An APS-C kit for landscape photography ?

**SteveinSLC** · 08-30-2018, 10:32 AM

I've been going back and forth on what I feel like is the ideal setup for travel, hiking, landscape. Relatively light, relatively compact, WR and good image quality are my main requirements. Currently I have DA15 Limited, DA 20-40, 18-135, DA*55, and 55-300PLM. I think I've settled on the 20-40 and 55-300 being the primary package. Both are WR, relatively compact, and good image quality while covering a wide focal range. And the K-70 and KP are good enough in low light that the lack of a really wide aperture is less limiting.
The DA 15 is a great lens, and very compact, but not WR, which has sometimes made me a little hesitant about bringing it.

**pres589** · 08-30-2018, 10:37 AM

I'd get a Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 zoom if I had an 80D and wanted to do landscapes. I would follow that up with the old Tamron 17-50 f2.8 non-VC if I didn't already have something good that covered that focal range.

p.s. I would get a Canon 24mm STM for a fun street/general use prime on the tiny side.

p.s.s. on the Pentax side I love the DA 15 and DA 18-135 combo. It's an amazing little wide angle lens and a really excellent 28mm f3.5 prime along with a mile of zoom coverage as well.

mikesbike · 08-30-2018, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by parinya-ekparinya

I agree with others that you might get a bad copy. It is true to me that 18-135mm gives the soft results for above 100mm, but it is not that bad. Anyway, I sold it because I got a 16-50mm and a 50-135mm.

I agree the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 is a good option, but it doesn't have WR construction. Also, I have read it is now an updated version having its own built-in SR, with some optical change, not for the better. I have the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 EX DC pro-style which is very fine, and the excellent Pentax DA 20-40mm f/2.8-4 WR DC Limited, and I cannot find serous fault with my old DA 18-135mm. I still use it as the need arises, and it has yielded very fine results. Just don't expect great edge performance, especially much beyond 50mm or so, as there is gradual diminishment onwards from here. Centrally, imaging is exceptionally good even in the tele range. Unlike the DA 16-85mm, sub-par copies seem to be rare.

normhead · 08-30-2018, 05:22 PM

.Wide angle landscape with a Sigma 8-16 is every bit as easy as any landscape lens for ultra wide angle. There really is no advantage to full frame there, despite what is endlessly repeated . Ultra wide angle is only a problem if you don't buy the right lens, same as any other system.

superdave · 08-30-2018, 10:57 PM

Originally posted by parinya-ekparinya

I agree with others that you might get a bad copy. It is true to me that 18-135mm gives the soft results for above 100mm, but it is not that bad. Anyway, I sold it because I got a 16-50mm and a 50-135mm.

I don't know if I had a bad copy or not, in fact my copy had the same performances than in the review of photozone.de and they tested two copies.
At that time I did a compare at 70mm with all my lenses, 70ltd, sigma 17-70, sigma 70-300, pentax 18-135 and the last one is far behind the others in term of IQ. Center was excellent but all corners was just a shit of pixels. I love to stitch panoramas, and with this lens it was just impossible, as there is a canyon gap between center and mid-corners sharpness... If this was a bad copy, it was a really really bad one... This is silly because Iiked its range, silent DC motor and WR.

---------- Post added 08-31-2018 at 08:09 AM ----------

I would like to add that I love to take landscapes panorama with primes: 70mm ltd (smc version for starburst with cityscapes) or the cheap 50mm1.8. Both are very very sharp corner to corner. I also have cheap 35mm 2.4, sharpness is very good too, but I don't like its starburst effect as it only have 6 aperture blades.

Thoses 3 lenses with the 12-24 is my current setup for landscape. I miss longer focal lenght such as 50-135 or 100 macro and sometime a zoom in the 17-50 range would be convenient too. I am waiting photokina to see if revamped 16-50 and 50-135 are in the pipe, but 11-18 will be my next priority.

**UncleVanya** · 08-31-2018, 09:27 AM

Originally posted by superdave

I don't know if I had a bad copy or not, in fact my copy had the same performances than in the review of photozone.de and they tested two copies.
At that time I did a compare at 70mm with all my lenses, 70ltd, sigma 17-70, sigma 70-300, pentax 18-135 and the last one is far behind the others in term of IQ. Center was excellent but all corners was just a shit of pixels. I love to stitch panoramas, and with this lens it was just impossible, as there is a canyon gap between center and mid-corners sharpness... If this was a bad copy, it was a really really bad one... This is silly because Iiked its range, silent DC motor and WR.

