what is the best for landscape or seascape?

ghiaauto · 10-02-2014, 10:59 AM

A really stupid question XD and the title says it all.

landscape and seascape with ND filter, which lens own it!

please recommend me some

what about Sigma 18-35mm F1.8?

Thank you XD

**savoche** · 10-02-2014, 11:07 AM - **1 Like**

The stupid answer would be "a lens with the focal length you need"

That said, I'm sure the (huge) 18-35 would be really nice. So would the tiny DA 15. Or a Sigma 8-16/10-20. Or...

But really, almost any lens can be the right one for landscapes. More often wide than long, but sometimes a tele is what you want. I have shot some nice landscapes with the 55-300.

ghiaauto · 10-02-2014, 11:16 AM

Originally posted by savoche

The stupid answer would be "a lens with the focal length you need"

That said, I'm sure the (huge) 18-35 would be really nice. So would the tiny DA 15. Or a Sigma 8-16/10-20. Or...

But really, almost any lens can be the right one for landscapes. More often wide than long, but sometimes a tele is what you want. I have shot some nice landscapes with the 55-300.

Then let's say which lens is the sharpest one! XD thanks

disconnekt · 10-02-2014, 11:17 AM - **1 Like**

A Hard Graduated Neutral Density filter would be good, depending on where your taking photos at & the weather.
Also a Neutral Density filter would also be a good choice.

Here's a link that I think will help.
ND or Neutral Density Filters and Shutter Speed | An Explain Tutorial

ghiaauto · 10-02-2014, 11:22 AM

Originally posted by disconnekt

A Hard Graduated Neutral Density filter would be good, depending on where your taking photos at & the weather.
Also a Neutral Density filter would also be a good choice.

Here's a link that I think will help.
ND or Neutral Density Filters and Shutter Speed | An Explain Tutorial

Thanks

can you recommend me which ND filters brand is good enough?
I know Lee Filters has a very high price and I think I can't afford it XD
please

around 100 or 200 bucks is ok

**Rondec** · 10-02-2014, 11:24 AM - **1 Like**

Landscapes (usually) are shot stopped down. To me, the most important features are that they have good colors, rendering and flare resistance. Speed (fast aperture) isn't particularly important. The Sigma is probably fine (although probably faster than is needed).

The DA *16-50 works OK (although it is more prone to flare).

The DA 15 limited is nice due to flare resistance, small size and nice colors.

If you don't need so wide, than the FA 31 limited is a great lens too.

HenrikDK · 10-02-2014, 11:25 AM - **2 Likes**

If you do landscape or seascape, you would usually have good light, and you absolutely want to use a tripod to get the needed depth of field and make sure your picture is as sharp as possible. Therefore, IMO, you don't need to pay extra for the fast aperture of the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8. Stopped down the IQ difference between expensive high end lenses and lower priced lenses start diminishing. That gives you lots of choices, depending on your priorities: WR or not, flexibility, willingness to change lenses etc....

Whatever you do, get a good tripod unless you already have a good one!

**savoche** · 10-02-2014, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by ghiaauto

Then let's say which lens is the sharpest one! XD thanks

From the looks of it I would think the 18-35. But again, as Rondec and HenrikDK say, almost any lens is plenty sharp when you stop it down - and for landscapes that's usually what you want to do.

I would recommend looking at the works of others and check out the exif of the ones you like the most. That will give you an indication of what focal length you most likely would want, and also what f-stops and exposure times you are looking to match.

Another filter tip would be to get a circular polariser. It may not be that useful on very wide lenses, though, as the polarising effect will shift over the frame and may make especially the sky look strange. And, also as Rondec so eminently shows, the DA 15 really doesn't need a polariser. It has really punchy colours all on its own

Venom3300 · 10-02-2014, 11:29 AM

Originally posted by HenrikDK

If you do landscape or seascape, you would usually have good light, and you absolutely want to use a tripod to get the needed depth of field and make sure your picture is as sharp as possible. Therefore, IMO, you don't need to pay extra for the fast aperture of the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8. Stopped down the IQ difference between expensive high end lenses and lower priced lenses start diminishing. That gives you lots of choices, depending on your priorities: WR or not, flexibility, willingness to change lenses etc....

