[catwalk]

Hi all,
I'm selecting some lenses for my new K-3 ii, focusing on landscape photography. My budget is a little tight right now but I don't want to buy a mediocre lens that I will end up replacing in a few months. Given my current budget constraints, please let me know what priority your suggestions are. I'm sure I will fill in all focal lengths eventually (because lba already... first my telescope, and now this...), but for now I will have to do one or two at a time. I am hoping someone can fill me in on their experiences to help me decide.


I would like to be able to make a 40x30 print without any obvious, significant lens imperfections. I know some of these can be fixed in post processing, so issues that can't be fixed are a priority. If, on the other hand, I'm better off waiting for pricier lenses until I have more experience then that would be good to know (for reference I have lots of experience with cameras, but little with SLR's).


Secondary considerations are: weather resistance, suitability for wildlife photography (I do this sometimes so AF can't be glacially slow), weight (trekking to get that shot).


I've already looked at a lot of reviews on the lenses below, and poked through the forums a bit, but they don't usually cover long term satisfaction. Feel free to suggest any that I've overlooked. For any who take their camera on hikes/backpacking trips I am curious which lenses you usually bring along.

already own:
Pentax DA 35mm f/2.4 AL

wide angles:
Pentax 15mm f/4 ED AL Limited HD DA. Looks like IQ and focal length are fantastic for landscapes. Should this be my highest priority?

Sigma 10-20mm f3.5 EX DC HSM. On the cheap side for a wide angle zoom, is it worth it?

Pentax 12-24mm f/4 ED AL IF SMC P-DA. Way over budget for me. Am I better off saving up for it than going for the sigma?

telephoto:
Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 Di LD Macro. $130 sounds too good to be true and AF is reported to be slow.

Pentax 50-200mm f/4-5.6 ED SMC DA WR. The WR is nice but looks like a kit lens otherwise.

Pentax 55-300 f/4.5-6.3 ED PLM WR RE HD DA. Any better than the 50-200?

Not really sure if I need these since my main interest is landscapes. I can always fill this focal length in with primes instead.

standard zooms:

Pentax 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 ED AL IF DC SMC DA. Looks like a good all-in-one for snapping shots along the trail.

Pentax 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AL SMC DA WR. I probably don't need this because affordable primes will likely give me better IQ here.


thanks for your help!

[Paul the Sunman]

You've missed the most useful; the DA 16-85. It will cover very wide to mild telephoto, and is optically a step up from the 18-135.

[robiles]

First of all, welcome to Pentaxforums, good to have you.


From your short list of lenses, i only own the DA 15 ltd. (SMC), and i am pleased with it, ist practicaly glued to my gf's KP. I have a large 90x30cm print taken with it in Scotland, and it looks terrific, except the outer 5-7 cm that suffer due to the field curvature, but ist only visible from up close.


I also own a Tamron 10-24(i really like the way it renders), do not know how it compares tp the Sigma optically, but they are larger and heavier than the lts, something to consider if you like to take long hikes on difficult terrain.


Neither of the wides that you mentioned are weather sealed, but ussualy primes fare better in that regard because there are less moving parte. I for one look Forward to the upcoming DA* 11-18 (should be released around my birthday).


You can choose to buy the 15 ltd now, and wait for the da* to be realeased and save up until then if finances allow it, that is what i would try to do .


Regarding wildlife lenses i will let someone more experienced chime in, because i am clueless in that area, i didnt even own an AF lens longer than 50mm until monday.

[pentasonic49]

I have the older Sigma 10-20 4.5/5.6 and it is a nice lens for landscapes, and confined spaces. Distortion is good as long as you keep it close to horizontal. The 3.5 is improved over my older version. Have you considered the Sigma 8-16? Most lenses that you might consider are featured in the lens reviews in the forum.

[victormeldrew]

So these contenders all seem to assume that you want a wide/ultra-wide for landscapes? I only ask because many people use teles for landscape.

I would also consider the 20-40mm Limited. It gives good landscape...not sure how 'limited' the budget really is, so I might be pushing the boat out a bit far.

