On the less expensive side of the show, I have started using a Pentax-M 200mm F4 for 'up-river' looking photos etc. I haven't enlarged the negatives yet but combined with a red 25 filter the negatives look good. It is difficult to have everything in focus though even with f22 with tree branches/rocks being well outside the hyper-focal distance.
I'll ty and remember to post these here when I get them printed.
EDIT: Oooops I was refering to 35mm use and didn't realise this was a MF thread. It still applies though.
The 180 is a lens with impeccable reputation and expensive, but the 150 is no slouch and I doubt you'd see any significant difference in most circumstances. I say save your money, and get the cheaper 250 (I got one in BGN condition from KEH very cheap) and use the 150/250 combo. The 250 is a great performer as well. As for telephotos in landscapes? Sure, for isolating scenes and giving a different compressed perspective such as "layers" of mountains fading in the distance. All up to what you're looking to do.
On occasion I have used a 165mm fast-focus tele on my Pentax 67, chiefly for 'bringing in' a little too distant waterfall or some other major element of the landscape or tors/rock outcrops, trees. Teles are not my first choice for landscape due to inherent perspective compression, but they are useful when a closer approach on foot is not possible or hazardous. A couple of occasions much earlier this year the 165mm was too much for the job; I have now added a 90mm which is a perfect step down with a more natural perspective.
This is the only thing that matters.
Originally Posted by Tony-S
I frequently use my 250 APO.
Thankyou all for the replies. To clarify I have a 50mm, 80mm and 150mm. I was thinking of swapping the 150mm for the 180mm just because I've read a lot of opinions saying that the 180 is the preferred lens of the two (for sharpness reasons mostly) and also eventually getting a 250mm.I do like the compressed almost 'diorama' feel that a longer lens gives and find that when I'm outdoors I use the 150mm a lot more than say the 50mm or 80mm. When I was using a DSLR I used to stick to a 50mm or 85mm and do a lot of stitched 'bokehrama' type photos as I liked the non-stretchy effect that UWA's give. Thankyou all for your opinions and thoughts. I was not so much after a "is this the wrong lens" type of answer moreso just your thoughts on the application of telephoto lenses in landscape stuff.
Well there ya go, making perfect sense. Where's the fun in that?!? ;)
Originally Posted by fotch
I've come to the realization I'm much more inclined to spend the $ on what I hope will help me make better images when in reality fotch is pretty well on the mark. It requires more effort of me to make a beautiful image with whatever lens is attached to my camera.
Since the medium format cameras I have I consider to be superb (Mamiya RB67 Pro-S with 65mm and 180mm Sekor C lenses and a Minolta Autocord TLR), I honestly have no excuse for not making great photographs.
I've tried to do some landscape photographs with my 180mm and it requires a completely different "view" of the landscape. So, I tend to swap out/grab my 65mm and continue to not explore what I'm missing with the 180mm. I've seen some wonderful landscapes taken with the 180mm so I'm confident the FOV can be effective - I simply have to learn how to do them myself!!!
I use which ever lens is appropriate for the composition. I recently photographed a scene ( Villa Vizcaya, Miami,Fl) across the bay from a beach at least a half a mile or more away with my Hasselblad 350mm (40 year old) lens plus the Mutar 2x. Amazing detail and sharpness even recording the parking lot lights on a pole top in front of a tree in the background. I was pleasantly surprised with the result since it wasn't an intended shot just seeing what might come out with that combination.
At some point I had a 50, 80, 150 and 250 for my Hasselblad. The 50 and 150 I got rid of. For nearly everything I use the 80. The 250 I use almost solely for landscapes. With regard to the 150 I found it not wide enough to be interesting and nowhere near long enough to make for an interesting composition. I can't imagine the 180 will be much better in that respect.
I recently sold my 250 purely because it was a CT and don't like the ergonomics, so spending a bit of time looking for a CFi/E at the right price (tricky to find in the UK...) although I started debating with myself whether a 350 would be better...the weight and size does get silly though...