Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-08-2012, 05:57 PM   #46
Site Supporter
jatrax's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,749
According to one source the Super-Tak and S-M-C Tak 20mm f/4.5 are identical except for the coatings. However this source also describes them both as 11 elements, minimum aperture of f/22 and 77mm filter. (Pentax and Pentax SLR 35mm Cameras 1952-1989, Danilo Cecchi) Mine has minimum aperture of f/16 and 58mm filter so I am confused by that source.

Another source describes both as 11 elements in 10 groups, f/16 and 58mm filters. They do list a difference in weight with S-T @251g and S-M-C Tak @246g. Which could be just two different scales and different times. (Tak Wide)

08-08-2012, 06:15 PM   #47
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Wellington
Posts: 969
The FA 31 would do the best landscapes out of lenses I have, either a tighter 'normal' view or superwide for panos. Sharp across the frame and those colours!
The lens that does the most landscapes is the Sigma 17-70 as it is my standard walk around and is my widest lens. It was a cracker when my wife took it to Antarctica recently.
Finally the kit DAL 18-55 lens that gets used when p/p is unlikely (usually on my wifes Kx ). Firstly it goes to a very low aperture and can be corrected in camera which is great for JPEG shooting.
08-08-2012, 06:25 PM   #48
Pentaxian
philbaum's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA
Posts: 3,659
Best landscape lenses:

DA 50-135, most of the time
DA-21, some of the time

DA 17-70, recently got and will be trying it out for landscapes.
08-09-2012, 12:56 AM   #49
Site Supporter
Dartmoor Dave's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Dartmoor, UK
Photos: Albums
Posts: 941
QuoteOriginally posted by jatrax Quote
According to one source the Super-Tak and S-M-C Tak 20mm f/4.5 are identical except for the coatings. However this source also describes them both as 11 elements, minimum aperture of f/22 and 77mm filter. (Pentax and Pentax SLR 35mm Cameras 1952-1989, Danilo Cecchi) Mine has minimum aperture of f/16 and 58mm filter so I am confused by that source.

Another source describes both as 11 elements in 10 groups, f/16 and 58mm filters. They do list a difference in weight with S-T @251g and S-M-C Tak @246g. Which could be just two different scales and different times. (Tak Wide)
Certainly on my Super-Tak the actual thread on the lens is 58mm. But 58mm filters vignette on full-frame, so the lens came with a 58-77mm step-up ring and an utterly cool-looking rectangular metal hood that draws gasps of admiration from all who see it. But for practical purposes on APS-C I find that a modern plastic 58mm petal-shaped hood works best.

I think also I should clear up what I said about distortion. On film there's barrel distortion like you'd expect, but the central area of the lens that digital crops to seems to give something that to my eyes looks closer to pincushion. There's some kind of crazy combination of distortions going on anyway. Just shows that the 20mm was at the bleeding edge of optical design at its time, and in practice I just avoid shooting things with parallel lines straight-on.

08-09-2012, 01:14 AM   #50
Pentaxian
twitch's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,571
DA12-24

Yikes... did I just say that!
08-09-2012, 05:46 AM   #51
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,102
Its been said or posted before that the 24 - 28 - 30ish focal length range is probably the best for traditional landscapes. These focal lengths tend to be wide enough without the distortion present in wider lenses. That said, I think that there are a couple of additional items to consider. The traditional prime vs zoom. I have the 12-24 and I also have a number of primes in the range 25, 28 and 31. They are all spectacularly good, but different in their own way. Each has their own character.

The 12-24 has its best IQ at around 18, however at 24 its still wonderful. When I acquired the 31 I went out and compared them. I really liked the 12-24 but compared to the 31 there really is no comparison (in IQ). That said, its not a fair comparison at all. The 31 is very sharp, and when both lay down an image on the sensor - the sensor's size does not change. Each pixel with a longer focal length, will have less area to represent, and thus be able to provide a sharper representation with more clarity (definition) with in the image. Wider lenses pull in more scene but use the same sensor, and thus each pixel has to represent a larger area. It all comes down to what you the photographer want to capture and convey - and what you have at your disposal. If you have a closet full of glass at home with one lens out in the field - you have made your choice.

