[Marc Sabatella]

28mm is my single favorite landscape focal length, but I also very much enjoy 15, 40, and 70. You might think I say that just because I happen to own primes in those focal lengths, but no, those are actually the focal lengths I end to favor when shooting with zooms as well.

So if someone told me I could only have two primes for landscape, I'd pick a 28 and one of the three Limiteds. My heart says the 15, even though my head says the 40 or 70. But actually, I often leave the 28 at some and carry just the Limiteds (plus a longer telephoto).

BTW, to be perfectly clear about the 40: there is one and only 40 for DSLR: the DA40/2.8. It is a Limited, and it is also a pancake. There is also a newly announced "XS" version intended for the K-01 that is also a pancake but is not a Limited. There has been semi-informed speculation as to the extent to which it might happen to also work on a DSLR, but nothing officially definitive.

[civiletti]

I use both the Tamron 17-50 A16P (non-VC) and the Zeiss ZK 25/2.8 and ZK 35/2.
While the Tamron has a more uniform resolution at f/2.8 than the ZK 25/2.8,
the Zeeks are more resistant to flare, and have a much better color rendition.
Resolution at a couple of meters (as tested by Photozone) is just one aspect of IQ.

What do you mean by "much better color rendition"?

[lytrytyr]

What do you mean by "much better color rendition"?

Subjectively speaking, the Tamron colors can come across as rather flat and matte, or "brownish,"
which I often find a little disappointing,
while the Zeiss colors are subtler, with a clarity and glow to them.


Since I don't normally use both the Tamron 17-50 A16P and the ZK 25/2.8 together on the same subject,
and I haven't done any direct comparisons,
I'll try to demonstrate with a couple of samples (jpeg's from the K-x without PP),
although the web palette and (lack of) resolution may not be up to the job.
In each case, look at the central portions of the backlit red leaf/leaves.
In the Tamron shot, the red leaf is contrasted against a dark background for emphasis.


Here's the shot from the Tamron (one of the most satisfactory I have in terms of color rendition from that lens):





and here's a typical shot from the ZK 25/2.8 under similar circumstances:

[civiletti]

Subjectively speaking, the Tamron colors can come across as rather flat and matte, or "brownish,"
which I often find a little disappointing,
while the Zeiss colors are subtler, with a clarity and glow to them.:

I will not challenge your observations, but color difference between lenses is much less significant with digital than with film. Post production can change saturation of all colors or single colors. Individual colors can also be lightened or darkened, and their basic chroma can be shifted.

I suspect you may be perceiving the high micro-contrast of Zeiss lenses. That can also be tweeked in post production - Lightroom calls it "clarity." In some cases, super-high microcontrast in the camera can create blown highlights, which cannot be retrieved. Low micro-contrast can almost always be increased.

[northcoastgreg]

Subjectively speaking, the Tamron colors can come across as rather flat and matte, or "brownish,"
which I often find a little disappointing, while the Zeiss colors are subtler, with a clarity and glow to them.

From what I've seen from Zeiss and Tamron lens (I don't own any such lenses), I would have to agree. Images I've seen from Zeiss lenses have some of the brightest, most vivid colors I have ever seen. I believe it color rendition has a lot to do with coatings and light transmission. Zeiss, along with Pentax, were pioneers in development of multi-coating.

[northcoastgreg]

Post production can change saturation of all colors or single colors.

And post production can also sharpen and imitate a soft focus lens, yet you'll get better results with a sharp lens or a soft focus lens, as the case may be. Same with color. Over saturated images look as bad as over sharpened images. Nothing beats getting it right in the camera. I've used lens with average color rendition (e.g., M 50/2, M 28/2, DA 18-55) and lens with terrific color rendition (DA 10-17, DA 12-24, DA 15, DA 16-45, K 28/3.5, K 35/3.5), and it makes a difference, regardless of how aggressively you try to change the color in post. Lenses with inferior coatings can block 20% or more of the blue part of the color spectrum, which has an effect on how the lens renders the various hues of blue, leading to images with less vivid color.

[lytrytyr]

In some cases, super-high microcontrast in the camera can create blown highlights, which cannot be retrieved.

Certainly, with the slightly limited dynamic range of the K-x (compared to a K-5, say),
I prefer to "shoot to the left," underexposing by 2/3EV,
with lenses like the DA Ltds or Zeeks.

