[KatPal]

Hi Shutterbugs,

I am new to wide angle, and desperately researching all wide angle lens options for my K-5iis. I considered Sigma 18-35(supposed to be good but with some issues), Pentax 20-40, 12-24 and 21mm. I am leaning to the 20-40 since it would be my first zoom(I only have 40mm ltd and 200mmDA) and I want to cover some ground.
But what i wonder, in my upcoming trip and other landscape needs, will the 20-4oo mm at the 20mm end leave me wanting more in wide angle. By no means am I a professional, and also do not know how to do panoramas. But heard that in these canyons 15 and less is a good idea...
decision time comes by black friday and I need a winner.
Also- I would love recommendation on another zoom. Since I have only 40, vintage 50mm, and 300DA(which I am considering a 1.4 TC for better animal reach), that leaves me with 50-300 uncovered options...I like quality over economics, but know nothing about this in between range..
Right now I am planning to carry wide angle, 40mm and 300 mm to canyon, so I get vistas as well as some wildlife...

Check out my animals: https://500px.com/katerinapaleckova

Thank you,
Kat

[jatrax]

The 20-40 is a very nice lens but I think 20mm is not all that wide on APS-C. I would go with the Pentax 12-24 if you want UWA down to 12mm or the Pentax 16-85 if you think 16mm will be enough.

[Paul the Sunman]

If you want wider as well as more middle-ground coverage, the new HD DA 16-85 WR is very highly regarded, and cheaper than the 20-40. I use the DA 15 for wide angle, but if I wanted to do it with a zoom, that would probably be my choice.

Of course, if you want UWA, that's another matter. The DA 12-24 or one of the wide sigma zooms would be the options, or wait for the new DA ~12-28 on the lens roadmap.

[nomadkng]

My first response is read up how to stitch and shoot panoramas for the ultra wide.

My second response is 20-40 is not a bad default choice.

Over the course of the last 10 years, I have owned a DA15, Sigma 12-24, Sigma 20-40, Sigma 17-70, Sigma 10-20 and FA 20-35, I now have a Tamron 17-50 and Sigma 24-60 because honestly I find myself using 20mm+ most of the time and rarely ever wish I could go "wider". I do still have the 10-20 but is in my backup kit that my travelling companion uses and I've only used it once in the last 2 years (a waterfall in a narrow canyon).

For me, shots in the 10-19mm range, expect for rare creative expressions have a field curvature and foreground/background distortion characteristic that I don't find appealing. Some people really like the results (see the "15mm controls my mind" thread), but it doesn't match my tastes. For really wide shots, I will stitch together 3-5 images if at all possible. This minimizes distortion and I feel gives a more "realistic" final output.

I think the 20-40 should work, but in the end it's going to boil down to personal style. If you don't have a lot of experience shooting ultra wide landscapes, a lot of the advice you're going to get here won't help because you really don't know what you "want" your end result to be. Someone could tell me I should shoot a scene using certain lens and I could counter as to why that lens is not a good choice for my style. So listing all the possible lenses to choose from won't help.

What we shoot and how we shoot is probably very different from you. My best advice might be to borrow a couple lenses and experiment before taking your trip. Find out what you like and what you "want" you images to look like, because you can shoot anything from 10mm to 50mm at either location and be successful. There's probably literally 100 lenses in that range from which you could chose.

It's also why most photographers go through dozens of lenses over the course of their "career".

---

Last edited by nomadkng; 11-16-2015 at 12:27 PM.

[osv]

you can use all sorts of focal lengths for those locations, especially if you are doing stitched panorama shots... bighorn sheep pics at zion, for instance, will probably need that da300 lens.

ultrawide would be nice for when you are deep inside narrow canyons, but that's only part of it, these locations also include big landscape vistas, and ultrawides tend to diminish far-away objects in a shot like that.

