Looking for advice: landscape lens(es)

GeneV · 02-23-2011, 10:08 AM

Originally posted by RioRico

Again: AF isn't required for most landscapes, unless they're moving around a lot, like along the San Andreas Fault, where you're not going.

In the ultrawide range, a very few new AF zooms and primes are about the only options. Otherwise, old manual primes are great and affordable, and often small and light.

Nor is a zoom, really. Even if you need to reframe, you've usually got time for a lens change. I've always preferred primes for landscapes. It is the type of shot where lens performance matters the most.

Jewelltrail · 02-23-2011, 10:53 AM

Quote:

crimson_penguin You know, I'm pretty sure there is something wrong with my copy, and it's probably too late to do anything about it. I don't have it with my here, but I found a couple examples of it:

Yes definitely something wrong with these--does every shot you take wide open these days look like this? How do shots look at smaller apertures?

Quote:

crimson_penguin Look at the before pictures though, they look fine to me. Again, not my macro, but decent at least.

Yes, much better, especially the portrait, which was done at 1/20th, but still looks good. The tree branch shot is not in focus though.

Do you have your receipt or Warranty card? Tamron backs their product, for 6 years. I would call and explain to them, all you provide here--they might just take care of it for you for nothing. What do you have to lose? If it is taking shots as bad as the 1st ones posted, it is worse than the worst Point & Shoots--why keep it?

Crimson Penguin, this is one of the most highly regarded zooms out there and is excellent when right--I know, I own one.

JT

mikeSF · 02-23-2011, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by GeneV

Nor is a zoom, really. Even if you need to reframe, you've usually got time for a lens change. I've always preferred primes for landscapes. It is the type of shot where lens performance matters the most.

this has been my philosophy too, though i know there are probably some zooms out there w/great IQ, but still, i only want a prime for landscapes.

crimson_penguin · 02-23-2011, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by GeneV

Nor is a zoom, really. Even if you need to reframe, you've usually got time for a lens change. I've always preferred primes for landscapes. It is the type of shot where lens performance matters the most.

That's what I was figuring, hence my surprise at the suggestion of the 12-24 instead of the 15.

Originally posted by Jewelltrail

Yes definitely something wrong with these--does every shot you take wide open these days look like this? How do shots look at smaller apertures?

Well of course, after taking pictures like that, I wasn't too inclined to take a whole lot of shots with it afterwards... With smaller apertures it's not so bad, but it's still not great. I think this (28mm, f9, 1/160), and this (28mm, f5.6, 1/160) are pretty good examples of fairly "ideal" conditions - they don't look too bad, but if you look close, they're certainly not great either.

Originally posted by Jewelltrail

Yes, much better, especially the portrait, which was done at 1/20th, but still looks good. The tree branch shot is not in focus though.

Yeah. I think the fruit is in focus in the tree branch shot.

Originally posted by Jewelltrail

Do you have your receipt or Warranty card? Tamron backs their product, for 6 years. I would call and explain to them, all you provide here--they might just take care of it for you for nothing. What do you have to lose? If it is taking shots as bad as the 1st ones posted, it is worse than the worst Point & Shoots--why keep it?

Crimson Penguin, this is one of the most highly regarded zooms out there and is excellent when right--I know, I own one.

Good advice, and thanks for the info. I should still have the warranty card and receipt and all at home, and I'll be back home the Monday after next, so I'll look into it then.

GeneV · 02-23-2011, 11:46 AM

The DA 12-24 is an exception because its performance is close to or exceeds some primes. There was an entire thread about whether the DA 15 was superior. It is a close question to many. I tend to use the primes unless I need to shoot wider than 15mm.

Jewelltrail · 02-23-2011, 09:18 PM

Quote:

crimson penguin: That's what I was figuring, hence my surprise at the suggestion of the 12-24 instead of the 15.

There are more & more zooms these days which are "nearly" as good as primes, not just the Da 12-24. For example, the Sigma 17-50 2.8 (new one) & the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 are excellent. If I were going to shoot lanscapes, I would go for the 17-50mm range over the 12-24 range, in a second.

Quote:

crimson penguin: Well of course, after taking pictures like that, I wasn't too inclined to take a whole lot of shots with it afterwards... With smaller apertures it's not so bad, but it's still not great. I think this (28mm, f9, 1/160), and this (28mm, f5.6, 1/160) are pretty good examples of fairly "ideal" conditions - they don't look too bad, but if you look close, they're certainly not great either.

Even the shots @ f9 have issues, haze engulfs the pic--surely not right. Wait until you see the lens when it is right. This zoom is loved by many, for good reasons.

Quote:

crimson penguin: Good advice, and thanks for the info. I should still have the warranty card and receipt and all at home, and I'll be back home the Monday after next, so I'll look into it then.

