yes, I get that the 14-30 is versatile, but I am not a fan of pumper zooms, living in a place that has a lot of rain and fog. Say what you will about “weather resistance,” a seal on that sliding zoom is going to get wet and will transfer some moisture, at some point, inside the lens.
No mention of PC lenses? I have the Nikon 24mm PC/E lens as well as 35mm and 24mm pc Minolta MD lenses. (One does a very weird wrap around focus effect). There is the famed Nikon 17mm PC lens as well. What about the the tilt option? If I could have only one lens, it would be a 35mm lens.
Over the past few years I’ve been over the place, from 17mm to 300mm with zooms and primes. Here are the 2 lenses I’ve settled on:
20mm-35mm Wide Zoom
70mm-300mm Zoom
Being all landscape and wildlife, I have no use for the middle range so many swear by.
This is kinda like discussing one’s favorite musical instrument. While you can play any song with any instrument, your choice in music will usually dictate your favorite instruments. In this case, your choice of subject will dictate your favorite focal length(s) to a large degree, as will your biases. I was really surprised that 20mm wasn’t your favorite since you seem to be obsessed with the 20mm f/1.8.
I’ve tried it all but I always keep going back to the 20mm when it comes to wide angles. It’s that perfect in between ultrawide and wide angle. Harder to use than a 24mm but not as crazy as a 14mm. When 20mm does work, it’s like you’re actually INSIDE the photograph, it’s like teleportation in my mind. Most of my favorite landscape photographs in my portfolio are all 20mm. I do agree 35mm is also a great sweet spot, IMO easier to use and more “natural”.
I sometimes use the 50mm for triptych panos but otherwise 70-telephoto is always good. Anything above 300-400 is way too much though, I agree.
Couldn’t agree more. My choices for landscape are…24, 35, 80, 105 dc nikkor, 200 and 400. Occasionally 16. For medium format I really need only 3 lenses. Throughout the 55+ years of shooting I have learned, the hard way, to go light. My assignments were in Russia and other European countries. But the list you posted agree with my top choices. There IS the occasional oddball from time to time though. Thank you sir.
It is such an insightful article. Thank you for sharing. In my last mountain trip in early December I tried all the lenses available – 70-300 at varied lengths, 24-70 and 85 mm. I liked the outputs of the 85 in most of the cases. Now I realised that I could have used the 24-70 mm more for different (and perhaps better) results.
The vast majority of landscapes are shoot with zooms. With a zoom you don’t have to be focused on x vs. y focal length. You chose what you think best (how about 38mm ?) and frame it up.
If I am taking only primes my favorite is easily a 24/25 followed by a 35.
That said I spent 16 days in Portugal with the new Sony 20-70 and was surprised at how often I chose 20mm.
It’s been a while since I shot full frame 35 mm., but when I did, my favorite wide angle was 24. I always found 20 a little too wide and a little too obviously odd. 35 was nice for putting just a little more in the frame than 50, without altering the perspective noticeably, and for some reason I almost always found 28 hard to make look good. This was before there was such a thing as an Iphone, so I can’t use that as a reason. But for some reason most shots I made with a 28 were uninteresting and since I was shooting slides and couldn’t crop, when it became time to scan, they didn’t make the cut. But 24 just seemed to work right. So I’m all in agreement with the 10/10 there. I often carried an Olympus XAII as a kind of pocket backup, and its 35 mm. lens often came up with the best version of a scene.
Now that I’m in DX mode, 35 is of course normal, and I treasure my 35/2.8 PC as a slightly odd but lovely normal lens, and back my zoom out to 16 when I want to go wide.
I think 35mm is the ideal focal lengths for a pocket camera like the Olympus XAII. It’s versatile enough that you can usually make 35mm look a little wider or a little tighter with some careful framing. Glad to hear that you like the 24mm/35mm combo as much as I do!
Thanks for your article, it’s a joy to read. On the whole i agree in any case. My “holy trinity” are 24mm, 35mm, 135mm. In terms of taste varies 28mm, 50mm, 105mm. Most time (’cause I’m to lazy) i take along only two of them. The only lens on an island will be the 35mm.
Best regards, Peter
I think 24mm, 35mm, 135mm would be my “holy trinity” as well! Even though I scored 200mm a full 10/10, it’s a bit less versatile than 135mm if I needed to pick three desert-island focal lengths.