[corvin]

I'd like to buy a lens for landscape shots. I have a K-3, a couple of K-xs (one with 150K clicks - love that camera). As far as current wide options go, I have a couple of the DAL 18-55s and the Tamron 18-200 - neither of which I think very highly of.

I'd like to keep the price at 800 or so dollars or less.
I'm leaning toward the 18-135 WR because I don't have a single weather-resistant lens.
If I got the 18-135 WR, I might get the Tamron 17-50 in addition (close to the price point, right?).

I'm not averse to buying a Pentax prime, but all things equal I'd like a little more range.

I've read as many reviews as I could find, but I'm getting confused-er by the minute.

What should I be thinking about - criteria?

I'm by no means a professional, but I'm not terrible either tho I haven't shot many landscapes since my K-1000 (50mm) days. Lately, it's been mostly flowers/closeups. Please advise.

---

Last edited by corvin; 12-17-2014 at 01:10 PM.

[Bob from Aus]

I just purchased the 18-135 to take to South America and Antarctica. I was on good behavior as my wife shouted the the trip for our 40th wedding anniversary. I figured my usual 17kg of gear would not be appropriate.

The 18-135 did much better than I expected on my K3. (I also had my trusty 60-250 which is sensational.) the major drawback was some curvature on my horizons. the dark corners are quickly fixed in lightroom.

The reason for considering the 18-135 is that many landscape opportunities are at the 135 end of the range. My favorite landscape lens is the 50-135. My least used landscape lens is my 15mm Ltd. I use my 21mm and 35 mm Ltd heaps.

I have a bag of lenses. In your case I would consider waiting for the 16-85 to come out so that you have one really great lens (assuming it will be great)

[IchabodCrane]

I'd like to buy a lens for landscape shots. I have a K-3, a couple of K-xs (one with 150K clicks - love that camera). As far as current wide options go, I have a couple of the DAL 18-55s and the Tamron 18-200 - neither of which I think very highly of.

I'd like to keep the price at 800 or so dollars or less.
I'm leaning toward the 18-135 WR because I don't have a single weather-resistant lens.
If I got the 18-135 WR, I might get the Tamron 17-50 in addition (close to the price point, right?).

I'm not averse to buying a Pentax prime, but all things equal I'd like a little more range.

I've read as many reviews as I could find, but I'm getting confused-er by the minute.

What should I be thinking about - criteria?

I'm by no means a professional, but I'm not terrible either tho I haven't shot many landscapes since my K-1000 (50mm) days. Lately, it's been mostly flowers/closeups. Please advise.

Unless you're up against a deadline, I recommend you do nothing until some thorough reviews of the new Pentax DA 16-85 lens are published. That potentially could meet your needs quite well.

[civiletti]

Tamron 17-50/2.8 is a good choice. Better would be Samyang [Rokinon, etc.] primes.

[baro-nite]

What should I be thinking about - criteria?

Are there specific locations/subjects you want to photograph that would call for particular angles of view?

How important is WR to you?

Do you care about the physical size of the lens?

How important is having a fast lens?

If you want a sharp wide zoom, consider the DA 16-45. They seem to go for around US$200 now, or not much over that. That leaves you $600 for other lenses, or gear, or travel.

[mattb123]

I love shooting wide landscapes. I have a few lenses I like for that.

DA 15 is my favorite. Flare resistance, colors, starbursts, sharpness (stopped down), small & light. Love it.
DA* 16-50 - Rugged (WR), very good performance, but not as good with flare (unless you want it), fast.
Rokinon 8mm - Cheap, fun, surprisingly sharp.
DA 18-135 - Versatile, light, and small. A little narrow on the wide end IMO, slow.

[hcc]

I believe that your query may yield to a range of answers. Let me share my take.

-When travelling (eg a week or more), I like to travel light and minimise (or avoid) lens swapping. This means that I will favor an all-around zoom lens, like my DA18-250mm and DA18-135mm. With my K-3, I feel that the DA18-135mm tend to give better results, albeit with a short focal length range, These zoom lenses works well in good light conditions, but will not perform too well in low light or 'tricky' lighting (fogg, smogg, smoke).

My solution for travel is to take a all-around zoom lens (DA18-250mm/DA18-135mm), with a fast prime in my pocket. The latter is nearly always my Voigtlander Nokton 58mm f1.4 (see my take at https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/209251-fa31...mm-f1-4-a.html).


