You need a wide angle for landscapes

>>4302292
Retard.

Unless you want to take windy day landscapes, the only thing you should care about is IQ, you don't really need fast lenses. It's best to slap the camera in a tripod and make long exposures.

>>4302281
You'll be stopped down for landscapes so no need for a prime. For landscapes you ideally don't want to crop a lot either, so I'd stick with the zoom. Telephoto should come after a standard length and wide angle lens for landscape though. The results are cool but always a bit soft due to atmospheric diffraction.

>>4302281
In modern lenses it's a mildly complex topic. Some zooms are better than some primes, and sufficiency depends on how you use your files, and on film basically all of them are good, ie: if you use canon EOS.

But you're shooting a 70s style film box, not a superior canon EOS system, so primes only sorry bud. Even the best OM mount zoom ever made is kinda crap even for film's ~12mp of resolution. Buy the focal length you like the most and can fit in your pocket.

>>4302292
Wrong

>>4302292
>>4302309
He is indeed a retard but I also already own 3 different wide lenses for the OM.
>>4302329
So you vote for the primes? I believe they'll beat the zooms lenses by a mile (these are 70s designs after all).
>>4302336
So far I've collected the 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm and a 135mm. I think I have the wide end covered and would like to play a bit more with stuff out of my reach.
>>4302343
>superior canon EOS system
rude

>>4302345
I'm voting for whatever gives you the most sharpness per dollar, aperture is secondary for landscape, even though it's somewhat related to the sharpness
I have 0 clue about what was good from the 70s so maybe it's primes after all.

File: soligor-80-200-cd-mc-zoom(...).jpg (235 KB, 2272x1511)

235 KB JPG

>>4302281

Landscape shooter here. A large portion of my work is actually done at 135-200mm. Personally, if it were me on an 80s SLR, back when I was in college my zoom of choice was the Vivitar Series 1 70-210 f/3.5, and you want the early version designed by Ellis Betensky who did all the optics for the NASA Apollo program.

Believe it or not, I have gotten outstanding results out of a 20 dollar Soligor C/D 80-200 f4.5. It is a sleeper lens that no one talks about and if you paid more than I did for one you paid too much. It's a basic push-pull lens like many of the era. I bought it to learn camera repair it was loaded with fungus and once I cleaned it, it was a stellar performer on my Nikon digital system. I ended up keeping it in my bag. Very sharp even in the corners, if you're doing landscape you're stopping down to f/8 and f/11 anyway for increased DoF so speed isn't really something you need. It's got excellent contrast stopped down and it also has a basic macro function which does I believe 1:2 or 1:4. Takes a 55mm filter.

C/D stands for Computer Designed so basically their answer to Vivitar Series 1. Outstanding optics. I was genuinely surprised from the results. There are several 80-200's Soligor made, you want the one that looks like this. In the budget category, nothing touches it and stopped down to f/11 it gives my 70-200/2.8 VR a run for its money. Unless you were pixel peeping, you would never know.

Find one, you'll love it.

File: A7R00162.jpg (1.32 MB, 2048x3070)

1.32 MB JPG

>>4302281
Get the 85-250mm with a tripod collar.
Vintage teles mostly suck, even the primes, especially for CA, at least you get some convenience back with that lense, and most likely sharper results from the foot.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7RM2
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.22
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	400 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2024:04:09 06:36:32
Exposure Time	1.6 sec
F-Number	f/18.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	-49/640 EV
Exposure Bias	-2 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	400.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2048
Image Height	3070
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>4302365
you are right
at 20 bucks per lens on ebay right now I'm going to buy one just for fun
thanks anon!

>>4302496
dunno the 300mm seems very nice
youtu.be/iRn_CtTMtZ8

>>4302644

Get that Soligor lens. You won't be disappointed just make sure it's the f4.5 CD model

>>4302365
>>4302718
www.ebay.com/itm/165927481925
should I pull the trigger?
there is a cheaper one in the US but you know, taxes and shipping

>>4302725

That's the one. Once you pay for shipping from the States it will work out to about that much.

The rear element looks a little different from my Nikon model and it stops down to 32 instead of 22, might be an Olympus-specific thing.

This is the exact type I have. The f/32 model I surmise is a later version of it.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/395248692812

>>4302732
thanks

>>4302732
NTA but I have money to burn and I like new toys. I have a Canon, is this the same lens?

https://www.ebay.com/itm/176015604401

>>4302292
Wides are for shooting close. They shrink the shit out of everything at a distance so unless your landscape is the sea or the desert or flat ice and you want to give the impression of it extending out to infinity, shoot landscapes as portraits.