[kh1234567890]

Hi all,
I'm selecting some lenses for my new K-3 ii, focusing on landscape photography. My budget is a little tight right now but I don't want to buy a mediocre lens that I will end up replacing in a few months. Given my current budget constraints, please let me know what priority your suggestions are. I'm sure I will fill in all focal lengths eventually (because lba already... first my telescope, and now this...), but for now I will have to do one or two at a time. I am hoping someone can fill me in on their experiences to help me decide.

If price is a problem, find a good second hand or old stock DA16-45. And a DA55-300 for the long end. Otherwise, if you want to splash out on a prime then I'd recommend the DA21 rather than the DA15.

Some of my recent DA16-45 photos
Some of my recent DA55-300 photos
Some of my recent DA21 photos

[savoche]

Hi all,

Welcome to the forums!

Remember that landscape photography is much more than wide angle lenses - at times you will get better landscapes from a tele lens.

already own:
Pentax DA 35mm f/2.4 AL

Already a good lens for landscapes. You can get far with stitching several shots if you need wider.

wide angles:
Pentax 15mm f/4 ED AL Limited HD DA. Looks like IQ and focal length are fantastic for landscapes. Should this be my highest priority?

Definitely a wonderful lens. If I could have only one wide angle it would be this. It is very wide, though, and as such a specialty lens. A DA 21 would be more versatile and is quite useful for more general use.

Sigma 10-20mm f3.5 EX DC HSM. On the cheap side for a wide angle zoom, is it worth it?

This is a decent lens that definitely can give you great results. The main drawback as I see it is its size. It's not a lens that will be in your bag "just in case" as a DA 15 will be.

Pentax 12-24mm f/4 ED AL IF SMC P-DA. Way over budget for me. Am I better off saving up for it than going for the sigma?

Have never used this, but from what I see it is a better performer than the Sigma - and in some ways better than the DA 15 as well. Not a small lens, though.

telephoto:
Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 Di LD Macro. $130 sounds too good to be true and AF is reported to be slow.

Pentax 50-200mm f/4-5.6 ED SMC DA WR. The WR is nice but looks like a kit lens otherwise.

I would skip these. They are not horrible, but...

Pentax 55-300 f/4.5-6.3 ED PLM WR RE HD DA. Any better than the 50-200?

...this is quite a lot better in every way. I have the old 55-300 (non-PLM) and am quite happy with the image quality for such a small and light tele lens. The PLM looks to be at least as good - and it focuses quickly and silently. The old one has a rather slow and noisy AF.

Not really sure if I need these since my main interest is landscapes. I can always fill this focal length in with primes instead.

standard zooms:

Pentax 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 ED AL IF DC SMC DA. Looks like a good all-in-one for snapping shots along the trail.

Pentax 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AL SMC DA WR. I probably don't need this because affordable primes will likely give me better IQ here.

The 18-135 is better than the 18-55 (and has silent focus), but I think the DA 16-85 is better still. The extra width may buy you some time before shelling out for that DA 15, too And even though I prefer to use primes whenever I can I find it very useful to have a good standard zoom at times.

Good hunting

Edit: Adding a few sample shots - hope you don't mind.

DA 55-300 (the old one)

DA 18-55

DA 15

Sigma 10-20/4-5.6



DA 18-135

---

Last edited by savoche; 07-06-2018 at 03:13 AM.

[robjmitchell]

The 16-85 would be the no 1 landscape zoom in the pentax line up. 16mm is a huge difference to 18mm. Its perfect as a one lens solution for hiking and travel. All the limiteds are fantastic as well if your willing to compromise flexibility. Every one has its own brand of magic and they are a joy to use. The 55-300 PLM is the way to go for an affordable Tele due primarily to its fast and silent AF.

[Hattifnatt]

For landscapes I would go with the DA 16-85 and the DA 55-300 (yes, it's significantly better than the 50-200). I don't think there is a better combination from a price/quality point of view.


