One landscape lens only

slip · 02-15-2013, 05:19 PM

I now have a sport lens (sigma 70 -200mm f2.8) and a *50 -135mm f2.8 for portraits and the odd wedding, and besides a bug lens I need only 1 really sharp landscape lens...I like the distortion effect for the odd people shot that happens a 15mm and under (hate fisheye)
I was thinking a siggy 10-20mm
Any thoughts or suggestions would be great... After a macro for this LBA has to end

Thanks

Randy

**Digitalis** · 02-15-2013, 05:26 PM

The DA 15mm f/4 ASPH Limited is a good choice - it is very small people hardly notice it, so it is good for candid photography and it is well suited for landscape work. You could go for the Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5.-5.6 (lack of filters is a drawback with this lens though). Though bear in mind that just about any lens can be used for landscape photography it doesn't have to be a wide-angle, I have done landscape work with 1200mm lenses before.

SpartanD63 · 02-15-2013, 05:59 PM

I will wholeheartedly vouch for the DA 15mm Limited. It is a very good lens and is very compact.

**blackcloudbrew** · 02-15-2013, 06:19 PM

The DA 12-24 f4 is a great landscape lens too. I know, the DA15 is amazing, but the 12-24mm range and rectilinear nature of this lens makes it very good through the whole FL range.

NZUnicorn · 02-15-2013, 07:46 PM

If its your money, a DA 12-24 would be my first choice.

If its my money, a Sigma 10-20 would be my first choice. Not as good, but good enough for me and a whole lot cheaper.

The DA15 also has a lot of appeal, but again is a lot more money than the Sigma 10-20.

**Digitalis** · 02-15-2013, 08:01 PM

Originally posted by NZUnicorn

The DA15 also has a lot of appeal, but again is a lot more money than the Sigma 10-20.

Don't get me wrong the Sigma 10-20 is a good choice and it takes filters, albeit large and expensive ones and like all UWA zoom lenses it still is a pretty big lens... the DA15mm f/4 on the other hand takes small, inexpensive 49mm filters:

DA15mm f/4 ASPH Limited compared to the Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 ASPH.

johnyates · 02-15-2013, 09:28 PM

Originally posted by slip

I need only 1 really sharp landscape lens...

The DA 15 is really sharp . . . in the center of the frame. However, it exhibits a pronounced curvature of field. If you like your landscape pictures sharp across the field you're better off with one of the zooms discussed above.

**ramseybuckeye** · 02-15-2013, 09:28 PM

Originally posted by Digitalis

The DA 15mm f/4 ASPH Limited is a good choice - it is very small people hardly notice it, so it is good for candid photography and it is well suited for landscape work. You could go for the Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5.-5.6 (lack of filters is a drawback with this lens though). Though bear in mind that just about any lens can be used for landscape photography it doesn't have to be a wide-angle, I have done landscape work with 1200mm lenses before.

Listen to Digitalis, he knows lenses as well as anyone. And I'll echo the comment about landscapes do not have to be shot with wide angle lenses, I would look at this as filling in your focal length gap under 50mm.

Allison · 02-15-2013, 09:40 PM

I have never used the siggy or the da15, but I do like the 12-24. It is a really nice range.

**Digitalis** · 02-15-2013, 09:47 PM

Originally posted by johnyates

The DA 15 is really sharp . . . in the center of the frame. However, it exhibits a pronounced curvature of field. If you like your landscape pictures sharp across the field you're better off with one of the zooms discussed above.

A good point however if you stop the DA15 down to f/11 and use hyperfocal focusing the field curvature isn't such a problem. The Sigma UWA zoom lenses typically require thin 82mm* Polariser filters and these are considerably more expensive than the regular 49mm filters you can use on the DA15.

*The Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 uses 82mm filters, the slower Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX uses 77mm filters - either way they need slim polariser frames to avoid vignetting at the 10mm setting. Also the flare tolerance of the DA15mm f/4 is nothing short of remarkable, Sigma lenses on the other hand do have issues with flare, especially the 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6.

northcoastgreg · 02-16-2013, 11:18 AM

If I were getting just one lens for landscape, it would not be either the Sigma 10-20 or the DA 15. Those are more specialist landscape lenses. Unless you want to specialize in ultra wide angle landscape, you're better off getting a standard zoom, preferably one that starts at 16mm, like the DA 16-45 or DA* 16-50. I suspect that either of those lenses would be the best if you confine yourself to only one landscape lens. The DA 16-45 is sharp for a zoom lens and enjoys very good corner to corner resolution, with surprisingly minimal field curvature for a lens of its type. The DA* 16-50 features WR and has some better color rendering I've ever seen in a standard zoom. Only the SDM and all the other QC issues associated with the lens has prevented me from buying one.

