[DaveHolmes]

I'm another 28mm fan...

[RioRico]

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

Greetings from firgid Tonopah Nevada! That will have to wait a few months, because I'm on the road now till June maybe, and I'm not carrying my image-archive hard-drive with me.

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?

This assumes that an image file processed by the camera, ie according to algorithms built by the design engineers, is what you want. I will repeat: What you think you see, what you want to see, what the camera records, and what is really there (if anything), are not the same. A RAW file is like a latent image -- it's nothing until it's developed. And it can be developed in many different ways. I might generate a dozen different JPGs from a RAW file, tweaking various settings, before I even start shooping.

I spend my time making images look as I wish them to look. This has nothing to do with 'improvement' and everything to do with MAKING pictures rather than TAKING pictures. Photography is more than snapshots. Shall I invoke Ansel Adams? Ansel never got a shot "right from the camera". He used laborious PP to get the look he wanted.

Any image is just raw meat for the shooping machine. YMMV.

[bilybianca]

This assumes that an image file processed by the camera, ie according to algorithms built by the design engineers, is what you want. I will repeat: What you think you see, what you want to see, what the camera records, and what is really there (if anything), are not the same.- - -
I spend my time making images look as I wish them to look. This has nothing to do with 'improvement' and everything to do with MAKING pictures rather than TAKING pictures. - - -
Any image is just raw meat for the shooping machine. YMMV.

Agree. To start, the image is two-dimensional and flat. Few protest about photographers taking away all the colours and leaving only luminoscity, aka BW photos. Seldom have I seen a life-size depiction, and it's always cropped as compared to the view on location. A picture of a rose has a different scent than the rose itself.

ANY photo is the photographers interpretation of what was there. There is always a moment of shooting angle, distance, timing etc. Honesty IMO is about showing an image that reflects what you saw when you were there. Dishonesty is when you manipulate the picture to show something that wasn't there. Like copy-paste a lion to the foreground of that beautiful African sunset, and pretending you waited in the hide for weeks to nail it. If you're honest about being dishonest, it's artsy.

Trusting the Pentax's engineers to do all your post-processing isn't honesty, it's only laziness.

Kjell

[lytrytyr]

Trusting the Pentax's engineers to do all your post-processing isn't honesty, it's only laziness.

How many of us are going to write and hack in our own algorithms?
How many of us are going to fit our own custom AA filter (or just remove the one that came with the camera)?
Satisfaction with Pentax engineers' choices is not laziness, just part of the decision to buy Pentax.
However, Pentax engineers are not doing any of my post-processing (they wouldn't accept my hourly rate for that).

As for extensive post-processing,
it's a time-consuming procedure that may be justified for certain purposes,
or that may become a hobby or craft in its own right.
In photo-journalism, it's almost a taboo.
In landscape photography (where this rambling thread started),
it does have a long tradition going back to photographers like Ansel Adams.

Tracing this thread back to where it came from (was it landscape primes?),
I have yet to see a good simulation of Zeiss color done in PP,
and better PP-artists than I seem to concur that it cannot be done.

[Abbazz]

Greetings from firgid Tonopah Nevada!

Say hello to Jim Galli!

Cheers!

Abbazz

[abacus07]

First I think the term landscape lens is pretty vague. Are you asking about typical landscapes or about hiking in general?

Personally I like my DA40 for general use since its limited FOV forces you to compose with more thought resulting in better pictures. But there are times when you absolutely need a WA to get a shot. WA's have a lot of uses in landscapes. River valleys, waterfalls, clearings close to geographic features and in amongst trees for example. Maybe you'll disagree that these are all landscapes but they are pretty common outdoor photos. I find myself swapping between my DA15 and DA40/A50f1.7 most of the time and ignoring the 24/28mm lenses I am carrying. I also rarely use long telephotos for landscapes because of particles (dust or vapor) in the air (IQ degradation). I could see myself using a shorter telephoto like the DA70 but I'm not sure if I would like it more than the fast fifties.

You could just jump right into the DA ltds or you could also get a DA ltd and several of the MF lenses to find out which focal length you like. For landscapes MF is easy and the lenses are still great. DA15, M28/2.8 ($50), M50f1.7 ($50) and M100f4macro (100+) would be a very versatile and cheap setup. Don't dismiss having some ability to close focus even if you aren't a macro shooter. Some prefer the DA21 to the DA15 but I love the new options that the DA15 has given me. I'm not sure if the DA21 would have been able to do either of the following.

[arpaagent]

Why do you need primes? Pentax's DA* 16-50mm is a perfect landscape lens. Even weather sealed so you don't have to worry about dust or a few sprinkles! I take mine hiking/backpacking, and rarely feel the desire or need to swap out for a prime. The only downside is the weight on the camera is a little more, although you might save on total weight when considering 3 lenses to cover the same range. Just a thought!

wide when you need it...for those large objects that you can't get away from but still want to capture


normal is great...to capture the amount of a scenery you might be able to visually focus on had you been there


or short tele if you have the feeling to capture some more intimate details


I also have DA15, FA31, and FA43 (which are the approximate focal lengths of these 3 shots), but honestly it's a pain to switch lenses. Unless you are going somewhere and your sole purpose is to take landscape photos and you have plenty of time to do so, switching lenses may seem like hassle. Using one of those lenses instead of the DA* may have made any of those photos technically better (sharper, maybe less distortion...etc), but would not have change the feeling of the photos. The original lighting, composition, etc has the largest effect on a photo.