The DA 15 is a unique lens and one that can be a lot of fun to use, however it takes some practice and discipline to use it to the full potential. Special attention should be payed to framing, as it is often difficult to find subjects to fill the foreground while at the same time eliminate things that shouldn't be in the background. It's also perfect for hiking trips as it literally fits in a pocket.

I would go for the DA 16-85 first, then DA 55-300 and then add a DA 15.

[joebob]

Welcome to the forums!

Remember that landscape photography is much more than wide angle lenses - at times you will get better landscapes from a tele lens.



Already a good lens for landscapes. You can get far with stitching several shots if you need wider.



Definitely a wonderful lens. If I could have only one wide angle it would be this. It is very wide, though, and as such a specialty lens. A DA 21 would be more versatile and is quite useful for more general use.



This is a decent lens that definitely can give you great results. The main drawback as I see it is its size. It's not a lens that will be in your bag "just in case" as a DA 15 will be.



Have never used this, but from what I see it is a better performer than the Sigma - and in some ways better than the DA 15 as well. Not a small lens, though.



I would skip these. They are not horrible, but...



...this is quite a lot better in every way. I have the old 55-300 (non-PLM) and am quite happy with the image quality for such a small and light tele lens. The PLM looks to be at least as good - and it focuses quickly and silently. The old one has a rather slow and noisy AF.



The 18-135 is better than the 18-55 (and has silent focus), but I think the DA 16-85 is better still. The extra width may buy you some time before shelling out for that DA 15, too And even though I prefer to use primes whenever I can I find it very useful to have a good standard zoom at times.

Good hunting

Edit: Adding a few sample shots - hope you don't mind.

DA 55-300 (the old one)

DA 18-55

DA 15

Sigma 10-20/4-5.6



DA 18-135

Great shots. Which lens were these taken with?

[savoche]

Great shots. Which lens were these taken with?

Thanks The lenses are noted above each "group" of shots.

[IgorZ]

Are you only interested in the lenses you mentioned above, or are you looking for any suggestions? Also, looks like you are interested in AF lenses, is that right?

If you are open to using manual focus lenses, there are quite a few options from Samyang, Irix, Laowa. I personally use irix 15mm f2.8 and am very happy with it. Thinking of adding samyang 24mm F1.4 at some point.

For a long time my main landscape lens was K28mm f3.5. I really like it and still use it when the irix does not work.

[steve_k]

For landscapes I would go with the DA 16-85 and the DA 55-300 (yes, it's significantly better than the 50-200). I don't think there is a better combination from a price/quality point of view.


The DA 15 is a unique lens and one that can be a lot of fun to use, however it takes some practice and discipline to use it to the full potential. Special attention should be payed to framing, as it is often difficult to find subjects to fill the foreground while at the same time eliminate things that shouldn't be in the background. It's also perfect for hiking trips as it literally fits in a pocket.

I would go for the DA 16-85 first, then DA 55-300 and then add a DA 15.

I second this recommendation. Two very good lenses and you are covered 16-300. Add the Sigma 8-16 and you have UW range completely covered.

[dave2k]

I've owned the DA 15 and I had the older version of the Sigma 10-20. I ended up selling the DA 15 and I bought the Sigma 17-50 and that was my favorite landscape lens until I moved to full-frame. The Sigma has a slightly higher average rating on this forum than the DA 16-85, it is a faster lens (f 2.8) and it costs less. However, you give up some focal length range and weather resistance. The Sigma 10-20 and 17-50 make a very good pair for landscapes.

[eyrr]

The 16-85 would be the no 1 landscape zoom in the pentax line up. 16mm is a huge difference to 18mm. Its perfect as a one lens solution for hiking and travel. All the limiteds are fantastic as well if your willing to compromise flexibility. Every one has its own brand of magic and they are a joy to use. The 55-300 PLM is the way to go for an affordable Tele due primarily to its fast and silent AF.

Agreed. You can splurge on premium primes later when you have a clearer idea of which focal length and rendering will be best suited to your needs. I would however add a small inexpensive fast lens in case you need lower light capability. I've used the DA 50mm f1.8 for this and it's come in handy often enough to make it worth the habit of taking it.