**Digitalis** · 02-16-2013, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by northcoastgreg

The DA 16-45 is sharp for a zoom lens and enjoys very good corner to corner resolution, with surprisingly minimal field curvature for a lens of its type.

this lens has been discontinued,the Pentax 17-70mm f/4 SDM lens is what has replaced it. Besides the Pentax 16-45mm f/4 ED ASPH I had years ago the image quality wasn't much of a step up from the DA18-55mm lens

northcoastgreg · 02-16-2013, 08:01 PM

Originally posted by Digitalis

this lens has been discontinued,the Pentax 17-70mm f/4 SDM lens is what has replaced it

There are still new copies of the 16-45 available from B&H.

Originally posted by Digitalis

Pentax 16-45mm f/4 ED ASPH I had years ago the image quality wasn't much of a step up from the DA18-55mm lens

The 16-45 may not be a great lens, but a good copy is significantly better than the 18-55.

ChatMechant · 02-17-2013, 10:19 AM

If size and weight are a concern then def the 15, but otherwise the 12-24 is one seriously amazing lens. Actually, it's not that big and heavy either. It has killer sharpness, great colors, and flare resistance. I sold mine only because I could buy a sig 10-20 AND da 55-300 for what I got for it. The sig is close enough in sharpness, but doesn't have that special something that the 12-24 has. If they ever do a WR version.....

tclausen · 02-17-2013, 10:25 AM

So, let me just toss this out there: Pentax 10-17?

It's my go-to landscape lens...I find that it is orders of magnitude sharper than my 14/2.8, at about the same size. Around 10mm, it's fisheye-y (it better be, given that it's sold as such) but from about 15ish mm it's almost rectilinear (and easy to compensate for any distortion in post-processing).

If I know I go for landscapes, the 10-17 and the 31ltd are what goes with me, and none of the others.

02-15-2013, 05:19 PM	#1
slip Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: 2 hours north of toronto ontario canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,535	One landscape lens only I now have a sport lens (sigma 70 -200mm f2.8) and a *50 -135mm f2.8 for portraits and the odd wedding, and besides a bug lens I need only 1 really sharp landscape lens...I like the distortion effect for the odd people shot that happens a 15mm and under (hate fisheye) I was thinking a siggy 10-20mm Any thoughts or suggestions would be great... After a macro for this LBA has to end Thanks Randy

02-15-2013, 05:26 PM	#2
Digitalis Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Melbourne, Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,694	The DA 15mm f/4 ASPH Limited is a good choice - it is very small people hardly notice it, so it is good for candid photography and it is well suited for landscape work. You could go for the Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5.-5.6 (lack of filters is a drawback with this lens though). Though bear in mind that just about any lens can be used for landscape photography it doesn't have to be a wide-angle, I have done landscape work with 1200mm lenses before. Last edited by Digitalis; 02-15-2013 at 06:05 PM.

02-15-2013, 08:01 PM	#6
Digitalis Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Melbourne, Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,694	Originally posted by NZUnicorn The DA15 also has a lot of appeal, but again is a lot more money than the Sigma 10-20. Don't get me wrong the Sigma 10-20 is a good choice and it takes filters, albeit large and expensive ones and like all UWA zoom lenses it still is a pretty big lens... the DA15mm f/4 on the other hand takes small, inexpensive 49mm filters: DA15mm f/4 ASPH Limited compared to the Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 ASPH. Last edited by Digitalis; 02-15-2013 at 09:41 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Working Trip to London - One Lens Only	DaveHolmes	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	29	02-21-2013 11:43 AM
Macro 2 bugs went on a lunch break, but only one was hungry (Only slightly work safe)	MSL	Post Your Photos!	9	06-26-2012 06:56 AM
If you could only have one lens	amorificus	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	66	03-20-2012 05:57 PM
Only One Lens -What Would it Be ?	uptheriver	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	88	08-04-2011 11:39 PM
If only ONE portrait lens, which one?	mhaws	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	99	06-30-2011 01:53 PM

02-15-2013, 05:59 PM	#3
SpartanD63 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2012 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 351	I will wholeheartedly vouch for the DA 15mm Limited. It is a very good lens and is very compact.

02-15-2013, 06:19 PM	#4
blackcloudbrew Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Cotati, California USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,460	The DA 12-24 f4 is a great landscape lens too. I know, the DA15 is amazing, but the 12-24mm range and rectilinear nature of this lens makes it very good through the whole FL range.

02-15-2013, 07:46 PM	#5
NZUnicorn Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 41	If its your money, a DA 12-24 would be my first choice. If its my money, a Sigma 10-20 would be my first choice. Not as good, but good enough for me and a whole lot cheaper. The DA15 also has a lot of appeal, but again is a lot more money than the Sigma 10-20.