- Another situation is a short trip (eg daytrip) when I can take a few lenses. I favor primes because they deliver great IQ for a moderate investment IMHO. Then my favorite landscape lenses are the DA15mm Ltd and FA31mm Ltd. The DA15mm is a great wide angle, with superb IQ and perfect for landscape IMHO. I placed some example at: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/246655-primes-paris.html. Highly recommended. The second lens is the FA31mm. The IQ is outstanding and the focal length is just right.

I add that both lenses are AF, metallic, sturdy and perfect for some walking/bush walking situation. These lenses deliver a very high keeper rate, something that I value a lot, especially when I shoot unique situations.


I hope that the comments and experience may help.

[jrpower10]

If you want wide, also consider the DA 12-24. It's very good. Only drawback is no WR.

[corvin]

So many good answers so quickly.

WR is fairly important to have in at least one versatile lens for me...eventually.
Size/weight is a non-issue. Irrespective of everything else, I'll have the Tamron 90mm macro and the DA 50 (f/1.8, i think) in the bag with me always...in addition to whatever else I buy.

I'm terrible with post-production editing (so far) so most of my stuff gets retouched little (most of what I do is either in paint.net or rawtherapee).
I live in Utah so I have a wiiiiiiide range of landscape/light/seasons open to me so I'm thinking a lot about versatility.

Speed of the lens can get important quickly...which is why I was thinking about the 18-135 WR paired with the 2.8 of the Tamron 17-50 (or should I be thinking even faster?).

[lesmore49]

I have the Pentax, 12-24,16-45, 18-135. They're all good, but the 12-24 is great.

[baro-nite]

Speed of the lens can get important quickly...which is why I was thinking about the 18-135 WR paired with the 2.8 of the Tamron 17-50 (or should I be thinking even faster?).

Depends on why lens speed is important. Current DSLRs perform amazingly well at high ISO. On the other hand, and as you live in Utah there are certainly fantastic opportunities, if you are interested in astrophotography then you will want to look for faster lenses with excellent control of optical aberrations (coma in particular) wide open. But in general landscapes are shot at smaller apertures (larger f-numbers) to obtain adequate depth of field.

[Sandy Hancock]

Of the fast normal zooms, I gather the Tamron is the most flare resistant (and the cheapest). I have the DA*16-50 (and used to have the Sigma) and both get the job done nicely.

For deliberate landscapes I prefer primes though. The DA21 is my easy favourite. I find the DA15 limiting due to its ultra-wide field of view and poor edge sharpness, but used mindfully it can produce great landscapes. The DA10-17 is fun, and with distortion correction matches the output from the DA15 pretty closely. The FA*24 is fantastic as long as you are very mindful of flare. All three FA limiteds perform wonderfully with their own special character. The DA*55 is my favourite for stitched panoramas. There are times when a really big landscape needs a telephoto perspective, so the DA*50-135 and even the DA*300 have their place.

Sorry, that's probably not much help

[emalvick]

So many good answers so quickly.

WR is fairly important to have in at least one versatile lens for me...eventually.
Size/weight is a non-issue. Irrespective of everything else, I'll have the Tamron 90mm macro and the DA 50 (f/1.8, i think) in the bag with me always...in addition to whatever else I buy.

I'm terrible with post-production editing (so far) so most of my stuff gets retouched little (most of what I do is either in paint.net or rawtherapee).
I live in Utah so I have a wiiiiiiide range of landscape/light/seasons open to me so I'm thinking a lot about versatility.

Speed of the lens can get important quickly...which is why I was thinking about the 18-135 WR paired with the 2.8 of the Tamron 17-50 (or should I be thinking even faster?).

OK... I have the pairing you are talking about. I have not fully tested it on my K3, yet, but they both got used heavily on my K5. For landscapes, 2.8 will be fast enough. The Tamron lens is so wonderful. I used it almost exclusively on a roadtrip through Utah (with a K10d) 5 years ago.

I got the 18-135 for the larger range of focal lengths and the WR. The lens is somewhere between the Tamron and the Pentax 18-55. I use it a lot because I can get away with it as the most minimal kit possible (i.e. camera and mounted lens). But, I'm never 100% happy with my landscape shots as I am with that 17-50 Tamron.

With the K3 and it's lack of AA filter, the 18-135 may be better, but so would the Tamron.