Great, it sure would be nice to see you posting some excellent shots here someday soon. Best of luck.

koper · 02-23-2011, 09:52 PM

sigma 10-20 mm
sigma 8-16 mm
the best lenses for ladscape

???????? ????? ?????? ???????? - ????? ????? - ????? ????? - ????? ?????? - ????? ?????? ?? ???? - ????? ????? - ????? ?????? - ????? ?????? -

Jewelltrail · 02-24-2011, 12:01 AM

Originally posted by koper

sigma 10-20 mm
sigma 8-16 mm
the best lenses for ladscape

???????? ????? ?????? ???????? - ????? ????? - ????? ????? - ????? ?????? - ????? ?????? ?? ???? - ????? ????? - ????? ?????? - ????? ?????? -

I agree those are great lenses, but are not focal lengths I use a lot for landscapes though. But I do love my 10-20 Siggy!

Pentaxor · 02-24-2011, 12:14 AM

Originally posted by Jewelltrail

There are more & more zooms these days which are "nearly" as good as primes, not just the Da 12-24. For example, the Sigma 17-50 2.8 (new one) & the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 are excellent. If I were going to shoot lanscapes, I would go for the 17-50mm range over the 12-24 range, in a second.

this would rely on how much the OP needed the extra wideness. for typical landscape, the 17mm would be pretty much sufficient already.

crimson_penguin · 02-24-2011, 08:52 AM

How much I need the extra wideness I'm not sure, since I've never had it (other than a while ago with the 18-55 kit). But I would like to have something wider than 28mm. I guess if I can get my Tamron fixed, the 12-24 would be a perfect supplement to it; then I'd have 12-100 covered pretty good (with only 25-27 and 76-99 missing). I think whether I buy a 15 or 12-24 will just depend on which I find a good deal on first. I still really want a DA* or Limited lens (for weather sealing/SDM, and awesomeness value), but I'm not sure how much I could justify buying either if I got the 12-24 and got the 28-75 fixed.

GeneV · 02-24-2011, 08:59 AM

Originally posted by Pentaxor

this would rely on how much the OP needed the extra wideness. for typical landscape, the 17mm would be pretty much sufficient already.

True. I seldom shoot landscapes with wider than a 21mm unless I am looking to emphasize one near element. I also find a sharp, short tele like the DA70 to be an excellent landscape lens, and landscape and architecture shots were the primary reasons I bought it since I already owned the FA77. It all depends on the effect you want.

mikeSF · 02-24-2011, 08:59 AM

don't forget the LBA Mantra, "You can never own too many lenses"...

It isn't "This or that?", but "this AND that".

buy lenses and be merry!

paperbag846 · 02-24-2011, 09:00 AM

Originally posted by crimson_penguin

How much I need the extra wideness I'm not sure, since I've never had it (other than a while ago with the 18-55 kit). But I would like to have something wider than 28mm. I guess if I can get my Tamron fixed, the 12-24 would be a perfect supplement to it; then I'd have 12-100 covered pretty good (with only 25-27 and 76-99 missing). I think whether I buy a 15 or 12-24 will just depend on which I find a good deal on first. I still really want a DA* or Limited lens (for weather sealing/SDM, and awesomeness value), but I'm not sure how much I could justify buying either if I got the 12-24 and got the 28-75 fixed.

Just make sure you actually want to go that wide.

12 is just absurdly wide.

15 I find almost too wide in many situations.

17 is plenty wide and you can make it work for a lot of situations.

In other words, instead of dropping a lot of money on the 12-24 just to fill in the numbers, consider less wide lenses. the the range below 20mm on ASP-C is pretty specialized, and generally less useful than above 20mm.

the 12-24 is also weakest in this range (above 20mm). It's still good, but at that point it's significantly less sharp than the DA 15 or 21.

E.g., the suggestion of the Tamron 17-50 is a good one because you could actually sell your 28mm and just stick with the zoom. It would really kill it for landscapes.

GeneV · 02-24-2011, 09:05 AM

The vast majority of my use for the 12-24 has been indoors. It has tended to replace the DA15 indoors in situations where size of the lens does not matter.

paperbag846 · 02-24-2011, 09:06 AM

Originally posted by GeneV

The vast majority of my use for the 12-24 has been indoors

This makes a lot of sense. Wide is valuable in tight quarters.

