Originally posted by stevebrot My question as well. While just about any focal length has been used for landscape work with the 24x36mm format, greater utility tends to be had at 35mm and shorter. That being said, many of us learned and shot for years with a 50mm "normal" lens attached to the front of our camera and for most of us, landscapes were part of the mix.
What is the "best" lens for landscape? The only criteria are reasonably sharpness across the field with good contrast. The choices run into the hundreds, but these I can recommend...
- Super/S-M-C/SMC Takumar 55/1.8
- Pentax-K 55/1.8
- Pentax-M/A/F/FA 50/1.7 (with possible exception of the "A" 50/1.7 due to pervasive aperture ring problems)
- XR Rikenon 50/2 (PF Reviews...note that reviews complaining of plastic build are not this lens. I need to update the example links on my review )
- Carl Zeiss Jena 50/2.8 Tessar (M42 with long product run...PF Reviews)
Steve
Thanks everyone for the interesting comments. From what I have read so far, all the 50/1.7 pentax lenses are highly rated, but are they better than the 1.4 (A) that I mentioned?
Also, it is interesting that the XR Rikenon 50/2 is in the list. I inherited the Sears version of this one years ago, but not sure if I ever used it. Mine does not have an A setting and it does have a light plastic feeling. I also have an additional 1.7 that focusses down to 2' instead of the 1.5' on my main one.
After looking at the posted review, I see that the one I have is a different design than the one on the review, which focusses to 1.5.'