Stitching with a longer focal length lens can provide the same coverage with a higher definition (or IQ) in the image. However, some scenes are difficult to capture with multiple stitched shots. Just the other day, I broke down and ordered the 8-16 just for this very reason. There is a number of things I wanted to do that just needed something wider and the 8-16 filled the bill with its larger Field of View (FoV) (the 12-24 at 12 is ~90 degrees wide, while the 8-16 at 8 is ~114 degrees wide, the 4mm in focal length translates to ~24 degrees of view). Actually, initially I equated wide angle and ultra wide angle lenses with landscapes. That's true to some degree, but foreground composition certainly plays a large part there. What WA and UWA lenses excel at, tend to be larger subjects or closer in subjects or the combination of the two (close large items). With that, you then need to deal with the associated distortion.

What I have found with the wider angle lenses is that when coupled with stitching, you are able to use the wider field of view (in portrait orientation), to stitch shots together, that provides both a wide expanse as well as pulling in a lot of sky with foreground. I have found that in portrait orientation, the center does not feel so pushed back as to be diminished, but if you as the photographer are able to convey the feeling of a vast wide expanse of scenery, in its totality - that is a way to go.


Last edited by interested_observer; 08-09-2012 at 05:51 AM.
08-09-2012, 07:17 AM   #52
Pentaxian
philbaum's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA
Posts: 3,659
I have another take on "the best lens for landscape use"

Develop your own style rather than try to emulate someone else.

What focal length area(s) do YOU like to shoot at or feel most comfortable at?

What focal lengths do you seem to get the most favorable comments on from others? As much as i liked the concept of UWA lenses, for whatever reason, i never got many favorable comments at that range and finally stopped using them.
But thats just me - i can enjoy others shots at that range, but i just seem to do lousy at them. "Traditional landscape lens" has no meaning for me - makes me shudder
08-09-2012, 08:30 AM   #53
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,264
QuoteOriginally posted by philbaum Quote
I have another take on "the best lens for landscape use"

Develop your own style rather than try to emulate someone else.

What focal length area(s) do YOU like to shoot at or feel most comfortable at?

What focal lengths do you seem to get the most favorable comments on from others? As much as i liked the concept of UWA lenses, for whatever reason, i never got many favorable comments at that range and finally stopped using them.
But thats just me - i can enjoy others shots at that range, but i just seem to do lousy at them. "Traditional landscape lens" has no meaning for me - makes me shudder
I agree UWA landscapes rarely draw any great comments. I love my DA14 but not for landscape (at least landscape in the traditional sense)

I find normal to marginally wide seems to work best for me most of the time (so on apsc 20-35 - 28-50 or so on film, and 40-75 on my 645)

08-09-2012, 10:18 AM   #54
Site Supporter
cheekygeek's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Alda, Nebraska USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,254
QuoteOriginally posted by jatrax Quote
According to one source the Super-Tak and S-M-C Tak 20mm f/4.5 are identical except for the coatings. However this source also describes them both as 11 elements, minimum aperture of f/22 and 77mm filter. (Pentax and Pentax SLR 35mm Cameras 1952-1989, Danilo Cecchi) Mine has minimum aperture of f/16 and 58mm filter so I am confused by that source.

Another source describes both as 11 elements in 10 groups, f/16 and 58mm filters. They do list a difference in weight with S-T @251g and S-M-C Tak @246g. Which could be just two different scales and different times. (Tak Wide)
I think the weight difference may be significant. I have a digital postal scale. I'll have to weigh my Super-Multi-Coated version tonight.
08-09-2012, 10:25 AM   #55
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,211
QuoteOriginally posted by jatrax Quote
According to one source the Super-Tak and S-M-C Tak 20mm f/4.5 are identical except for the coatings. However this source also describes them both as 11 elements, minimum aperture of f/22 and 77mm filter. (Pentax and Pentax SLR 35mm Cameras 1952-1989, Danilo Cecchi) Mine has minimum aperture of f/16 and 58mm filter so I am confused by that source.