Aside from that though, to recommend a single focal length as a landscape lens would be difficult. 15mm is too wide for a lot of shots in my opinion, unless you are always in tight spaces or want dramatic perspective. 20mm is pretty good as a general purpose landscape focal length, should be wide enough for most applications but doesn't have that "super-wide" look. 28mm-31mm shots may be more natural pleasing because of the natural perspective that they offer, but I've found that the normal focal length range can be quite limiting in many landscape situations, and you may be forced to do some small panorama stitching (which has it's own set of advantages and disadvantages). Any longer focal length I would have trouble recommending because it gets too tight to capture a lot of scenes without significant stitching.

If you are willing to do small panorama stitching (4-8 photos) to capture scenes requiring wide angle of view, I would recommend a nice lens around 28mm (any of manual pentax lenses would do nicely here for cheap $$). If you don't want to hassle with panos except for the most extreme wide angle needs, I'd go for a 20mm lens (e.g. DA21Ltd)

[Zen4Life]

Prior to going K-5, I used Canon and just had a mid-quallity 15-85 zoom that was on my camera 95% if the time. I considered a zoom but think I would appreciate both the lighter weight and better quality primes give me.

I ordered the DA15 and DA70 but that leaves a pretty big gap that I would like to fill with something inexpensive. Mostly, I find myself shooting on the wider end of things. If money was no issue now, I might spring for the DA21. However, since all I do is landscapes and am on a strict budget at the moment, I am thinking a manual 28ish prime might work very well. Thanks for the tips.

Someone mentioned the M28/2.8 but I have been reading that the K28/3.5 is even better (assuming I can find one). Another option might be the DA 35 AL, but I am not sure that would be wide enough for me.


Just to clarify, I shoot vistas, waterfalls, barns, trees, lake shots, mountains, that sort of thing.

[arpaagent]

Someone mentioned the M28/2.8 but I have been reading that the K28/3.5 is even better (assuming I can find one). Another option might be the DA 35 AL, but I am not sure that would be wide enough for me.

I haven't used the M28/2.8 much, but I have used (and still own) a K28/3.5 on several occasions, and it is a really nice lens. Very good contrast and sharpness, and very low distortions. Really great for landscapes in my opinion. However, it is a little bigger and heavier than the M28, and probably a little more expensive. If you can find one at a decent price I'd opt for the K28, at least for landscapes. For general purpose, the more versatile F2.8 of the M28 might win me over.

[Ryan Trevisol]

Maybe I'm an oddball, but I never use wide angle lenses for landscapes. Wide angles can be useful for dramatic near/far compositions but I find them difficult to use for scene shooting. Typically, a wide angle lens gives me too much foreground and too much sky. In the meantime, the stuff I'm usually interested in in the background seems to recede away from me and making it look much smaller. The classic example of what I'm talking about is the impressive mountain range being shrunk to a mini range while the sky and field in front of you are huge.

I much prefer normal lenses for most of my landscape shooting. They can preserve the view that I see for the most part. A short (or maybe not so short) telephoto lens can make background objects loom a bit more. If you shot that mountain range with a 100mm lens as opposed to a 15mm lens, the mountains would look much larger and impressive. I think a lot of people would be happier with their landscapes if the used a telephoto lens and backed up enough to get what they want in the field of view. Compressing depth is one of the best things telephoto do and can make for extraordinary landscape pictures.

When I get my k-01, I think my primary lenses outside will be the 35mm macro and the 55mm f1.4. I might pop for the 100mm macro at some point too. . I'll save the wide angles for when I'm inside.

Agreed - I shoot my landscapes with my 16-45 F4 and I find that I settle around 28mm for a large number of my shots. For landscapes I would prefer an FA 28 2.8 to a 15 . . .

[Arrvon]

Zen4Life,

Since you have the DA15 and DA70 on the way, I just thought I would throw in the option to also fill the gap between them with a Sigma 30 f/1.4. It's a fabulous lens and will also give you a super fast (aperture) at a normal focal length (45mm FF equivalent) for any low light situations as well.

Good luck with whatever you decide to go with.

[loco]

While it may be too wide for some situations, the DA 15 Ltd is wonderful because it's so flare resistant. It makes beautiful blue skies and almost dares you to point it at the sun. For that alone, I'd always bring it with me when shooting landscapes.

[normhead]

We love the 21 for landscapes and the 10-17... I'm waiting for someone to jump in here and mention the FA 31 ltd....

[abacus07]

Someone mentioned the M28/2.8 but I have been reading that the K28/3.5 is even better (assuming I can find one). Another option might be the DA 35 AL, but I am not sure that would be wide enough for me.

Many have said that the K28/3.5 (and M28/3.5) are better than the M28/2.8. maybe true but the M28/2.8 is extremely common and easily found for $50-60. The K and M 28/3.5 usually go for close to $100 unless you're really patient. The other downside to the K series is that they use 52mm filter threads. It's very nice to have one set of filters w/o using step up rings.

The important thing is to have the coverage you need. zooms have advantages and primes have advantages. There are times that I would love a *16-50 but most of the time I would just find it heavy.

[RioRico]

Greetings from firgid Tonopah Nevada!

Say hello to Jim Galli!

Alas, we were only in Tohopah (this time) for one night. And a cold night it was, at 20F / -6C. Now we are in Las Vegas for a few days. We spent today in the fantastic Valley of Fire, with notable desert geology.

And what landscape prime did I have on the camera? None, just the DA18-250.