---------- Post added 08-31-2018 at 08:09 AM ----------

I would like to add that I love to take landscapes panorama with primes: 70mm ltd (smc version for starburst with cityscapes) or the cheap 50mm1.8. Both are very very sharp corner to corner. I also have cheap 35mm 2.4, sharpness is very good too, but I don't like its starburst effect as it only have 6 aperture blades.

Thoses 3 lenses with the 12-24 is my current setup for landscape. I miss longer focal lenght such as 50-135 or 100 macro and sometime a zoom in the 17-50 range would be convenient too. I am waiting photokina to see if revamped 16-50 and 50-135 are in the pipe, but 11-18 will be my next priority.

I can see how stitching with the DA 18-135 set to a longer focal length wouldn't work. I would not have tried that so our results in that respect may not be different. I tend to use mine at shorter focal lengths for landscapes and longer ones for portraits. You may noticed that the portrait I posted was at 78mm - ironically looking at some others that seems to be a common focal length for my use of this lens for portraits. I do LOVE the DA* 50-135 and if you want to stitch and needed the extra detail doing 135mm shots with it should result in very clean edge to edge sharp cells to stitch back together.

sutherland · 08-31-2018, 10:19 AM

I think it's important to make a distinction between 'landscape' and 'wide angle'. You don't need a 'wide angle' lens to shoot landscape, though it certainly couldn't hurt for some of those quintessential shots that capture the scene.

As far as APS-C Landscape, my preferred choice is the Ricoh GR II (28mm Equivalent) as I prefer to keep a larger telephoto on my main camera and do not like to swap lenses when I am out in the field. The Ricoh GRII is probably lighter than most of the equivalent primes and easier to carry.

donpjt · 08-31-2018, 11:57 AM

K-3II is a great option for landscape because of the pixel shift tech which allows you to take around 46 MP super sharp photos. Pentax has good dynamic range which allows you to pull some details from the shadows. (Body cost approx 550)

Other options are Nikon D500, very expensive though (1000) (you could get a D750 or a K-1 for that price) (If you are okay with manual focus Sony A7R used is selling really cheap (700), very good dynamic range and higher resolution but lenses are expensive) Sony A6000 (300 used) as apsc is also good. Sony and Pentax have similar dynamic range)

If you have money for a full frame, I would say go for a used full frame, even the Nikon D600, or Sony A7r or the older A99 can all be had under 700 bucks for used. All these cameras have excellent dynamic range.

**UncleVanya** · 08-31-2018, 12:02 PM

Originally posted by sutherland

I think it's important to make a distinction between 'landscape' and 'wide angle'. You don't need a 'wide angle' lens to shoot landscape, though it certainly couldn't hurt for some of those quintessential shots that capture the scene.

As far as APS-C Landscape, my preferred choice is the Ricoh GR II (28mm Equivalent) as I prefer to keep a larger telephoto on my main camera and do not like to swap lenses when I am out in the field. The Ricoh GRII is probably lighter than most of the equivalent primes and easier to carry.

Agreed that landscape can mean more than wide angle. The original request was for landscape 16-200 full frame angle of view and at a rational cost. This is why in rethinking it I'd say the long end should be a screw drive 50-135 and the short end should be the 12-24 and the middle could be a 17-70 (several versions) or 16-85 or 16-50.

superdave · 08-31-2018, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by UncleVanya

I can see how stitching with the DA 18-135 set to a longer focal length wouldn't work. I would not have tried that so our results in that respect may not be different. I tend to use mine at shorter focal lengths for landscapes and longer ones for portraits. You may noticed that the portrait I posted was at 78mm - ironically looking at some others that seems to be a common focal length for my use of this lens for portraits. I do LOVE the DA* 50-135 and if you want to stitch and needed the extra detail doing 135mm shots with it should result in very clean edge to edge sharp cells to stitch back together.

I am sure the 50-135mm lens would suit my needs, let's way until photokina to see if there is effectivelly a revamp of that lens with a better motor

**UncleVanya** · 08-31-2018, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by superdave

I am sure the 50-135mm lens would suit my needs, let's way until photokina to see if there is effectivelly a revamp of that lens with a better motor

Honestly the current version is so reliable in screw drive I'm not bothered but it is still a bit slow to focus. I would love a faster version but I'm not sure they can do it with the same optical quality without changes to the size/weight.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Landscape or portrait orientation? Definitely landscape!	keithw	General Photography	18	01-12-2018 06:17 AM
Fullframe or APS-C for sports or bird photography	galelegg	General Photography	59	05-30-2017 03:12 AM
IQ of FF vs APS-C primes on APS-C bodies	lightbox	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	26	11-10-2016 06:50 PM
When is an APS-C lens not really an APS-C?	lightbox	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	17	03-27-2015 07:45 PM
Recommend a lens for landscape/urban landscape photography	a96agli	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	23	01-22-2015 10:26 AM