02-24-2011, 12:01 AM	#53
Jewelltrail Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Rhode Island Photos: Albums Posts: 4,180	Originally posted by koper sigma 10-20 mm sigma 8-16 mm the best lenses for ladscape ???????? ????? ?????? ???????? - ????? ????? - ????? ????? - ????? ?????? - ????? ?????? ?? ???? - ????? ????? - ????? ?????? - ????? ?????? - I agree those are great lenses, but are not focal lengths I use a lot for landscapes though. But I do love my 10-20 Siggy! Last edited by Jewelltrail; 02-24-2011 at 02:13 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Best Landscape Lens	SLRPhotography	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	29	12-11-2010 11:39 PM
best landscape lens?	canonwoman	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	26	01-25-2010 11:11 AM
Landscape Lens options	chrism_scotland	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	19	11-16-2009 12:24 PM
best landscape lens?	kuau	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	11	02-12-2009 01:13 PM
lens for landscape photography	seymop	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	20	09-01-2008 07:05 AM

02-23-2011, 10:08 AM	#46
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by RioRico Again: AF isn't required for most landscapes, unless they're moving around a lot, like along the San Andreas Fault, where you're not going. In the ultrawide range, a very few new AF zooms and primes are about the only options. Otherwise, old manual primes are great and affordable, and often small and light. Nor is a zoom, really. Even if you need to reframe, you've usually got time for a lens change. I've always preferred primes for landscapes. It is the type of shot where lens performance matters the most.

02-23-2011, 10:53 AM	#47
Jewelltrail Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Rhode Island Photos: Albums Posts: 4,180	Quote: crimson_penguin You know, I'm pretty sure there is something wrong with my copy, and it's probably too late to do anything about it. I don't have it with my here, but I found a couple examples of it: Yes definitely something wrong with these--does every shot you take wide open these days look like this? How do shots look at smaller apertures? Quote: crimson_penguin Look at the before pictures though, they look fine to me. Again, not my macro, but decent at least. Yes, much better, especially the portrait, which was done at 1/20th, but still looks good. The tree branch shot is not in focus though. Do you have your receipt or Warranty card? Tamron backs their product, for 6 years. I would call and explain to them, all you provide here--they might just take care of it for you for nothing. What do you have to lose? If it is taking shots as bad as the 1st ones posted, it is worse than the worst Point & Shoots--why keep it? Crimson Penguin, this is one of the most highly regarded zooms out there and is excellent when right--I know, I own one. JT

02-23-2011, 11:35 AM	#48
mikeSF Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: East Bay Area, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,622	Originally posted by GeneV Nor is a zoom, really. Even if you need to reframe, you've usually got time for a lens change. I've always preferred primes for landscapes. It is the type of shot where lens performance matters the most. this has been my philosophy too, though i know there are probably some zooms out there w/great IQ, but still, i only want a prime for landscapes.

02-23-2011, 11:42 AM	#49
crimson_penguin Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 71 Original Poster	Originally posted by GeneV Nor is a zoom, really. Even if you need to reframe, you've usually got time for a lens change. I've always preferred primes for landscapes. It is the type of shot where lens performance matters the most. That's what I was figuring, hence my surprise at the suggestion of the 12-24 instead of the 15. Originally posted by Jewelltrail Yes definitely something wrong with these--does every shot you take wide open these days look like this? How do shots look at smaller apertures? Well of course, after taking pictures like that, I wasn't too inclined to take a whole lot of shots with it afterwards... With smaller apertures it's not so bad, but it's still not great. I think this (28mm, f9, 1/160), and this (28mm, f5.6, 1/160) are pretty good examples of fairly "ideal" conditions - they don't look too bad, but if you look close, they're certainly not great either. Originally posted by Jewelltrail Yes, much better, especially the portrait, which was done at 1/20th, but still looks good. The tree branch shot is not in focus though. Yeah. I think the fruit is in focus in the tree branch shot. Originally posted by Jewelltrail Do you have your receipt or Warranty card? Tamron backs their product, for 6 years. I would call and explain to them, all you provide here--they might just take care of it for you for nothing. What do you have to lose? If it is taking shots as bad as the 1st ones posted, it is worse than the worst Point & Shoots--why keep it? Crimson Penguin, this is one of the most highly regarded zooms out there and is excellent when right--I know, I own one. Good advice, and thanks for the info. I should still have the warranty card and receipt and all at home, and I'll be back home the Monday after next, so I'll look into it then.

02-23-2011, 11:46 AM	#50
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	The DA 12-24 is an exception because its performance is close to or exceeds some primes. There was an entire thread about whether the DA 15 was superior. It is a close question to many. I tend to use the primes unless I need to shoot wider than 15mm.

