Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-01-2013, 08:42 PM   #16
Loyal Site Supporter
ivanvernon's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Medina, OH
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,575
Lens for landscape

I like the Tamron 17-50 2.8, although really for outside landscape work you really do not have to have such a fast lens and could get by outside with the Pentax 18-55 kit lens. The Tamron, however, will also be a great lens for other stuff when you come back home--parties, concerts, that sort of thing where you do need good low-light performance. I would probably also take my Pentax 10-17 to complement the Tamron and to get really w-i-d-e. Definitely take the 44K--I have one and love it for lots of stuff including portraiture. Hope you have a wonderful photographic vacation!

04-01-2013, 08:43 PM   #17
Forum Member




Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: London, ON
Photos: Albums
Posts: 64
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Bob from Aus Quote
My Favorited landscapes are often taken with a telphoto. (either 50-135 or 60-250 depending which one I have) I would use what you already own. i think wide angle lenses only work when you have some lead into the photo or something interesting in the foreground. Using a wide angle on a spectacular view rarely works for me. Get yourself a nice wide angle, but pull out a short tele when you have that spectacular view and start finding regions of interest and high drama and frame isolate them with the tele.

Superwide angles and fisheyes work well when you are closeup or inside a large environment eg tall trees. So you will need something wide. But for me a wide angle never captures what you see in big landscapes.
Yes, I'm starting to understand when to use fish-eye lenses. A nice article posted by psychdoc points out some nice examples.
At the moment I just have the Helios 44K-4, and no camera. But that would change this week
My experience so far includes the lumix fz-28, just to point out the field of view that I've used before (27mm equivalent while wide open)
I'll read more about the 50-135 and 60-250
thank you!
all the best,
sebastian
04-01-2013, 08:56 PM   #18
Forum Member




Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: London, ON
Photos: Albums
Posts: 64
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Just1MoreDave Quote
It is not like the other lenses you're considering, it is a fisheye zoom.
Thank you for your pics.
Yes, I thought about that lens because at 17mm it could be used as a wide angle while at 10mm you can have so fun.
and yes, it seems that the fish eye effect is not suitable for every shot.
Thank you for the full moon shot with that lens!. Have you tried to take night shots at 10mm in very dark skies?
all the best,
sebastian
04-01-2013, 09:14 PM   #19
Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2012
Location: Adelaide
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,082
There is a common perception that landscape = wide angle lenses, but this is not necessarily so. WIthout a nearby foreground object to create some interest, middle and far distance objects can end up rather small in the captured image, and it is easy to end up with not a very interesting image. I'm not saying though that great landscapes can't be taken with a very wide angle, but they do require some care with composition. If you are not free to wander about during your excusions, you may also find you are a liitle further away from some features than you might prefer.

I use the Tamron 17-50 as my standard lens, it gives good results (althought it is its weakest at the very wide end) and there is a lot of versatility in that focal length range. It's very sharp from around the low 20's mm+ range.

The M 28's have good colour and the M28/3.5 in particular is quite sharp and has very little in the way of CA or purple fringing. Personally, I lean towards the 3.5 version. Both should be found for around $60-80, and will leave you plenty of cash for later lens purchases. If you occassionally need to take in a wider panorama with a 28mm, then taking several shots and stitching them is an option. To set exposure, program the Green Button for TAv for when the camera is in M (manual) mode. Set the desired aperture on the lens, then a quick press of the green button will set the correct shuuter speed. You may need to experiment a little - I have found most of my M's prefer about +1/2 stop more light than the camera meters.

Here is a series of images taken with the M28/3.5 for last year's Single in September challenge to give you an idea of a 28mm's versatility: southlander's Album: Single in September - PentaxForums.com

04-01-2013, 09:22 PM   #20
Pentaxian
Bob from Aus's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,080
QuoteOriginally posted by southlander Quote
There is a common perception that landscape = wide angle lenses, but this is not necessarily so. WIthout a nearby foreground object to create some interest, middle and far distance objects can end up rather small in the captured image, and it is easy to end up with not a very interesting image. I'm not saying though that great landscapes can't be taken with a very wide angle, but they do require some care with composition. If you are not free to wander about during your excusions, you may also find you are a liitle further away from some features than you might prefer.
Another comment about not becoming obsessed with just wide angles for landscapes.
04-01-2013, 10:29 PM   #21
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 621
QuoteOriginally posted by southlander Quote
There is a common perception that landscape = wide angle lenses, but this is not necessarily so. WIthout a nearby foreground object to create some interest, middle and far distance objects can end up rather small in the captured image, and it is easy to end up with not a very interesting image. I'm not saying though that great landscapes can't be taken with a very wide angle, but they do require some care with composition. If you are not free to wander about during your excusions, you may also find you are a liitle further away from some features than you might prefer.

