[newarts]

If really wide landscapes are rare you might consider stitching.

[yeatzee]

Define "cheap" for us. For Digitalis it means one thing, for PaperBag it means one thing and for RioRico it means one thing.

Lol great point Blue

[yeatzee]

If really wide landscapes are rare you might consider stitching.

This is what I do if I need "ultra wide" The widest lens I own is the F 28mm (not much of a wideangle shooter ) so when i want more in the frame I do a simple panorama.




this is a two shot pano with the 28mm. Could it have been taken with an ultra wide? Im not sure, I've never shot one BUT it works for me, and saves me a boatload of cash (well not really since that would require a boatload of cash to begin with )

[glee46]

You can get it at Adorama for $449 here: B001P700 Tamron 10 - 24mm f/3.5-4.5 DI-II B.I.M. (Built-in Motor) LD Aspherical (IF) AF Wide Zoom Lens, for Pentax Digital SLR Cameras - U.S.A. Warranty

Or at Amazon $449 here: Amazon.com: Tamron AF 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 SP Di II LD Aspherical (IF) Lens for Pentax Digital SLR Cameras: Camera & Photo

If you go with the Tamron you're going to be better off going with Adorama 1st & Amazon 2nd depending on how you want to pay. If you go with Adorama Pentax Forums is supported by your purchase.

[telly0050]

thank you guys for all your generous opinions.

i have the 18-55 kit, 55-300 kit, and the 35 f2.4
since most my shots are landscape i am considering selling my 300mm.
and that's why im trying to get a wider lens with the extra money i will get.

looks like it's better to save the bucks for a better lens

[RioRico]

Define "cheap" for us. For Digitalis it means one thing, for PaperBag it means one thing and for RioRico it means one thing.

Yeah, to me "cheap ultrawide" means impossible.

I got the cheapest possible, the Tamron 10-24, when it had a $475 list and a $100 coupon, so it was US$375 shipped, an Xmas present to myself half-a-year ago. I *could* have afforded an older Sigma 10-20, but I thought: I see many reports of people returning 3-4-5 copies of the Sig before they get a good one, so why should I spend money on something with known issues? I saw fewer bitches-gripes-groans-whines about the Tammy, so that's what I got. And I've heard pros despise Sigma's QC issues.

Y'know, I shoot 'scapes, and the Tammy ain't what I use mostly, not in town nor country. Ultrawides and fisheyes are great for small spaces, not large one, not when they shrink mountains down to molehills and urban skylines down to dirty bumps. And it's not just me. Look at collections of published 'scapes and you'll find that the vast majority are shot at focal lengths equivalent to the DA18-55 kit lens. Stop that down to f/8 and it's a damn fine 'scape lens.

My favorite glass for 'scapes: Kiron 24/2 (if I don't mind some little edge distortion), Komine 28/2 CFWA (if I want zero distortion), Tokina 21/3.5 (for a larger view), CZJ Tessar 50/2.8 (for a tighter view and crystalline optics; the 12-iris-blades version). The Kiron was costly at US$130; the others were all much much cheaper.

The Komine (US$18) and the Zeiss (US$7) are what I used outdoors most on my recent 2-month SouthWestUSA journey. I used the Tamron 10-24 on the narrow streets of old Santa Fe, but mostly on the 24mm end outside, taking it to 10mm only inside shops & galleries & churches. The Grand Canyon? Stitched 28mm shots. Colorado high country? The 28mm mostly. When I drove up 14250ft / 4275m Mt Evans and shot the Front Range of the Rockies extending from Wyoming to New Mexico, I used the Zeiss 50.

Yeah, I use ultrawides and fisheyes outside some, but those are just mostly indoors lenses. If you want BUDGET (fairly) UW/FE, get a Zenitar 16/2.8, slightly fishy, nicely fast and sharp, good indoors and out (when needed). Or just learn to stitch panos, that's even cheaper. Have fun!

[Just1MoreDave]

The combination of the DA 16-45 and Photoshop CS5 produces great stitching results. I don't know which is most responsible.

[abacus07]

While this is totally subjective, I don't agree that you need a wide angle at all to shoot a good landscape. In fact, I find it much harder to shoot a good landscape with an wide/ultrawide than it is with a moderate wide or normal lens (in the 20 - 35mm range).

.....

My personal fav landscape lens was the A 28mm f2.8. Crazy sharp stopped down, and a great focal length for landscapes.

Rio and paperbag nailed it in their posts.

I remember thinking the same as the OP. But after several weeks of taking photos with the kit lens at every possible prime focal length I found that the 28mm-35mm range produced the best cityscape/landscape photos. The wider lengths usually got a little dull due lack of focal interest in the picture. This is partly due my composition skills though. A wide or ultra wide angle requires a different mindset imo.

But I still lust for the wide angle because it's amazing in the right hands. However it's DA15 or bust for me. I'm interested in compact and I'm not interested in another set of giant filters. I restrict my LBA to 49 and 52mm filter threads.

[vrrattko]

Rio and paperbag nailed it in their posts.

I remember thinking the same as the OP. But after several weeks of taking photos with the kit lens at every possible prime focal length I found that the 28mm-35mm range produced the best cityscape/landscape photos. The wider lengths usually got a little dull due lack of focal interest in the picture. This is partly due my composition skills though. A wide or ultra wide angle requires a different mindset imo.