[jrpower10]

So here's the thing with zooms. 90% of your shots will be at the extremes, which in the case of the 20-40 is 20 and 40. You already have 40 covered by the DA40 so unless you're completely against lens swapping, the 20-40 doesn't buy you as much as the 12-24 would looking at your whole kit. That's my 2 cents on the wide end.

On the long end, the DA 55-300 is an excellent lens, particularly for the money. If money is no object, however, the DA*60-250 is good enough that having acquired one I'm seriously considering selling my DA300. I also have the HD 1.4 teleconverter, which pairs with both tele lenses fantastically.

---------- Post added 11-17-15 at 05:26 AM ----------

ultrawides tend to diminish far-away objects in a shot like that

True this. Ultrawides takes some practice to understand their limitations, but used correctly the results can be dramatic. Suggest taking a look in the forums to see what types of photos strike a chord, then note the focal lengths used.

[goldenarrow]

The 20-40 is a very nice lens but I think 20mm is not all that wide on APS-C. I would go with the Pentax 12-24 if you want UWA down to 12mm or the Pentax 16-85 if you think 16mm will be enough.

The canyons should look great at 12mm without having to be far away.

The 40mm is surprisingly useful as a quick panorama lens. It has little distortion which makes it easy to stitch photos together.

[osv]

True this. Ultrawides takes some practice to understand their limitations, but used correctly the results can be dramatic. Suggest taking a look in the forums to see what types of photos strike a chord, then note the focal lengths used.

that's a good idea, searching google images for zion would be another option.

when i moved to ff, i though that 24mm primes would rock for big landscapes, but it always seemed to come at the price of too much foreground in the shot... so i went to 28mm primes, and now even 35mm primes, especially with some vertically stitched panorama shots.

k3 has a level indicator in the lcd? you can do hand-held vertical stitch shots, keeping the camera at the same place against the horizon line, using the level indicator as the reference.

[jatrax]

You might also look at images on Flicker or elsewhere that you like of the things you want to shoot and find out what focal length was used.

[ScooterMaxi Jim]

You would want to experiment with stitching before making a commitment in that direction. I regularly do stitching when I set out for a particular shoot and have that single purpose in mind. However, I have never wanted to put the effort into it in a vacation setting. Then again, Bryce and Zion would be the places to do it.

If your heart is set on the 20-40, you should consider a wider lens, as well. My favorite for dramatic UWA landscape work is the Samyang (Rokinon, etc.) 8mm. It isn't rectilinear, but isn't really fisheye - and it can be corrected to rectilinear (often not necessary for landscape work).

Here's a recent example: Taos Autumn Brilliance - James Robins - Powered by Phanfare

[shahnm]

I bought a sigma 10-20 for the same trip. It was a great choice. I also went to one of the slot canyons near there, and the wide angle lens was really fantastic at capturing those spaces at close range.

---------- Post added 11-16-15 at 11:01 PM ----------

Another suggestion: The Pentax 16-85 is a fantastic all around lens. Although I took a number of lenses along, I pretty much only used that one on a recent Alaska trip. The 16mm end is just wide enough to feel wide, and the rest of the range is very usable. It is sharp and excellent throughout its focal range.

[SpecialK]

Some examples may help. The 12-24 was always my go-to travel lens.

24mm.


12mm.


24mm.


18mm.


23mm.


12mm.


300mm.


170mm.


10-17 @ 10mm. Four miles and four hours up...1 hour down.


19mm.


10-17 @ 17mm.


10-17 @ 10mm.


16mm.


18mm.

[Nicolas06]

To me the choice for 20-40 vs say 16-85 is a question of priorities. The 16-85 cover significantly more range and so in many cases will be more practical, because 1 lense will do more. The max apperture is not much different and for landscapes in daylight you'll be more at f/8 anyway. They are both DC, WR, have quite modern optics.

The 16-85 will be sharper, much bigger, heavier. The DA20-40 keep contrast in difficult conditions (contra light with sun...) and is light/small. It provide the core of the most usefull focal range but no more.