I use the Tamron 17-50 as my standard lens, it gives good results (althought it is its weakest at the very wide end) and there is a lot of versatility in that focal length range. It's very sharp from around the low
X3 or is it X4

I've used 10mm-135mm for landscapes. It depends on what you are trying to do. The Tamron is a good starting point to find what you want/need.

A 10-17 fisheye can be "de-fisheyed" with good results in pp.

When looking at ultra wide zoom lenses, keep in mind that fisheye lenses have a wider field of view than rectilinear lenses of the same fl. The 10-17da fisheye has a field of view of 180-100 degrees. The 12-24da rectilinear
has a field of view of 100-60 degrees.
04-01-2013, 10:44 PM   #22
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Southern California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,181
I think this is the first time I've recommended a Sigma lens, but if you want to go super wide the 8-16 is impressively sharp even on the most demanding camera (i.e. the K-5 IIs) with huge depth of field. It still has some of the Sigma rendering characteristics that I'm not that fond of, but it's much better than anything else you can get on K-mount that goes wider than 12 or 13mm. In other words, at 10mm it's better than anything else from Tamron or Sigma. I thought I'd never buy another Sigma, but it's won me over.

However, right now the Sigma is a little out of your price range. I think the DA16-45/4 would be an excellent choice here. I almost got one, but I ended up skipping to the DA*16-50/2.8 because I wanted the speed (also a good choice if you can afford it, but not necessarily much better than the 16-45 for a typical landscape shot).

I also have and recommend the DA15 and DA10-17 FE, which I prefer over the Sigma when they suit the job. Either of them may just fit into your budget if purchased used. You can even get away with using it at 10mm as long as you're willing to keep the horizon in the middle of the frame, since the distortion is not so obvious in a landscape shot.

Last edited by DSims; 04-01-2013 at 11:12 PM.
04-02-2013, 02:28 AM   #23
Moderator PEG Judges
Kerrowdown's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Highlands of Scotland.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 30,696
Have you thought about maybe hiring/renting a 15mm while your away.

As it will also serve two purposes for you, it maybe cheaper than buying something else as a stopgap till you get your own 15mm and also reconfirming to you through actual use how wonderful the 15mm really is.

04-02-2013, 12:29 PM   #24
Senior Member
Akarak's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2012
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 124
QuoteOriginally posted by sbruzzone Quote
"What's your experience with the 50mm f1.4? Have you tried some night shots with that lens? I would like to have a basic set, like one very fast lens (1.4 or ideally the 1.2 but that's very difficult), one wide angle lens for landscape..."

In my humble opinion you *do not* need to get the f1.2 50mm, the diference from 1.4 is almost none, unless you're lookint for really specific thin depth of field

during the night if you have the 50mm f1.2 using the stock focus screen (being it a manual lens, u'd have to focus manually)
it would make it almost impossible, i have some problems with the f1.4 but i changed the focus screen just a few days and post more info about it later when i give it a go next weekend)

so, being the 1.4 enough, the "morelight" you could get with the f1.2 can be easily compensated by rising up the iso a third of a stop maybe, i dont know the math, but
for ie, lets say your using iso 200 with the f1.2 if you want the same exposure in the f1.4 you'd had to use iso 280 and you'd get the same exposure...

this to say, if you really dont need the lack of depth of field, the f1.2 isn't really worth going for.


if you want to see how wide it is on a 28mm just strap your kit lens 18.55 and put it on 28mm, take a picture, check the exif data on the info screen if it's really 28mm

if it is, honestly? it's a cheap lens, get some black tape and tape the lens, so it stays at 28mm even if you try to move it. force yourself to take a walk and photograph only with it at 28mm.
you won't have the same F as i think the kit at 28mm works at f3.5 but you will get the sense of wideness u'll be getting with the smc-M 28mm.

remember, even with the crop factor from full frame to apc-s sensor, what you put on your kit lens in MM it's the same it would be on FF
sorry for english errors and narrative flow
04-02-2013, 03:50 PM   #25
Pentaxian
emalvick's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Davis, CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,467
I have the Tamron 17-50 and used it quite extensively in Utah visiting some of the same regions you'll be visiting. It was superb, and I was often taken shots from the long end rather than the wide end. You just don't need much wider in that region. Anything wider than 17, and you might not appreciate your results. Although I love my Tamron 10-24 for night photography.