>>4303074
Everyone who follows this advice looks as derivative as the opposite desu

hear one of the few recognizable landscape photographers talk about style
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js_QQYpxUmE

>>4303096
the style he was looking for for so long was a wide pano of a desert?
ok

>>4303099
the style he was looking for, for so long...
was taking very wide brown and grey photos of absolutely nothing

but at least he's not an ansel adams clone

>>4303061

Same as the German guy but later revision of it I found. I have the earlier model which is still very good.

Post some results when you get it.

>>4303120

The exact model I have stops down to F/22 this F/32 model is a later version of it with slightly better coatings.

>>4303121
>with slightly better coatings.
*originally
maybe they decay worse, we don't know for sure

>>4303122

I just read that shit up on the Internet, it's a 20 dollar push-pull f4.5 zoom lens if you're expecting Magnum or Natgeo quality out of that I'm not sure what to tell you. I got good results with mine.

Coatings don't decay unless they get fungus on them, are you retarded?

>>4303123
brother, I fart around with an MFT and the cheap psns 100-300 catching birbs, I'm not looking for dick polishing lenses

>>4303120
>>4303121
pulled the trigger. I actually havent shot thru older glass before but I've been wanting some cheaper manual lenses I can play around with.

Mom has an old Sigma body but no glass that'll fit on my Canon, dad had I believe an AE1 back in the day but I don't think he kept any of his old film stuff unfortunately. He was pretty into photog. I wonder if he has any of his old pictures still. Probably ought to try and digitize them if so...

>>4302281
I have an OM2 and only use two lenses, the 24mm f2.8 and 135mm f2.8. There are no truly great telephotos on this mount. If you want those, go EOS or Minolta A.

>>4303145

Why not Tamron Adaptall? Tamron made some good teles in this era including a 300/2.8 which was pretty decent. Can put them all on Adaptall I'm getting one for my Topcon Super-D since only a few Topcon lenses were made for it.

>>4303149
Scamron

>>4303120
>>4303127
It arrived today but my retarded ass thought EF mount went back way further in time than it actually did and now I need to get an adapter to FD mount. The one I got seems to be in impeccable condition. The QC sticker fell off and left behind some residue I had to smudge off but the paint and metal finish is perfect. And by GOD the knurling on the main zoom mechanism is satisfying. Why did we lose this?

File: img6881.jpg (1.02 MB, 1536x1920)

1.02 MB JPG

I have finally embraced the "telephoto for landscape" meme and I'm looking forward to trying out this adapted 135mm Contax Zeiss some more.

I also have a newer 70-200mm AF zoom lens that's been surprising good for landscape as well.

File: img5400.jpg (1.83 MB, 1280x1920)

1.83 MB JPG

>>4304094
Anyway, to add to this. I've found that it's easier to make more interesting compositions when you've zoomed in and now have to rely on narrower scenes within a given environment to catch the viewer's eye. It also lets you get more usage out of the same locale.

Pic was taken with an adapted 105mm Nikkor on one of my Canons. I'm amazed it didn't explode.

>>4304074
>>4303149
>>4303127
>>4303123
>>4302365
Retards leading retards.
Don't buy an fd-eos adapter, the mounts do not adapt properly.
Chalk it up to experience and just buy actually good lenses that actually belong on your camera.

>>4302281
Don't know why people are into landscapes, they're the most generic boring form of photography that doesn't tell any kind of story

>>4304126
actually an adapter ring will let me buy more old FD lenses.

>>4304184
A landscape tells a story about a place. If you approach it from the standpoint of journalism and shoot it like it's something you'd write about, it can make a lot of sense.

As opposed to street photography which tells a story about privileged people wasting film on creepshotting at unknowing strangers, hyping each other up with pseud babble, and giving each other gallery spots on the basis of distant relation.

>>4304126
lens sharpness doesnt matter worth a fuck on 35mm film. i use a fungus ridden hazy lens on a film camera, it still looks sharp as fuck, because i dont bother scanning over like 8mp as i am not interested in counting "lines" that look like a mess of grains and turning a 35mm piece of plastic into an 8"x10" piece of paper is already kind of excessive.

if i use it on my 45mp digital then it looks like shit

>>4302345

Stop collecting lenses. In no situation you will capitalize having 24, 28 and 35 mm

You have no extra wide lenses (maybe you simply don't need one) and you lack of a zoom. So go for the zoom then.

