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!
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.
Fun to read, approx. my choices. Perhaps with a slight deviation: Whenever possible, I stitch, so occasionally wideangle stays at home. Good writing, Spencer!
Thank you, Robert! Stitching is a great fallback if you don’t have a wide enough lens in your bag. Or if you just want more resolution :)
I mostly agree, except for the ultra wide angles. With the D700, I often went out in the mountains with the 17-35. Now with the Z6, I have switched to the 14-30 and I like it better. The 14-17 range is IMHO very useful for dramatic impact… BUT you have to compose differently. You have to provide for a solid and impactful foreground to force perspective: if one just uses the approach of “getting all the landscape in”, boring results are guaranteed. Corner stretching doesn’t bother me too much, but again you have to be careful of what you put in the corners: it’s better to have strong lines that converge to the center (road lines, fallen tree trunks…), rather than fine detail (grass, flowers) that doesn’t have strong converging lines. Fine detail gets smeared, strong lines do not… and they actually drive the perspective. And I notice that, contrarily to the usual rule of keeping the camera straight, with ultra wides it’s sometimes better to tilt it for dramatic impact. Not just a little, which would look like a mistake: be brave and tilt it a lot, so that it’s obviously intentional. This way, elements like could formations become impactful.
Nowadays I usually do mountain photography only with the 14-30, plus the 105 Macro (or the 100-400 if I plan to encounter animals), this covers 99% of the situations and it allows me to travel lighter. I only occasionally add the 50/1.2 for low light photography in woods, etc.
Thank you, Luca! It sounds like you’re a fan of the “impactful foreground” look. You’re absolutely right, ultra-wides de-emphasize the rest of the landscape while emphasizing the foregrounds. Knowing that is key to using them well.
Since I date back to the days when photography was done with emulsions on celluloid, I remember when 35mm was considered “the” wide-angle lens–still love my half-century-old Leica Summaron 35mm. But with more up-to-date equipment, I find that I hover around the 24mm and 35mm focal lengths for wide-angle, and actually like the nifty five-0 for a lot of subjects; just seems to include the right amount of content. And since I enjoy flower close-ups and macros, the 105 mm seems perfect–throws the background out of focus to the right amount.
Even though ultra-wide lenses (sub-20mm equivalent) have been made since the 1800s, it’s a lot more recently that landscape photographers really embraced them. They used to be favored largely for architectural photography.
I’ve got nothing against the more recent change – it’s just an interesting thing to think about. 35mm definitely would have been considered a “proper wide” for most of photography’s history.
I totally agree with you for the most part. I mainly use the 35 mm and the 85 mm lenses and skip the 50. I like the 28th as opposed to 24 though just for a good walk around lens with low distortion. I’m more gravitated towards the 20 mm lens Which forces me to get nice and close to my subject because they generally work really good up close giving you lots of detail in the foreground and including the background, but not giving it as much prominence. This was a good synopsis favourites and the reasons why. Regards Gerry
Thanks, Gerry! You’re not the only one to mention the 20mm/28mm pair as one of your favorites. It’s definitely a versatile combination, with 20mm emphasizing the foreground nicely, while 28mm still “looks like a wide angle” without having the stretched perspective of an ultra-wide.
A very thoughtful article. I still remember a day before I even bought my first camera. At the time I was interested in landscapes and I mistakenly though that only wide-angle lenses were suitable. I still remember frantically searching the internet with “is 50mm suitable for landscapes?”… haha. That was about 8 years ago now. Actually, I wish I had your article back then!
My favourite landscape focal lengths are the longer ones, and I do very much enjoy 500mm a lot, even though it falls into your “too long” territory. I also love 100mm as well. 100mm seems to work very well for many shots. I think my brain is just tuned for very long focal lengths, but it’s also true that I haven’t been in too many places where wider angles work very well.
You’ve taken some beautiful landscape photos with your D500 and 500mm PF (a full 750mm equivalent!) that draw attention to the haze or fog, rather than trying to minimize them. It’s a style in and of itself. I hope you keep it up. They’re unorthodox and very compelling photos.
Thanks, Spencer! I appreciate it. I definitely will!
Bought a cheap manual focus 8mm lens about a year ago, and while everything said about these lengths rings true, it’s still proven a very fun lens to use for one or two shots in a longer series. Although I suppose at a DX crop (to prevent it from being a circle) it’s more of a 12mm field of view. Anyway; it’s particularly effective if there are fairly ordinary human-made elements in the landscape (like hedges, walls, bridges, fences) that can twisted into something eye-catching. It’s also a bit wider than typical wide-angle smartphone lenses, especially in a square crop from the center to use more of the vertical space; so it’s still a bit of a novelty for people.
I suppose some of this also depends on the landscape you’re in. I’d have to travel a few hours to find anything even remotely resembling a hill, so the 200mm+ lengths don’t tend to really work for anything other than really isolating a particular feature. There just aren’t a whole lot of places where you can see things more than a few hundred meters away before the view is interrupted by buildings, trees, or whatever. And so there also aren’t many background elements that can be ‘connected’ to a foreground either, since they’re all sort of stacked back to back.
So unless I travel, I find I almost never have to switch out my 24-120mm lens.
The note about the 800mm lens reminds me of a time I excitedly brought my 300mm lens to an airfield in the middle of summer. With the combined effects of haze, heat shimmer, wind and some less than rigid hands the number of usable pictures was very small indeed. I can only imagine what it would be like at 800mm.
My experience shooting air shows twice showed me several things:
* Grey skies are better than blue skies
* The airfield itself is terrible to shoot on/over
* If you need a longer focal length, chances are atmospheric distortion is going to render it moot, so don’t bother.
The 100-400mm was great both times. By the time I hit 400mm, unless the plane was filling the frame, chances are haze/distortion/smoke were going to screw the photo up anyway.
Looking forward to a couple airshows this year.
Air shows have the added complexity that the subject itself is creating additional atmospheric distortions, haze, and smoke! Although, I’ve seen some photos that take advantage of this atmosphere to great effect.
I disagree with this (stated as general advice as above – I guess it may be true for some locations and/or under some conditions). I have shot airshows at 500 mm and above routinely, sometimes even with further cropping, and the shots were just fine.