As far as night photography goes, I'd not worry about aperture much. Having 1.4 vs. 1.2 or 2.0 and so forth won't matter that much. You need a tripod to get good night shots.

Now, when I did my Utah trip, the only wide lens I had was the Tamron (with good results). On the rare instance I needed wider, I shot multiple shots and used Hugin to create wider images. More recently, I went to Iceland and had the 10-24 along with the other, and in many cases I was happier with the multi-image panorama than the wide angle shot.

I would strongly urge you to browse these forums (the lens-clubs) and Flickr to get an idea at how these lenses look on real images. Look at how 10 mm and 15 mm shots look (and so forth look). Look at them more for the composition rather than the quality. i.e. determine what range of zoom you are looking for before you look at the specific specimens.

Last, because you mention you are going to the Utah area, be sure to shoot RAW. My camera's white balance didn't work so well because of the high amount of red in the landscape. If it wasn't for RAW, I would have ended up with a lot of garbage.
04-02-2013, 08:52 PM   #26
Forum Member




Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: London, ON
Photos: Albums
Posts: 64
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by ivanvernon Quote
I like the Tamron 17-50 2.8, although really for outside landscape work you really do not have to have such a fast lens and could get by outside with the Pentax 18-55 kit lens. The Tamron, however, will also be a great lens for other stuff when you come back home--parties, concerts, that sort of thing where you do need good low-light performance. I would probably also take my Pentax 10-17 to complement the Tamron and to get really w-i-d-e. Definitely take the 44K--I have one and love it for lots of stuff including portraiture. Hope you have a wonderful photographic vacation!
Thank you for that tip. I'm getting the impression that I could take the Tamron 17-50 2.8.
I have a nice deal in sight, so probably I'm going to ask for a discount on one.
I've got the helios just today, so the camera is just around the corner
all the best.
sebastian
04-02-2013, 09:02 PM   #27
Forum Member




Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: London, ON
Photos: Albums
Posts: 64
Original Poster
Thank you everybody for your comments and suggestions.
So far I have one lens and tons of expectations.
The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 seems my strongest bet, because of some discount that I could get with that K-5IIs.
(~300$)
The SMC Pentax M 28mm is still an option for the price, so perhaps the Helios, the 28mm and the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 could
become good friends in that trip
Add a tripod on top of that!

Of course, I'm not covering the telephoto range here.
I'm still thinking about renting a 15mm ltd...I didn't know that one could rent a lens! (yes..new guy!)

If you have more ideas, I'm listening.
all the best!
sebastian
04-02-2013, 09:27 PM   #28
Forum Member




Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: London, ON
Photos: Albums
Posts: 64
Original Poster
I'm reading about the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 and the sigma 18-125 f3.4 at photozone.de
In terms of distortions and IQ the tamron is leading there.
sebastian
04-02-2013, 10:27 PM   #29
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Oregon
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,417
Tamron 17-50/2.8 at 22mm
Zion Natl Park

04-02-2013, 10:33 PM   #30
Forum Member




Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: London, ON
Photos: Albums
Posts: 64
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by civiletti Quote
Tamron 17-50/2.8 at 22mm
Zion Natl Park

asking a discount on that Tamron now.
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!
angle, camera, distortion, field, landscapes, lens, lens for landscapes, lenses, pentax, pentax help, photography, reviews
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
help me choose wide-to-standard zoom for landscapes kevwil Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 16 04-01-2013 04:48 PM
Lens decision - help needed!!! superdavis Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 12 11-30-2012 11:41 AM
Need Some Pointers on Filters for Landscapes Colorado CJ Photographic Technique 6 04-17-2012 06:50 PM
Lens help needed SEWIS Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 7 05-10-2011 10:15 AM
Help Needed: Lens Advice for Newbie for Trip beth_w737 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 8 12-21-2008 09:24 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:16 AM. | See also: NikonForums.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