^^^this

The tamron 17-50 2.8 is worth is a look. There is one for sale in the marketplace at a good price right now (Im not the one selling it)

or perhaps the 15mm limited

or samyang/bower/ etc 14 2.8

pesterle · 10-02-2014, 11:33 AM

Most of my landscapes are done with the Sigma 18-250 lens (not the macro--the previous version), with a few more done with the Sigma 10-20.

**savoche** · 10-02-2014, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by HenrikDK

Whatever you do, get a good tripod unless you already have a good one!

^^^ and this!

And if you can't get a good tripod, don't bother. Cheap tripods are a waste of money!

tuco · 10-02-2014, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by Rondec

The DA *16-50 works OK (although it is more prone to flare).

Digital landscapes are all about fabricating your image from multiple images these days it seems. So why not just continue that tradition and use the "thumb trick" on the sun using multiple exposures to mask out any lens flare.

ghiaauto · 10-02-2014, 01:06 PM

can you tell me why DA15 and FA31 are so expensive compared to Sigma 18-35 f1.8?

Sigma has the zoom range from 18-35 while the other two are fixed

Can anyone tell me what makes DA15 and FA31 very expensive? there should be something

**Rondec** · 10-02-2014, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by tuco

Digital landscapes are all about fabricating your image from multiple images these days it seems. So why not just continue that tradition and use the "thumb trick" on the sun using multiple exposures to mask out any lens flare.

I'd rather use lenses that are flare resistant if I can. Zooms aren't that bad, if you can obstruct the sun a little bit, but they certainly are more prone to flare. You can do all sorts of things -- cloning, etc to get rid of it, it just all takes more work and if you can get one photo, pass it through lightroom and color efex and be happy with the results, it feels easier to me.

---------- Post added 10-02-14 at 04:13 PM ----------

Originally posted by ghiaauto

can you tell me why DA15 and FA31 are so expensive compared to Sigma 18-35 f1.8?

Sigma has the zoom range from 18-35 while the other two are fixed

Can anyone tell me what makes DA15 and FA31 very expensive? there should be something

Has to do with off brand Sigma versus brand name Pentax. That said, I would look for a used DA 15 limited -- they are cheaper than the HD 15s and have nicer diffraction stars.

The place where the Sigma will really shine is in low light situations. It is really a nice lens, I just don't think of it as a "landscape" lens.

**jrpower10** · 10-02-2014, 01:44 PM - **1 Like**

The DA 16-50 is a very good landscape lens stopped down to f8-f11, and WR if the weather is dodgy (can flare shooting at the sun). Ditto the DA 12-24 (can flare). Sigma 8-16 is also very good (again will flare). Primes, I use the DA 15 and FA 20 and 31 (the 31 is probably my favorite of the lot and very sharp at f8). I'll sometimes go longer, like the FA 77 (a great landscape lens in the right conditions) but these are the lenses I use most.

None of these are cheap, and I collected them over a long time (with much whinging from my better half). If you're independently wealthy, get them all and play. If, like most of us, you don't have infinite cash to splash in one go, I'd pick one of the DA zooms and figure out if you like the wide end or the long end most. Then you could switch to primes once you know what focal length suits you.

10-02-2014, 10:59 AM	#1
ghiaauto Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2014 Posts: 42	what is the best for landscape or seascape? A really stupid question XD and the title says it all. landscape and seascape with ND filter, which lens own it! please recommend me some what about Sigma 18-35mm F1.8? Thank you XD

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
What is the best lens to use for birding at 500mm eq. ?	jpzk	Pentax Q	47	02-15-2013 12:50 PM
What is the best film body for A* 600/5.6 . . . .	littledrawe	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	21	10-07-2012 12:18 PM
what is the best model to buy for landscape photography	Unregistered	Visitors' Center	15	01-12-2012 05:21 AM
For portraits and candids, what is the best zoom or prime?	justtakingpics	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	12	04-16-2011 02:01 PM
Can't afford the 645D, what is the alternative for landscape.	pcarfan	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	74	01-06-2011 03:25 AM