For WR, I don't know just how important it is. Maybe if you lived in Seattle. I went for many years with the Tamron as my primary lens. That included shoots out in some rain, windstorms in Arizona, etc. I never had any problems with it. I used it throughout Iceland leaving the 18-135 home. Of course it isn't weather sealed, so your experience could be different, but I do think these lens do ok as long as you aren't going crazy with them zooming a lot or purposely standing in the pouring rain.

Back to your situation. The one thing I didn't like when I was traveling around the SW was that there are many places where I couldn't get wide enough. 17 mm didn't always cut it. I was ignorant of that possibility. My solution then was to stitch photos together to make up for reach. Specifically at Zion. Later on I got the Tamron 10-24. It's not as fast, and really not that sharp either. It is a good lens and it does solve the issue of wide conditions, but it's also a little big. However, I've since replaced that with a 15 mm and 21 mm prime, which could actually replace both Tamron's although I'm not convinced that they exceed the 17-50 mm lens anyway.

Anyway, you might think about your needs and where you'll be shooting. Knowing the weather in Utah, I don't think you need to worry that much about WR lens. With the scenery, you should emphasize sharpness. You have a longer focal length available with the 90 mm lens and even a 50 mm lens. You might want to focus on image quality and go from that be it the 17-50 and another lens (a wider one perhaps) or even perhaps the 16-50 or wait for the 16-85 and reviews to follow. You have a lot of great stuff to photograph, might as well make it as perfect as you can.

[nomadkng]

The 18-135 is not in the same league as the Tamron IQ-wise, and I don't believe WR is that big a concern except in extreme environments that don't exist in the contiguous US or other "moderate" latitudes. I also do not like primes because of their restrictive nature (read forced perspective). I find it silly to conceptualize a shot at 30mm but shoot it at 21 and crop (or better yet buy 2! lenses). Instead a 20-40 would have given you the flexibility to shoot at both 21 AND 30 and decide which image you preferred. Plus you wouldn't be changing lenses or having several jumble around in your pockets etc etc.

I also find the concept of manual focus lenses to be extremely displeasing. as if we somehow have to eschew technological advances to prove we are better photographers. I can think of hundreds of occasions where the camera has been in an incredibly awkward position and looking through the viewfinder or even live view was impossible. AF "bailed" me out in these circumstances.... I guess. Plus if its a windy day or a cold day or a hot day, your eyesight is less accurate and reliable than the PDAF sensor.

So for me it is simply a choice of the best AF landscape lens(es) available for under $800. The Tamron 17-50 has beaten the Sigma 17-50 and Pentax 16-50 in several reviews, not just the one here on PF. And other sites have rated the new 20-40 ltd very highly, contrary to PF reviews and the Sigma 18-35. You also have legacy glass out there, such as the Sigma 20-40 and Pentax 20-35, but those are nearly impossible to find. Why? Because they are Pro IQ full frame lenses that people like me aren't willing to part with.

In summary, I own the Sigma 20-40, the Tamron 17-50 and the Pentax 20-35 and I shoot about 70% of the time with the Tamron because of its IQ and versatility. As was mentioned above, it also handles flare much better for sunrise/sunset shots. I think you could easily just purchase the Tamron 17-50 and use the remaining $400-450 on filters, tripod or various other accessories. Or even get a 35 ltd macro for creativity and flower shots while you're waiting for the light to be better.

[osv]

I live in Utah so I have a wiiiiiiide range of landscape/light/seasons open to me so I'm thinking a lot about versatility.

Speed of the lens can get important quickly...which is why I was thinking about the 18-135 WR paired with the 2.8 of the Tamron 17-50 (or should I be thinking even faster?).

typically, you want slow primes for landscapes, not fast zooms, due to the effects of things like vignetting, distortion, and field curvature in the lens.

in this fa35 test, you can see that center resolution peaks at f/4, while the sides peak at f/5.6, and the vignetting numbers also improve as the lens is stopped down:
Pentax SMC-FA 35mm f/2 AL - Review / Test Report - Analysis

compare the center vs. side peak resolution numbers on this nikon:
Nikkor AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8G ED (FX) - Review / Test Report - Analysis

depending on the focal length chosen, you'll want to shoot the nikon zoom at f/5.6-f/8, minimum, due to where the resolution peaks, and you'd still have distortion to deal with even when it's stopped down.

that is an exceptional zoom, not many lenses from any manufacturer could stand up to it, but it's still weak in some areas, when compared to a simple prime lens.

in both cases, tho, neither lens was usable for landscape work when opened up... even the fa35, which is a great piece of glass even on ff, needs to be stopped down a bit.