>>4304202
Not the same guy, but I could never find a comfortable setup for wider angles. I tried a 15-30mm zoom once thinking it would cover my range, but I only ever used one end of the zoom or the other, and it was heavy as shit - not good for hiking or even casual walkarounds (lel manlet hands, etc).

I've since traded it in for a couple of primes; a 28mm that I'm still not comfortable with, and an 18mm that's as wide as I'm willing to go anymore. I've gone from having one lens that I took little advantage of, to having two lenses where one will see 90% of usage.

>>4304188

The problem with a lot of those Chinesium adapters, at least back in the day you lost a lot of image quality adapting them to EOS. The big thing to do was to use the actual Canon-issued FD-EOS adapter.

What you should actually do is find a cheap T90 or F1 or an A1 and use it on that

>>4304202
Big brain move is just to get sigma’s 24-35/2 and then you have all 3 and then some. I quite like mine.

>>4302281
Buy a 4x5 camera.

>>4304411
I'm not able to find an actual canon brand one. Eventually I plan to upgrade my T6i body to a mirrorless, maybe then I'll be able to use one without an optical element in it.

>>4304317
I have the samyang 12mm aps-c. and the 20mm sony pancake. The 12 usually too wide or more rarely not wide enough but you can crop to solve the first issue. I like it because reasonably small but I also have the 20mm for extreme pocketability. I prefer 12 rather than 20mm because you cannot uncrop the 20mm.
If you have a decent camera, and 24 MP are already enought, you can just compose with the crop in mind and call the day. If you are a pro you can do the same with hi-res sensors.

It really depends by your subjects, but in my experience using wide angles you are often very restricted in your composition and moving around don't really helps much. My go to solution is to find the best spot for my composition in termis of light and contrast (a huge "problem" of wide angle lens is extreme contrast you can have in the frame) and then I crop. I almost never print bigger than a A3 format.

Funfact: more often than not I ended up cropping my picture based on the final use of the photo, frame arrangment, architecture... more than purelly photographical approach. When you have to bring your pics outside of the screen in the real world some moments to think about the final object you are creating is important, and 2/3 is no always the best format.

File: 2024-04-15_006.jpg (76 KB, 1920x825)

76 KB JPG

Thanks for the inputs guys.
I've slept on it and decided you are all massive faggots so here is the Zuiko 300mm f/4.5 (multicoated version of course).

The Zuiko MC 200mm f/4 will arrive later this week.

>>4304493
>that tripod
Lense looks sick, I still think you should have got the zoom, but at least you didn't do what that other retard did and take Sugar's advice to buy a 70's 3rd party zoom just because it was commissioned by USA.

>>4302365
Holy shit, I found a Soligor telephoto at an estate sale for 10$. I was convinced it was some junk lens. I tried taking it apart to clean it but I ended fucking it up badly and throwing it away. This was me being a tard 15 years ago...

File: Screenshot 2024-04-17 at (...).jpg (70 KB, 1800x670)

70 KB JPG

>>4305001
>that tripod
new one is on it's way as we speak (it's an ok tripod for very light loads I've had it for like 10 years)
>zoom
Well I've thought about it really hard and remembered that back when I was shooting digital the main thing holding me back were the zoom lenses. Having to recompose or move around because you can't easily fit stuff inside your view literally made me a better photographer. I'm going to apply the same logic here.

File: 300mm.jpg (3.62 MB, 2360x2360)

3.62 MB JPG

>>4305001
just got the lab scans of the only 2 test photos I've took so far (Fuji 400)
at f/8 (right) it's a very nice lens IMHO
at f/32 (left) diffraction steps in

File: 2024-04-18_004.jpg (68 KB, 1920x825)

68 KB JPG

>>4305001
200mm f/4.0 arrived today
I love how small and compact all the Zuiko lenses are
new tripod too

>>4305001
hey I might be retarded but I'm not a retard. this things pretty crispy with an adapter on it. it's not like it was a huge investment.

>>4302281
IQ won't be any better with primes because of haze, humidity and pollution, and you'll be forced into cropping a lot to get desired framing. Faster aperture may come handy at times, but not enough to offset other negatives. There are some truly trashy zooms around, so research them a bit before purchase.

>>4305561
I've already made my decision you mong.
>>4304493
>>4305506

>>4304184
>people are into landscapes
some people have a soul, you wouldn't understand...