[TOUGEFC]

My main two landscape primes are the DA15 ltd and the FA43 ltd, both are very sharp but the FA43 is in another league of sharpness across the frame stopped down! Not to mention the distinct rendering

They make a perfect landscape pair, both small and both share the same filter size thread

[civiletti]

It's nice to know there are so many optically acute Pentax users, but I stand by my general assertion: the difference in color reproduction among modern photo lenses can be overcome in post production without introducing unwanted artifacts. High resolution and freedom from ghosting are the only attributes worth paying for in landscape photography. Contrast, color, distortion, chromatic aberration, and vignetting are fairly easily adjusted.

[lytrytyr]

Contrast, color, distortion, chromatic aberration, and vignetting are fairly easily adjusted.

Color may be adjusted, for sure, but in the final analysis, post-processing only decreases the amount of information embodied in the picture file.

[RioRico]

Color may be adjusted, for sure, but in the final analysis, post-processing only decreases the amount of information embodied in the picture file.

Any rendering of RAW data to JPG or GIF or TIF or PNG or whatever display format is chosen results in loss of data. As the togger, it's my responsibility and privelege to decide just which recorded data is worth presenting. I also get to decide if an image MUST rely on technical 'perfection' to work, or if I can frame shots where content trumps quality. Even 'scapes -- sometimes I indeed want ultimate detail, but sometimes form triumphs, and PP provides the winning edge.

So I've shot (and printed) (and sold) 'scapes shot with a 1216x912px (1.1mpx) P&S in 1-bit mode. My circa-2001 Sony DSC-P20's TEXT mode generates two files per shot: a full-size GIF where each pixel is either black or white, and a 320x240 JPG B&W thumbnail. I'll clean up stray pixels in the GIF, and colorize and enlarge and shoop the JPG, and layer them. Result: Very sharp subject silhouettes with crazy backgrounds, very nice with saguaro and cholla cacti against light hills.

[lytrytyr]

To quote Erwin Puts (http://www.imx.nl/photo/Opinion/page135/page135.html):

"The one-to-one correspondence that exists between the moment of making the picture and the reality that is being recorded is lost. The digital picture has no longer any direct relationship to the scene that has been recorded. The file can be manipulated at every stage of the digital processing of the file content."

I don't share his extreme (and perhaps outdated) view of digital photography,
nor am I averse to regarding a digital photo file as merely an input to a subsequent creative process.
But most of the time, I prefer to photograph digital the same way I used to shoot slide film,
aiming to get it right at the moment of pressing the shutter.

[civiletti]

To quote Erwin Puts (http://www.imx.nl/photo/Opinion/page135/page135.html):

"The one-to-one correspondence that exists between the moment of making the picture and the reality that is being recorded is lost. The digital picture has no longer any direct relationship to the scene that has been recorded. The file can be manipulated at every stage of the digital processing of the file content."

I don't share his extreme (and perhaps outdated) view of digital photography,
nor am I averse to regarding a digital photo file as merely an input to a subsequent creative process.
But most of the time, I prefer to photograph digital the same way I used to shoot slide film,
aiming to get it right at the moment of pressing the shutter.

This attitude is held by many who developed shooting chromes, I believe, because there is so little one can do when printing transparencies. Minimal color and contrast change is possible, so the chrome had better be right. The tradition of B&W leads to a very different mindset. Film exposure is part of a controlled process including film development, paper and chemical choice, and print exposure manipulation. Color digital photography is more like film B&W. The power over image creation is available to those who are willing to use it.

A digital photographer who rejects post production is analogous to a B&W film photographer who always uses nominal ASA, standard development, one grade of printing paper without dodging or burning and one set of chemicals with standardized wet times . If that floats your boat, go for it.

[Clavius]

So I've shot (and printed) (and sold) 'scapes shot with a 1216x912px (1.1mpx) P&S in 1-bit mode. My circa-2001 Sony DSC-P20's TEXT mode generates two files per shot: a full-size GIF where each pixel is either black or white, and a 320x240 JPG B&W thumbnail. I'll clean up stray pixels in the GIF, and colorize and enlarge and shoop the JPG, and layer them. Result: Very sharp subject silhouettes with crazy backgrounds, very nice with saguaro and cholla cacti against light hills.

I'd love to see an example of that...

[lytrytyr]

The power over image creation is available to those who are willing to use it.

There are two issues there.

One gets deep into the nature of photography, versus media like painting or computer graphics.
The essence of photography is that the primary image is created in a hundredth of a second.

The other issue is how you choose to spend your time and effort.
Do you want to create images that are more or less right from the beginning,
or invest the majority of your time trying to improve images that need secondary work?
I do occasionally enjoy playing around in the darkroom or Lightroom,
but that's not the main reason for my involvement with photography.