02-23-2011, 09:18 PM	#51
Jewelltrail Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Rhode Island Photos: Albums Posts: 4,180	Quote: crimson penguin: That's what I was figuring, hence my surprise at the suggestion of the 12-24 instead of the 15. There are more & more zooms these days which are "nearly" as good as primes, not just the Da 12-24. For example, the Sigma 17-50 2.8 (new one) & the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 are excellent. If I were going to shoot lanscapes, I would go for the 17-50mm range over the 12-24 range, in a second. Quote: crimson penguin: Well of course, after taking pictures like that, I wasn't too inclined to take a whole lot of shots with it afterwards... With smaller apertures it's not so bad, but it's still not great. I think this (28mm, f9, 1/160), and this (28mm, f5.6, 1/160) are pretty good examples of fairly "ideal" conditions - they don't look too bad, but if you look close, they're certainly not great either. Even the shots @ f9 have issues, haze engulfs the pic--surely not right. Wait until you see the lens when it is right. This zoom is loved by many, for good reasons. Quote: crimson penguin: Good advice, and thanks for the info. I should still have the warranty card and receipt and all at home, and I'll be back home the Monday after next, so I'll look into it then. Great, it sure would be nice to see you posting some excellent shots here someday soon. Best of luck.

02-23-2011, 09:52 PM	#52
koper Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: israel Photos: Gallery Posts: 180	sigma 10-20 mm sigma 8-16 mm the best lenses for ladscape ???????? ????? ?????? ???????? - ????? ????? - ????? ????? - ????? ?????? - ????? ?????? ?? ???? - ????? ????? - ????? ?????? - ????? ?????? -

02-24-2011, 12:14 AM	#54
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by Jewelltrail There are more & more zooms these days which are "nearly" as good as primes, not just the Da 12-24. For example, the Sigma 17-50 2.8 (new one) & the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 are excellent. If I were going to shoot lanscapes, I would go for the 17-50mm range over the 12-24 range, in a second. this would rely on how much the OP needed the extra wideness. for typical landscape, the 17mm would be pretty much sufficient already.

02-24-2011, 08:52 AM	#55
crimson_penguin Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 71 Original Poster	How much I need the extra wideness I'm not sure, since I've never had it (other than a while ago with the 18-55 kit). But I would like to have something wider than 28mm. I guess if I can get my Tamron fixed, the 12-24 would be a perfect supplement to it; then I'd have 12-100 covered pretty good (with only 25-27 and 76-99 missing). I think whether I buy a 15 or 12-24 will just depend on which I find a good deal on first. I still really want a DA* or Limited lens (for weather sealing/SDM, and awesomeness value), but I'm not sure how much I could justify buying either if I got the 12-24 and got the 28-75 fixed.

02-24-2011, 08:59 AM	#56
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by Pentaxor this would rely on how much the OP needed the extra wideness. for typical landscape, the 17mm would be pretty much sufficient already. True. I seldom shoot landscapes with wider than a 21mm unless I am looking to emphasize one near element. I also find a sharp, short tele like the DA70 to be an excellent landscape lens, and landscape and architecture shots were the primary reasons I bought it since I already owned the FA77. It all depends on the effect you want.

02-24-2011, 08:59 AM	#57
mikeSF Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: East Bay Area, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,622	don't forget the LBA Mantra, "You can never own too many lenses"... It isn't "This or that?", but "this AND that". buy lenses and be merry!

02-24-2011, 09:00 AM	#58
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	Originally posted by crimson_penguin How much I need the extra wideness I'm not sure, since I've never had it (other than a while ago with the 18-55 kit). But I would like to have something wider than 28mm. I guess if I can get my Tamron fixed, the 12-24 would be a perfect supplement to it; then I'd have 12-100 covered pretty good (with only 25-27 and 76-99 missing). I think whether I buy a 15 or 12-24 will just depend on which I find a good deal on first. I still really want a DA* or Limited lens (for weather sealing/SDM, and awesomeness value), but I'm not sure how much I could justify buying either if I got the 12-24 and got the 28-75 fixed. Just make sure you actually want to go that wide. 12 is just absurdly wide. 15 I find almost too wide in many situations. 17 is plenty wide and you can make it work for a lot of situations. In other words, instead of dropping a lot of money on the 12-24 just to fill in the numbers, consider less wide lenses. the the range below 20mm on ASP-C is pretty specialized, and generally less useful than above 20mm. the 12-24 is also weakest in this range (above 20mm). It's still good, but at that point it's significantly less sharp than the DA 15 or 21. E.g., the suggestion of the Tamron 17-50 is a good one because you could actually sell your 28mm and just stick with the zoom. It would really kill it for landscapes.

02-24-2011, 09:05 AM	#59
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	The vast majority of my use for the 12-24 has been indoors. It has tended to replace the DA15 indoors in situations where size of the lens does not matter.

02-24-2011, 09:06 AM	#60
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	Originally posted by GeneV The vast majority of my use for the 12-24 has been indoors This makes a lot of sense. Wide is valuable in tight quarters.