If you go to Brice Canon or Zion, you can frame any kind of shoot, from extreme tele shoot to ultra wide or even fisheye. There interrest for all and also for panoramas because really you have wide panoramic view.


To me the 20-40 can be a great choice because say you want to travel light, take some great pictures and if it is not wide enough you will stich a panorama or ignore wat you can shoot and concentrate on better framing and interresting pictures in the 20-40 range. But I would say you need to know what you are doing really if you go this route.

If you don't know and want a single zoom solution that 16-85 f/3.5-5.6 to concentrate for outdoor landscape only, a 17-50 f/2.8 or 16-50 f/2.8 to also reuse the zoom for indoors events/familly shoots and a bit of portraiture or 17-70 f/2.8-4 from sigma as a compromize between all the requirements.

If you want to cqpture the whole scene you can't skip the only lens that will do that fully: a fisheye. But that's a very specialized lens with very specific rendering. Again I would say you need to know what you are doing too.

If you accept a dual lens solution, you can take one of the general zoom I speak of, even the 20-40 and add a UWA to your arsenal like a 8-16 or 12-24. The good thing of the 8-16 is that it is more extreme. it a bit like a prime. It the lens for extremes. But you'll often need to switch back to another lens. The 12-24 is less extreme but by also covering 24mm, it allows to also cover much more of common scenes/focals. That's more practical. Both solution are quite acceptable and as long you take something else to cover your other use cases, you are ok.

Whatever you choose, don't forget that you'll want to learn how to stich panorama. That a powerfull tool.

An example, of panorama, not from US but spain. That's a few DA15 shoots stiched together. Something this wide, even a 8-16 would not cover it. A fish defished would require a quite high end optics + camera to keep acceptable quality. So the best solution really was to create a panorama. You should a bit how to shoot one and see for yourself how the result looklike. Microsoft ICE 2 is free and work really well.

[northcoastgreg]

I suspect the DA 20-40 would be too narrow a range for Bryce and Zion. Last time I was at Bryce, I made frequent use of the DA 15, an Oly 9-18 on m43 (an FOV equivalent of the DA 12-24), and even the DA 10-17. At Zion, inside the main canyon, I shot exclusively with the DA 15 or the Oly 9-18. Outside the main canyon, I shot with a 28mm and 35mm lenses.

The DA 20-40 would be fine if you paired it with the DA 12-24. But if you were looking for a one lens solution, I'd go with the DA 16-85. Wider than 16mm would be useful if you're in among the hoodoos in Bryce canyon or the narrower parts of Zion canyon. But there are places in Zion (Temple of the Virgins, The Watchman) where something longer than 24mm is probably required. And a telephoto zoom can be useful at Bryce.

[ramseybuckeye]

You know that nobody here is wrong because there are so many different ways to catch these landscapes and nature features. A lot of it depends on your own likes and style.

you can use all sorts of focal lengths for those locations, especially if you are doing stitched panorama shots... bighorn sheep pics at zion, for instance, will probably need that da300 lens.

ultrawide would be nice for when you are deep inside narrow canyons, but that's only part of it, these locations also include big landscape vistas, and ultrawides tend to diminish far-away objects in a shot like that.

I really agree with all of this. There is no focal range for landscapes, you can use them all. telephotos can tend to to compress things which can be very dramatic. Ultrawides tend to be better for getting close to something big, or for a landscape with a strong foreground. Think of including a moon or distant rock feature in a photo, you've got to use a telephoto, it will disappear in an ultrawide.

If your heart is set on the 20-40, you should consider a wider lens, as well. My favorite for dramatic UWA landscape work is the Samyang (Rokinon, etc.) 8mm. It isn't rectilinear, but isn't really fisheye - and it can be corrected to rectilinear (often not necessary for landscape work).
]

I also have a Rokinon 8mm, Tamron 10-24, and HD DA 15, the Rokinon is definitely unique and actually does a better job with distortion in the corners than the rectilinear lenses in my opinion. It's not for everything but it's useful and fun.