08-30-2018, 10:32 AM	#31
SteveinSLC Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2017 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 544	I've been going back and forth on what I feel like is the ideal setup for travel, hiking, landscape. Relatively light, relatively compact, WR and good image quality are my main requirements. Currently I have DA15 Limited, DA 20-40, 18-135, DA*55, and 55-300PLM. I think I've settled on the 20-40 and 55-300 being the primary package. Both are WR, relatively compact, and good image quality while covering a wide focal range. And the K-70 and KP are good enough in low light that the lack of a really wide aperture is less limiting. The DA 15 is a great lens, and very compact, but not WR, which has sometimes made me a little hesitant about bringing it.

08-30-2018, 10:37 AM	#32
pres589 Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Baltimore, MD Photos: Albums Posts: 3,415	I'd get a Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 zoom if I had an 80D and wanted to do landscapes. I would follow that up with the old Tamron 17-50 f2.8 non-VC if I didn't already have something good that covered that focal range. p.s. I would get a Canon 24mm STM for a fun street/general use prime on the tiny side. p.s.s. on the Pentax side I love the DA 15 and DA 18-135 combo. It's an amazing little wide angle lens and a really excellent 28mm f3.5 prime along with a mile of zoom coverage as well.

08-30-2018, 04:53 PM	#33
mikesbike Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2016 Location: Southeastern Michigan Posts: 3,004	Originally posted by parinya-ekparinya I agree with others that you might get a bad copy. It is true to me that 18-135mm gives the soft results for above 100mm, but it is not that bad. Anyway, I sold it because I got a 16-50mm and a 50-135mm. I agree the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 is a good option, but it doesn't have WR construction. Also, I have read it is now an updated version having its own built-in SR, with some optical change, not for the better. I have the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 EX DC pro-style which is very fine, and the excellent Pentax DA 20-40mm f/2.8-4 WR DC Limited, and I cannot find serous fault with my old DA 18-135mm. I still use it as the need arises, and it has yielded very fine results. Just don't expect great edge performance, especially much beyond 50mm or so, as there is gradual diminishment onwards from here. Centrally, imaging is exceptionally good even in the tele range. Unlike the DA 16-85mm, sub-par copies seem to be rare.

08-30-2018, 05:22 PM	#34
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 37,205	.Wide angle landscape with a Sigma 8-16 is every bit as easy as any landscape lens for ultra wide angle. There really is no advantage to full frame there, despite what is endlessly repeated . Ultra wide angle is only a problem if you don't buy the right lens, same as any other system.

08-30-2018, 10:57 PM	#35
superdave Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 192	Originally posted by parinya-ekparinya I agree with others that you might get a bad copy. It is true to me that 18-135mm gives the soft results for above 100mm, but it is not that bad. Anyway, I sold it because I got a 16-50mm and a 50-135mm. I don't know if I had a bad copy or not, in fact my copy had the same performances than in the review of photozone.de and they tested two copies. At that time I did a compare at 70mm with all my lenses, 70ltd, sigma 17-70, sigma 70-300, pentax 18-135 and the last one is far behind the others in term of IQ. Center was excellent but all corners was just a shit of pixels. I love to stitch panoramas, and with this lens it was just impossible, as there is a canyon gap between center and mid-corners sharpness... If this was a bad copy, it was a really really bad one... This is silly because Iiked its range, silent DC motor and WR. ---------- Post added 08-31-2018 at 08:09 AM ---------- I would like to add that I love to take landscapes panorama with primes: 70mm ltd (smc version for starburst with cityscapes) or the cheap 50mm1.8. Both are very very sharp corner to corner. I also have cheap 35mm 2.4, sharpness is very good too, but I don't like its starburst effect as it only have 6 aperture blades. Thoses 3 lenses with the 12-24 is my current setup for landscape. I miss longer focal lenght such as 50-135 or 100 macro and sometime a zoom in the 17-50 range would be convenient too. I am waiting photokina to see if revamped 16-50 and 50-135 are in the pipe, but 11-18 will be my next priority.