But I still lust for the wide angle because it's amazing in the right hands. However it's DA15 or bust for me. I'm interested in compact and I'm not interested in another set of giant filters. I restrict my LBA to 49 and 52mm filter threads.

Well I would say it's a little more tricky to use UWA lens than other, but certainly it has some advantages. You can stitch if you're photographing static scene, but there are ocassions when UWA lens is necessary. There was a good article at KenRockwell website on using wide angle.
UWA angle lens is also valuable for street photography - for example since I purchased K20/4 it has become my favourite street lens and FA31 gets more rest. Of course 20mm is cropped on dslr somewhat to 30mm equivalent, but perspective stays the same.
I think keeping LBA down to 49mm, 52mm filter size is good strategy. I do almost the same, always try to find lens which shares filter size with other lenses in my collection. I can really recommend getting old M20/4 or even older K20/4. The latter is sold for more, but with patience you can find a good deal - I bought mine for 155 euros and consider it a greatest lens buy i made, given the results. If you really want lens below<20mm, then go for Samyang, it is heavy, MF and bulky, but outresolves most UWA lenses out there.

[RioRico]

UWA angle lens is also valuable for street photography - for example since I purchased K20/4 it has become my favourite street lens and FA31 gets more rest. Of course 20mm is cropped on dslr somewhat to 30mm equivalent, but perspective stays the same.

Just a little quibble: 20mm ain't UWA. I've an M42 Tokina 21/3.8 that's wizard for street shooting, but like the kit lens at 18mm, it ain't UWA. I think you need to get below 16mm to be in that territory. 10-20, 10-24, 12-14-15, these are UWA. And they're all great focal lengths for various purposes.

Back in the day, 28 and 24 were WIDE. (The crop-sensor FOV equivalents would be around 20 and 16mm.) Beyond that was ULTRA-WIDE and those were rare and costly, whether fisheye or rectilinear. With our 10-2x zooms, these are the Golden Days of UWA shooting! Nothing else comes close.

[abacus07]

Well I would say it's a little more tricky to use UWA lens than other, but certainly it has some advantages. You can stitch if you're photographing static scene, but there are ocassions when UWA lens is necessary. There was a good article at KenRockwell website on using wide angle.
UWA angle lens is also valuable for street photography - for example since I purchased K20/4 it has become my favourite street lens and FA31 gets more rest. Of course 20mm is cropped on dslr somewhat to 30mm equivalent, but perspective stays the same.

You might have missed the point of what Rio and paperbag wrote. There's a common misconception that bigger spaces (landscapes/cityscapes) require wider lenses. That's really not true. BUT wide (and UWA's) are amazing when used in the right hands. And I still want one.

[Abbazz]

Of course 20mm is cropped on dslr somewhat to 30mm equivalent, but perspective stays the same.

Sorry if I seem to be flogging the same old dead horse, but there is no specific perspective determined by a particular focal length. Perspective depends entirely on the distance to the subject, and not on the focal length of the lens.

Please refer to these pages if you need further info and photographic samples:

Perspective distortion (photography) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Focal Length and Perspective

Cheers!

Abbazz

[vrrattko]

You might have missed the point of what Rio and paperbag wrote. There's a common misconception that bigger spaces (landscapes/cityscapes) require wider lenses. That's really not true. BUT wide (and UWA's) are amazing when used in the right hands. And I still want one.

Not at all.....didn't miss any point - try to read my previous post on this topic.

[Docrwm]

Yeah, to me "cheap ultrawide" means impossible.

I got the cheapest possible, the Tamron 10-24, when it had a $475 list and a $100 coupon, so it was US$375 shipped, an Xmas present to myself half-a-year ago. I *could* have afforded an older Sigma 10-20, but I thought: I see many reports of people returning 3-4-5 copies of the Sig before they get a good one, so why should I spend money on something with known issues? I saw fewer bitches-gripes-groans-whines about the Tammy, so that's what I got. And I've heard pros despise Sigma's QC issues......

I bought mine as a New Years present (since I got no camera gear for Christmas ) just before the $100 rebate went away so mine was $375 too. My thinking was nearly identical to Rico's on the Tammy too and I have been very happy with it. It is sharpest in my experience between f8-11 and at 10mm gives an incredible perspective. I find myself carrying it every time I take my bag out no matter what else I am carrying too.

Good luck in your decision.

[interested_observer]

Morning, While I am still working I have been lucky and carefully acquiring a lens setup aimed at landscapes. 10-17 FE, 12-24, 16-45, Contax 28, 31 Ltd, A 50, and another Contax 85 - all for landscapes, and I stitch with all of them - even the 55-300.

Rico has laid out the problem very well. At times there is a foreground that makes the shot - so go wide. Other times the foreground is garbage, but a great distant landscape shot, so you need to reach across the foreground - 50 and 85, and probably stitch a panorama together.

I will say, that the Contax 28 is a wonderful MANUAL equivalent to the 31 limited at 1/3 the price new, or 1/2 the price used. Same thing with the Contax 85. Even with having to change the mounts. Its very difficult to exceed the sharpness or IQ of a Zeiss or a Limited.

That said, there are Zeiss Jennas that are M42 (needs an adapter), that are pretty reasonable in cost and high in quality.

So, I would suggest to pick you way through this list looking for lens suggestions that are high in quality, with reasonable costs, that could possibly be stitched...

Miscellaneous Lenses for Pentax: Fixed Focal Lengths - Pentax Third-Party Lens Review Database

hope that helps....