02-15-2013, 09:28 PM	#7
johnyates Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Saskatoon, SK Photos: Albums Posts: 1,345	Originally posted by slip I need only 1 really sharp landscape lens... The DA 15 is really sharp . . . in the center of the frame. However, it exhibits a pronounced curvature of field. If you like your landscape pictures sharp across the field you're better off with one of the zooms discussed above.

02-15-2013, 09:28 PM	#8
ramseybuckeye Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Hampstead, NC Photos: Gallery Posts: 17,292	Originally posted by Digitalis The DA 15mm f/4 ASPH Limited is a good choice - it is very small people hardly notice it, so it is good for candid photography and it is well suited for landscape work. You could go for the Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5.-5.6 (lack of filters is a drawback with this lens though). Though bear in mind that just about any lens can be used for landscape photography it doesn't have to be a wide-angle, I have done landscape work with 1200mm lenses before. Listen to Digitalis, he knows lenses as well as anyone. And I'll echo the comment about landscapes do not have to be shot with wide angle lenses, I would look at this as filling in your focal length gap under 50mm.

02-15-2013, 09:40 PM	#9
Allison Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 667	I have never used the siggy or the da15, but I do like the 12-24. It is a really nice range.

02-15-2013, 09:47 PM	#10
Digitalis Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Melbourne, Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,694	Originally posted by johnyates The DA 15 is really sharp . . . in the center of the frame. However, it exhibits a pronounced curvature of field. If you like your landscape pictures sharp across the field you're better off with one of the zooms discussed above. A good point however if you stop the DA15 down to f/11 and use hyperfocal focusing the field curvature isn't such a problem. The Sigma UWA zoom lenses typically require thin 82mm* Polariser filters and these are considerably more expensive than the regular 49mm filters you can use on the DA15. *The Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 uses 82mm filters, the slower Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX uses 77mm filters - either way they need slim polariser frames to avoid vignetting at the 10mm setting. Also the flare tolerance of the DA15mm f/4 is nothing short of remarkable, Sigma lenses on the other hand do have issues with flare, especially the 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6.

02-16-2013, 11:18 AM	#11
northcoastgreg Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Northern Michigan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,173	If I were getting just one lens for landscape, it would not be either the Sigma 10-20 or the DA 15. Those are more specialist landscape lenses. Unless you want to specialize in ultra wide angle landscape, you're better off getting a standard zoom, preferably one that starts at 16mm, like the DA 16-45 or DA* 16-50. I suspect that either of those lenses would be the best if you confine yourself to only one landscape lens. The DA 16-45 is sharp for a zoom lens and enjoys very good corner to corner resolution, with surprisingly minimal field curvature for a lens of its type. The DA* 16-50 features WR and has some better color rendering I've ever seen in a standard zoom. Only the SDM and all the other QC issues associated with the lens has prevented me from buying one.

02-16-2013, 03:31 PM	#12
Digitalis Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Melbourne, Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,694	Originally posted by northcoastgreg The DA 16-45 is sharp for a zoom lens and enjoys very good corner to corner resolution, with surprisingly minimal field curvature for a lens of its type. this lens has been discontinued,the Pentax 17-70mm f/4 SDM lens is what has replaced it. Besides the Pentax 16-45mm f/4 ED ASPH I had years ago the image quality wasn't much of a step up from the DA18-55mm lens

02-16-2013, 08:01 PM	#13
northcoastgreg Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Northern Michigan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,173	Originally posted by Digitalis this lens has been discontinued,the Pentax 17-70mm f/4 SDM lens is what has replaced it There are still new copies of the 16-45 available from B&H. Originally posted by Digitalis Pentax 16-45mm f/4 ED ASPH I had years ago the image quality wasn't much of a step up from the DA18-55mm lens The 16-45 may not be a great lens, but a good copy is significantly better than the 18-55.

02-17-2013, 10:19 AM	#14
ChatMechant Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Matsuyama Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,284	If size and weight are a concern then def the 15, but otherwise the 12-24 is one seriously amazing lens. Actually, it's not that big and heavy either. It has killer sharpness, great colors, and flare resistance. I sold mine only because I could buy a sig 10-20 AND da 55-300 for what I got for it. The sig is close enough in sharpness, but doesn't have that special something that the 12-24 has. If they ever do a WR version.....

02-17-2013, 10:25 AM	#15
tclausen Veteran Member Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 1,397	So, let me just toss this out there: Pentax 10-17? It's my go-to landscape lens...I find that it is orders of magnitude sharper than my 14/2.8, at about the same size. Around 10mm, it's fisheye-y (it better be, given that it's sold as such) but from about 15ish mm it's almost rectilinear (and easy to compensate for any distortion in post-processing). If I know I go for landscapes, the 10-17 and the 31ltd are what goes with me, and none of the others.