08-31-2018, 09:27 AM	#36
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 18,497	Originally posted by superdave I don't know if I had a bad copy or not, in fact my copy had the same performances than in the review of photozone.de and they tested two copies. At that time I did a compare at 70mm with all my lenses, 70ltd, sigma 17-70, sigma 70-300, pentax 18-135 and the last one is far behind the others in term of IQ. Center was excellent but all corners was just a shit of pixels. I love to stitch panoramas, and with this lens it was just impossible, as there is a canyon gap between center and mid-corners sharpness... If this was a bad copy, it was a really really bad one... This is silly because Iiked its range, silent DC motor and WR. ---------- Post added 08-31-2018 at 08:09 AM ---------- I would like to add that I love to take landscapes panorama with primes: 70mm ltd (smc version for starburst with cityscapes) or the cheap 50mm1.8. Both are very very sharp corner to corner. I also have cheap 35mm 2.4, sharpness is very good too, but I don't like its starburst effect as it only have 6 aperture blades. Thoses 3 lenses with the 12-24 is my current setup for landscape. I miss longer focal lenght such as 50-135 or 100 macro and sometime a zoom in the 17-50 range would be convenient too. I am waiting photokina to see if revamped 16-50 and 50-135 are in the pipe, but 11-18 will be my next priority. I can see how stitching with the DA 18-135 set to a longer focal length wouldn't work. I would not have tried that so our results in that respect may not be different. I tend to use mine at shorter focal lengths for landscapes and longer ones for portraits. You may noticed that the portrait I posted was at 78mm - ironically looking at some others that seems to be a common focal length for my use of this lens for portraits. I do LOVE the DA* 50-135 and if you want to stitch and needed the extra detail doing 135mm shots with it should result in very clean edge to edge sharp cells to stitch back together.

08-31-2018, 10:19 AM	#37
sutherland Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2018 Posts: 220	I think it's important to make a distinction between 'landscape' and 'wide angle'. You don't need a 'wide angle' lens to shoot landscape, though it certainly couldn't hurt for some of those quintessential shots that capture the scene. As far as APS-C Landscape, my preferred choice is the Ricoh GR II (28mm Equivalent) as I prefer to keep a larger telephoto on my main camera and do not like to swap lenses when I am out in the field. The Ricoh GRII is probably lighter than most of the equivalent primes and easier to carry.

08-31-2018, 11:57 AM	#38
donpjt Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2014 Location: Houston, TX Photos: Gallery Posts: 190	K-3II is a great option for landscape because of the pixel shift tech which allows you to take around 46 MP super sharp photos. Pentax has good dynamic range which allows you to pull some details from the shadows. (Body cost approx 550) Other options are Nikon D500, very expensive though (1000) (you could get a D750 or a K-1 for that price) (If you are okay with manual focus Sony A7R used is selling really cheap (700), very good dynamic range and higher resolution but lenses are expensive) Sony A6000 (300 used) as apsc is also good. Sony and Pentax have similar dynamic range) If you have money for a full frame, I would say go for a used full frame, even the Nikon D600, or Sony A7r or the older A99 can all be had under 700 bucks for used. All these cameras have excellent dynamic range.

08-31-2018, 12:02 PM	#39
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 18,497	Originally posted by sutherland I think it's important to make a distinction between 'landscape' and 'wide angle'. You don't need a 'wide angle' lens to shoot landscape, though it certainly couldn't hurt for some of those quintessential shots that capture the scene. As far as APS-C Landscape, my preferred choice is the Ricoh GR II (28mm Equivalent) as I prefer to keep a larger telephoto on my main camera and do not like to swap lenses when I am out in the field. The Ricoh GRII is probably lighter than most of the equivalent primes and easier to carry. Agreed that landscape can mean more than wide angle. The original request was for landscape 16-200 full frame angle of view and at a rational cost. This is why in rethinking it I'd say the long end should be a screw drive 50-135 and the short end should be the 12-24 and the middle could be a 17-70 (several versions) or 16-85 or 16-50.

08-31-2018, 03:23 PM	#40
superdave Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 192	Originally posted by UncleVanya I can see how stitching with the DA 18-135 set to a longer focal length wouldn't work. I would not have tried that so our results in that respect may not be different. I tend to use mine at shorter focal lengths for landscapes and longer ones for portraits. You may noticed that the portrait I posted was at 78mm - ironically looking at some others that seems to be a common focal length for my use of this lens for portraits. I do LOVE the DA* 50-135 and if you want to stitch and needed the extra detail doing 135mm shots with it should result in very clean edge to edge sharp cells to stitch back together. I am sure the 50-135mm lens would suit my needs, let's way until photokina to see if there is effectivelly a revamp of that lens with a better motor

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-31-2018, 03:25 PM	#41
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 18,497	Originally posted by superdave I am sure the 50-135mm lens would suit my needs, let's way until photokina to see if there is effectivelly a revamp of that lens with a better motor Honestly the current version is so reliable in screw drive I'm not bothered but it is still a bit slow to focus. I would love a faster version but I'm not sure they can do it with the same optical quality without changes to the size/weight.