[boone]

Is 16-45mm wide enough to get good lanscape photos?

[VaughnA]

I believe it's an excellent landscape lens on a budget. I have the 16-45 and the Sigma 10-20. After the initial fun with the 10-20 I'm finding that it is much easier to get a good landscape with the 16-45 than the 10-20 which requires careful composition and a good foreground subject. Take this with a large grain of salt since I wouldn't consider myself a good landscape photographer.

I'd also like to interject that I think that the 16-45 is probably the best value lens out there for the money. It's sharp, has great contrast and a good range. Yes, it's an oddball, but a good one.

[LaHo]

Yes, absolutely. AOV at 16mm equals 24mm on film - that should be fine. The DA 16-45 is a very nice lens, but needs to be stopped down a stop or two

[eddie1960]

as above a 16 is 24 equivalent which should be more than wide enough. on an aside very wide lenses can make for dull landscapes quite easily as it is easy to have no main subject just a big sweeping vista. the 45 end will likely produce just as many if not more good landscapes by narrowing the FOV and highlighting a main feature for interest.
I've seen good landscapes off some pretty long lenses as often as ones produced by wide/ultrawide ones

[causey]

I just put my 16-45mm on sale to fund a Sigma 10-20mm. How wide you want to get depends on your style of shooting. I have found the 16mm to be a bit limiting for shots in Europe's narrow streets. But as the others said, 16mm is quite wide--significantly wider than 18mm.

[SpecialK]

You can get "good landscapes" with any focal length.

The 16-45 is wide enough, but you can never be too wide.

[RioRico]

If you look at collections of published landscape photos, you'll find that the vast majority are shot with the equivalent of 18-55mm on APS-C. As suggested, ultrawides and fisheyes will shrink the distant. That mighty mountain range becomes a line of low hills; this imposing urban skyline becomes a row of shacks. Depending on what sort of 'scapes you want to shoot, you can use anything from 10mm to 1000mm and beyond. Ultrawides are useful in showing a subject's context, where an object is in relation to its surroundings.

Yes, the 16-45 is a fine landscape lens. So are my Tamron 10-24, DA10-17, Zenitar 16/2.8, Lentar-Tokina 21/3.8, Vivitar-Komine 24/2, SMC-M28/2.8, et al. So is the DA18-55, stopped down to f/8-11. My old P&S's are good for 'scapes too, with stitched or sequenced or matrixed images. I've shot decent 'scapes with a Brownie.

It depends on what you mean by 'scape and what you intend to do with an image. If you want ultimate resolution, get an 8x10" view camera, or (a bit easier) a 6x9cm folding film camera and a negative scanner. If you want to look at nice pictures on a screen, get that 16-45 lens for your dSLR. If you want creative challenges, shoop-together shots from a P&S, film or digital. Many tools are available. Good luck!

[Michaelina2]

I lean more towards using primes, but the other evening I dug out the ol' 16-45 for a 'click' outing at a local winter street fair. I paired it to my K-7, adjusted its iso range to 100-2500, set it to "p (auto)" mode and popped off about 100 images. Lighting was typical street levels (crap - dim to highly variable). I used no flash and shot well into the evening darkness relying on the len's full zoom and faster f-stop range.

While I need to explore the images more, at first glance, I am VERY pleased (my C-N shooting buddies are quite impressed, too). Anyway, all of this is giving me second thoughts about how best to use this pairing in the future. In sum, for me, the lens offers great flexibility.... a real sleeper. Value-wise, I'll be very surprised to hear you are disappointed by the 16-45.

Cheers... M

[KxBlaze]

I think this is a personal preference question. When I shoot landscapes I tend to shoot at 16mm, which is the wides angle I have, but if I had an 8mm or 10mm I would probably be shooting at that length. I am the type of person that thinks the wider the better for landscape but I have heard others say they prefer 28mm. Use your kit lens at 18mm and see if that is wide enough because 16mm is not a huge difference from 18. But in any case the 16-45 is a good lens (as long as you know its limitations).

[northcoastgreg]

Is 16-45mm wide enough to get good lanscape photos?

This depends, not only on personal preference (as others have mentioned), but on what kind of landscape you're shooting. If you're shooting among high, towering mountains or narrow, deep canyons, being able to go wider than 16mm can be immeasurably convenient. That said, you could probably get by with the 16-45 in most situations.

Another consideration to keep in mind is the alternatives to 16-45, and what they present in terms of trade-offs. To go wider than 16-45 means either getting an ultra-wide prime lens (15mm or 14mm) or an ultra wide zoom (12-24, 10-24, 10-20, 8-16). To go wider, you have to sacrifice the longer end of the focal range. So what's more important: to go wider than 16mm, or longer than 24mm (or 20mm)? The 16-45 may be the best one lens solution for landscape shooting under $700.

[Ash]

The decision can only be made by the personal shooting the landscapes. If you have the kit lens, then has 18mm been wide enough for your landscapes so far? If so, then the 16-45 will do very well for you. If not, then the 16-45 will leave you feeling like you want something wider.

I knew this when I went with the 12-24, and I've not looked back since for my landscapes.

[boone]

Thanks for the input guys... I'm torn between 12-24 and 16-45. But 12-24 is a bit more pricey about 200$..

[Ash]

More like at least double the price - but it's hard to beat for an UWA zoom...

[boone]

Yep Ash.. I was informed today that they were selling 12-24 for 950usd and 450usd for 16-45... big difference..

[VaughnA]

If I could only have one of the two I'd go with the 16-45 first, it's a lot more flexible and useful than the 12-24 in general use. And a big improvement over the kit lens. For the price of the 12-24 you could probably get a used 16-45 & Sigma 10-20.