10-02-2014, 11:07 AM - 1 Like	#2
savoche Master of the obvious Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Lowlands of Norway Posts: 18,311	The stupid answer would be "a lens with the focal length you need" That said, I'm sure the (huge) 18-35 would be really nice. So would the tiny DA 15. Or a Sigma 8-16/10-20. Or... But really, almost any lens can be the right one for landscapes. More often wide than long, but sometimes a tele is what you want. I have shot some nice landscapes with the 55-300.

10-02-2014, 11:16 AM	#3
ghiaauto Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2014 Posts: 42 Original Poster	Originally posted by savoche The stupid answer would be "a lens with the focal length you need" That said, I'm sure the (huge) 18-35 would be really nice. So would the tiny DA 15. Or a Sigma 8-16/10-20. Or... But really, almost any lens can be the right one for landscapes. More often wide than long, but sometimes a tele is what you want. I have shot some nice landscapes with the 55-300. Then let's say which lens is the sharpest one! XD thanks

10-02-2014, 11:17 AM - 1 Like	#4
disconnekt Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: SoCal/I.E. Photos: Albums Posts: 1,699	A Hard Graduated Neutral Density filter would be good, depending on where your taking photos at & the weather. Also a Neutral Density filter would also be a good choice. Here's a link that I think will help. ND or Neutral Density Filters and Shutter Speed \| An Explain Tutorial

10-02-2014, 11:22 AM	#5
ghiaauto Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2014 Posts: 42 Original Poster	Originally posted by disconnekt A Hard Graduated Neutral Density filter would be good, depending on where your taking photos at & the weather. Also a Neutral Density filter would also be a good choice. Here's a link that I think will help. ND or Neutral Density Filters and Shutter Speed \| An Explain Tutorial Thanks can you recommend me which ND filters brand is good enough? I know Lee Filters has a very high price and I think I can't afford it XD please around 100 or 200 bucks is ok

10-02-2014, 11:24 AM - 1 Like	#6
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,652	Landscapes (usually) are shot stopped down. To me, the most important features are that they have good colors, rendering and flare resistance. Speed (fast aperture) isn't particularly important. The Sigma is probably fine (although probably faster than is needed). The DA *16-50 works OK (although it is more prone to flare). The DA 15 limited is nice due to flare resistance, small size and nice colors. If you don't need so wide, than the FA 31 limited is a great lens too.

10-02-2014, 11:25 AM - 2 Likes	#7
HenrikDK Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Charlotte, NC Photos: Gallery Posts: 386	If you do landscape or seascape, you would usually have good light, and you absolutely want to use a tripod to get the needed depth of field and make sure your picture is as sharp as possible. Therefore, IMO, you don't need to pay extra for the fast aperture of the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8. Stopped down the IQ difference between expensive high end lenses and lower priced lenses start diminishing. That gives you lots of choices, depending on your priorities: WR or not, flexibility, willingness to change lenses etc.... Whatever you do, get a good tripod unless you already have a good one!

10-02-2014, 11:28 AM	#8
savoche Master of the obvious Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Lowlands of Norway Posts: 18,311	Originally posted by ghiaauto Then let's say which lens is the sharpest one! XD thanks From the looks of it I would think the 18-35. But again, as Rondec and HenrikDK say, almost any lens is plenty sharp when you stop it down - and for landscapes that's usually what you want to do. I would recommend looking at the works of others and check out the exif of the ones you like the most. That will give you an indication of what focal length you most likely would want, and also what f-stops and exposure times you are looking to match. Another filter tip would be to get a circular polariser. It may not be that useful on very wide lenses, though, as the polarising effect will shift over the frame and may make especially the sky look strange. And, also as Rondec so eminently shows, the DA 15 really doesn't need a polariser. It has really punchy colours all on its own

