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!