Originally posted by wasser I agree that other focal lengths can be used for landscape, but I couldn't disagree more with the statement, "none of these are good for landscapes"
Sorry, I overstated my case and should have written "none of these are optimal for landscapes". I swear I did not write that deliberately to stir up debate.
Originally posted by Canada_Rockies It demonstrates the use of super side angle lenses in landscape photography. You must have the three major elements: foreground, middle ground and background. Without all three the image just won't work, except with very few exceptional subjects.
Exactly so. Wide angle landscape shots need something in the foreground for the eye to grab onto. The "something close to the lens and everything else pushed way back from the lens" shot. That can be dramatic but it can also be gimmicky. The worse problem is that wide angles make molehills out of mountains, not something I generally want to do.
For example, I think there is a much better shot in your scene, but it's not the one a wide angle lens could capture. None of that foreground adds any interest to me. And by stretching to get a rock in the foreground you've cut off the tops of the trees. I don't mean that to sound harsh as I've taken many worse photos. With a portrait lens I would have framed the shot so the rock centre left was at the bottom of a frame that captured the river's narrowest point and took in the distant firs, eliminating the big crop of trees to the right. The line of the ridge would then have played off the river curves.