The myth arose, I expect, because, with prime lenses, photographers had to change their location to control the framing–the proverbial “sneaker zoom.” When using a shorter focal length, they had to get closer. It was getting closer that changed the perspective, not the lens, itself.

—-

Other reasons for using longer focal lengths in landscapes:

1. To minimize the “parking lot” effect–the huge expanse of foreground at the bottom of the image. Sometimes, that is interesting; most of the time, it’s not. Longer focal lengths can reduce distraction/unwanted objects from the image, in general. I found this last summer doing a shot where there were powerlines above. I couldn’t get past the powerlines–I had to shoot from a road, so I used a longer focal length to narrow the field of view to just under the lines. (An alternative would have been to clone them out in post-processing, but I’m lazy.)

2. To minimize distortion. Most zooms–especially those that start at true “wide-angle” focal lengths–have greater distortion (usually barrel) at the short focal length end. This can be obvious when shooting architecture, but I’ve seen it in landscapes, as well–e.g., telephone/power poles on the edge of the frame bending over.

3. To control depth of focus. At the same focus distance and aperture, a longer focal length lens will have a shallower depth of focus. That can also help minimize distractions and draw the viewer’s attention to the intended subject. This is a great help with wildlife photography, where one often wants to blur the background. I found it useful, as well, in photographing a solitary tree, blurring the background.