Another source describes both as 11 elements in 10 groups, f/16 and 58mm filters. They do list a difference in weight with S-T @251g and S-M-C Tak @246g. Which could be just two different scales and different times. (Tak Wide)
I have Cecchi's book and while it is good, there are a few incorrect things and some missing things in there. Both versions of the 20mm are supposed to have f16 as the smallest aperture. The S.T. was introduced ~ 1971 and the S-M-C ~ 1973. Both are supposed to have 58mm filter threads and the weights were listed at 246 and 251 grams. This information is from AOHC

Tak Wide

Van Oosten lists the S-M-C and S.T. at 260 grams and both f16. The S.T. according to his book was made from 1968 to 1971, and the S-M-C made from 1971 to 1975. Apparently according to his book, the filter threads on the S.T. and S-M-C. are 58mm but the hood has a setup for 77mm filters to fit between it and the special rectangular hood. This info is from page 100 and 188.

Last edited by Blue; 08-09-2012 at 10:33 AM.
08-09-2012, 12:00 PM   #56
Site Supporter
Dartmoor Dave's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Dartmoor, UK
Photos: Albums
Posts: 941
QuoteOriginally posted by cheekygeek Quote
I think the weight difference may be significant. I have a digital postal scale. I'll have to weigh my Super-Multi-Coated version tonight.
My Super Takumar weighs in at 247g without caps (obviously). But that's only on a digital kitchen scale. Minimum aperture is f/16 and filter thread is 58mm. There is a full stop between f/4.5-5.6, half stops from f/5.6-11, then another full stop f/11-16. Focused at infinity, the length mounted on a body and measured from the flange is 44mm, give or take half a mm.
08-09-2012, 12:38 PM   #57
Forum Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 84
QuoteOriginally posted by philbaum Quote
What focal length area(s) do YOU like to shoot at or feel most comfortable at?
What focal lengths do you seem to get the most favorable comments on from others? As much as i liked the concept of UWA lenses, for whatever reason, i never got many favorable comments at that range and finally stopped using them.
But thats just me - i can enjoy others shots at that range, but i just seem to do lousy at them.
I agree, Phil. I love a lot of the images I've seen from the DA15, but I just can't coax many good ones out of it myself. It's a great lens, just not for me.
The DA21, on the other hand, is perfect for me. Certainly it's a great lens in its own right, but I think the reason I personally get so many keepers from it is because it just feels natural to me.
08-09-2012, 02:45 PM   #58
Pentaxian
littledrawe's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Red Rock
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,453
QuoteOriginally posted by math guy Quote
I agree, Phil. I love a lot of the images I've seen from the DA15, but I just can't coax many good ones out of it myself. It's a great lens, just not for me.
Check your inbox, I'll PM you my address!!
08-09-2012, 03:27 PM   #59
Senior Member
Stickl's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Oulu
Posts: 264
Oh, best landscape lens?

it is Tamron 17-50/2.8 because I want to save spectular northern lights and actually I don't care any other landscapes.. or,, maybe sometimes I'm forced to take photo of an amazing landscape with birds and then DA 55-300 is really strong alternative.

my reply for that question is:
tamron 50% used in landscapes
and DA 55-300 50% too.. both of lenses are as well for landscapephotos
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
k-mount, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Looking for landscape lens recommendation Zen4Life Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 7 02-03-2012 08:17 PM
Looking for advice: landscape lens(es) crimson_penguin Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 92 09-02-2011 01:08 PM
Best lens for landscape considering colour rendition lepiallou Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 23 08-23-2011 07:42 PM
Best Landscape Lens SLRPhotography Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 29 12-11-2010 11:39 PM
What lens for flowers and landscape garyk Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 24 11-07-2010 08:58 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:02 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top