10-02-2014, 11:29 AM	#9
Venom3300 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2014 Posts: 714	Originally posted by HenrikDK If you do landscape or seascape, you would usually have good light, and you absolutely want to use a tripod to get the needed depth of field and make sure your picture is as sharp as possible. Therefore, IMO, you don't need to pay extra for the fast aperture of the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8. Stopped down the IQ difference between expensive high end lenses and lower priced lenses start diminishing. That gives you lots of choices, depending on your priorities: WR or not, flexibility, willingness to change lenses etc.... ^^^this The tamron 17-50 2.8 is worth is a look. There is one for sale in the marketplace at a good price right now (Im not the one selling it) or perhaps the 15mm limited or samyang/bower/ etc 14 2.8

10-02-2014, 11:33 AM	#10
pesterle Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2014 Location: Colorado Springs Posts: 65	Most of my landscapes are done with the Sigma 18-250 lens (not the macro--the previous version), with a few more done with the Sigma 10-20.

10-02-2014, 11:33 AM	#11
savoche Master of the obvious Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Lowlands of Norway Posts: 18,311	Originally posted by HenrikDK Whatever you do, get a good tripod unless you already have a good one! ^^^ and this! And if you can't get a good tripod, don't bother. Cheap tripods are a waste of money!

10-02-2014, 11:52 AM	#12
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,026	Originally posted by Rondec The DA *16-50 works OK (although it is more prone to flare). Digital landscapes are all about fabricating your image from multiple images these days it seems. So why not just continue that tradition and use the "thumb trick" on the sun using multiple exposures to mask out any lens flare.

10-02-2014, 01:06 PM	#13
ghiaauto Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2014 Posts: 42 Original Poster	can you tell me why DA15 and FA31 are so expensive compared to Sigma 18-35 f1.8? Sigma has the zoom range from 18-35 while the other two are fixed Can anyone tell me what makes DA15 and FA31 very expensive? there should be something

10-02-2014, 01:09 PM	#14
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,652	Originally posted by tuco Digital landscapes are all about fabricating your image from multiple images these days it seems. So why not just continue that tradition and use the "thumb trick" on the sun using multiple exposures to mask out any lens flare. I'd rather use lenses that are flare resistant if I can. Zooms aren't that bad, if you can obstruct the sun a little bit, but they certainly are more prone to flare. You can do all sorts of things -- cloning, etc to get rid of it, it just all takes more work and if you can get one photo, pass it through lightroom and color efex and be happy with the results, it feels easier to me. ---------- Post added 10-02-14 at 04:13 PM ---------- Originally posted by ghiaauto can you tell me why DA15 and FA31 are so expensive compared to Sigma 18-35 f1.8? Sigma has the zoom range from 18-35 while the other two are fixed Can anyone tell me what makes DA15 and FA31 very expensive? there should be something Has to do with off brand Sigma versus brand name Pentax. That said, I would look for a used DA 15 limited -- they are cheaper than the HD 15s and have nicer diffraction stars. The place where the Sigma will really shine is in low light situations. It is really a nice lens, I just don't think of it as a "landscape" lens.

10-02-2014, 01:44 PM - 1 Like	#15
jrpower10 Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Richland, Washington, USA Posts: 935	The DA 16-50 is a very good landscape lens stopped down to f8-f11, and WR if the weather is dodgy (can flare shooting at the sun). Ditto the DA 12-24 (can flare). Sigma 8-16 is also very good (again will flare). Primes, I use the DA 15 and FA 20 and 31 (the 31 is probably my favorite of the lot and very sharp at f8). I'll sometimes go longer, like the FA 77 (a great landscape lens in the right conditions) but these are the lenses I use most. None of these are cheap, and I collected them over a long time (with much whinging from my better half). If you're independently wealthy, get them all and play. If, like most of us, you don't have infinite cash to splash in one go, I'd pick one of the DA zooms and figure out if you like the wide end or the long end most. Then you could switch to primes once you know what focal length suits you.