[JohnBee]

It's rather bad for a 24mm lens, I can think of several lenses in that focal range that are more consistent across the frame than that...

Such as?
I'm interested in landscape shooting, though I tend to shy away from anything wider than 35mm due to distortion and it's effects(IQ) on FF.

[Digitalis]

Such as?

Leica Summicron-R 24mm f/2 and the Summilux-R 24mm f/1.4 ASPH are both brilliant (the M versions are superb too) - if you're looking for something still in production: The Zeiss 25mm f/2. These lenses have a more harmonious resolution characteristic, rather than the high central sharpness with a distinct fall off in resolving power towards the corners....hell even the Samyang 24mm f/1.4 puts in a convincing, albeit quirky performance in this regard.

[itshimitis]

Such as?
I'm interested in landscape shooting, though I tend to shy away from anything wider than 35mm due to distortion and it's effects(IQ) on FF.

No offence intended, but you've been posting threads along this ilk for more than 2 years. If you are interested in landscape shooting when will you buy a camera and actually start shooting? I think you're going to be limited if you don't shoot wider than 35mm, and you will still come across distortion of a different variety in other focal lengths in any case. Stop looking for theoretical perfection and get out and shoot. Sometimes it is the imperfections that make a shot.

Even when these imperfections are there, with their slight loss in resolution or edge distortion, how many will you notice when the image is printed and you are standing at the correct viewing distance for the media (hint: pixel peeping is not the correct viewing distance of a picture.)?

[Digitalis]

I think you're going to be limited if you don't shoot wider than 35mm

I have shot landscapes with the Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 and none of my clients have called me out for doing so. Sticking in the middle of a zoom lenses range can often reduce the amount of distortion, and with extreme lenses like the 8-16mm that is in the 11~14mm range.


Pentax K5IIs - Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 @ 11mm f/11 1/30th ISO 80.

[JohnBee]

No offence intended, but you've been posting threads along this ilk for more than 2 years. If you are interested in landscape shooting when will you buy a camera and actually start shooting?

I'd first question how you've come to know that a) I don't own a camera or several camera's AND b) I don't use them. - which is a rather odd position to take if you think about it.

Beyond this, the remainder of your post seems bound to personal preference. And while no one person can tell another how to run their business, I'd simply state add that no one person
can tell another how to run their business. - IOW. the work standards and practices of one shooter would have no bearing on others and so it would be pointless to try to either argue
or impose such things under the context of better, best, ideal etc.

Long story short, I've been at this long enough to know what works and not in my books. Whereas your own will no doubt tell an entirely different story.

[itshimitis]

I have shot landscapes with the Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 and none of my clients have called me out for doing so. Sticking in the middle of a zoom lenses range can often reduce the amount of distortion, and with extreme lenses like the 8-16mm that is in the 11~14mm range.


Pentax K5IIs - Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 @ 11mm f/11 1/30th ISO 80.

Indeed. Nice image by the way...

---------- Post added 08-18-15 at 03:19 AM ----------

I'd first question how you've come to know that a) I don't own a camera or several camera's AND b) I don't use them. - which is a rather odd position to take if you think about it.

I'll accept it's an assumption, but that's through being nosey and looking at your posting history, and the vast majority of it are theoretical discussions, not actually discussions about real images. It's not made under the basis of you not seemingly making any of your own photographs available for viewing here as some people just don't share their work on forums (which is fine). But I don't appear to see you commenting on aesthetic qualities, only technical ones, which leads to the assumption (rightly or wrongly).

That D800E that was on sale in London(it's sold now) only had 30 actuations, so I doubt that was actually used more than once or twice by its owner, if at all.

I'll reiterate to rid any doubt that no offence was intended, merely an (inaccurate or otherwise) observation.

[JohnBee]

Indeed. Nice image by the way...[COLOR="Silver"]I'll accept it's an assumption, but that's through being nosey and looking at your posting history...

I stopped posting snaps and test shots on PF after changing mounts several years ago. Though I certainly haven't stopped shooting.

---------- Post added 08-18-15 at 07:01 AM ----------

I have shot landscapes with the Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 and none of my clients have called me out for doing so. Sticking in the middle of a zoom lenses range can often reduce the amount of distortion, and with extreme lenses like the 8-16mm that is in the 11~14mm range.

This really comes down to ones own personal standard. ie, if this shot satisfies you and more importantly, your clients... then who can honestly criticize?

---

Last edited by JohnBee; 08-18-2015 at 02:34 AM.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

If you could afford it, would you get an Otus 55 or a Sigma 35/1.4 for landscape photography?
I'm thinking a 55 may not be wide enough and may require some stitching to pull off.

What I went with for landscape at this time is the 35 1.4 art, 28 1.8 G, 50 1.8 G and the 85 1.8 G and as we speak I am looking for something in the 20mm for now the tokina 16-28 2.8 is what I use.
as for the Otus 55 I don't have an unlimited fund so I went with the 50 1.8 G for now it's not bad at not a bad price
d800 and the 50 g

for how often I use 50 mm it fills my needs
The 28 G I mainly use it for 16-9 prints is one of the strongest lenses I make use of

85 G great wide open in the corners and also one off my favorites for night landscape

85 wide open

and the 35 1.4 art
https://www.flickr.com/photos/isfphotography/19646605193/sizes/o/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/isfphotography/20363168426/sizes/l
at F2.5
https://www.flickr.com/photos/isfphotography/20335461815/sizes/l

sorry for the flickr links

I think the 35 art at its price point is a great lens, is it as good as the 55 and 85 Otus?
no but its something that I would not part with and if lost would not hesitate to replace it with on there.

Getting back to Canon here a worth while read
LensRentals.com - Canon 5DS and 5DS R Initial Resolution Tests

[osv]

As a landscape shooter, my main concerns revolve mainly around super clean files with as as much post processing latitude as possible. This usually involves
RAW files a very low noise ceiling, and very good dynamic range. Especially in the shadow areas. Since most of my landscape shots involve shadow recovery
to some degree or another as I compensate for lighting throughout the scene. Which will typically run anywhere between 1 and 3 stops in most cases.

all of the newer high-end cameras can do that, it's hardly a challenge.

do you have any personal experience with any ff 36mp or higher camera?

Whatever the case, it was at this stage that I began to see just how impressive the 5DSr RAW files actually are.

i would suggest re-evaluating whatever procedure you used to arrive at that conclusion.

"The burning question here though, for some, is how the 5DS cameras hold up to the competition. In a nutshell, these cameras can't compete with the impressive dynamic range, and therefore exposure latitude, of cameras like the Nikon D750, which is tolerant of even 4 to 6 EV pushes of base ISO shots that tend to show unacceptable levels of noise with the 5DS R. That said, the 5DS R does hold up well enough to more smaller pushes of 2 to 3 EV, although a close look at the pixel-level will show noise creeping into shadows that wouldn't be there in a camera with better sensor performance (lower read noise)."
Canon EOS 5DS / 5DS R First Impressions Review: Digital Photography Review