14mm or 15mm

P.S. Cropping does not change perspective.

Only a change in the point of view can do that.

Yes geometrically. I was thinking in a general subjective sense. I've cropped a few fisheye shots that you wouldn't immediately think were taken with a fish eye unless EXIF was viewed.

Why would you doubt it? I've never been on a shoot where I've thought .."I won't use this technique" yet. Unless it's physically impossible, everything is fair game IMHO.

But I wouldn't separate 'travel' and for example 'macro' just as I wouldn't seperate 'travel' from fish eye work, or 'abstract' work

Not at all. I wouldn't second guess whether someone falls within a standard deviation or not and it just maybe the case that the person asking for advice might be interested in my 'quirky' contribution

It's all subjective and I can't see why someone would limit the scope of what a travel application is?

And just what is a 'travel application'? Taking macro shots is a travel application if that's what you want to do on your travels. Making arty shots of "something big in the foreground while other things are OOF in the background." is a travel application if that's what you want to do on your travels.

IMO any technique can fall under travel application.

So what's your definition of 'travel application' ??

It doesn't matter what my definition is. It only matters what the OP's definition is, and that we can find in the first post.

Sounds like they want a wide-angle for, you know, shots around Granada. I imagine this would include interiors and exteriors, mostly scenery, sometimes including people but not as the main point of interest. And not many macros.

Otherwise they wouldn't have specified 14 or 15mm, would they?

In terms of travel I've come around to using zooms, basically because time is always short and they are far more versatile. Ideal travel lenses are the 18-55mm, 16-45mm and 12-24mm. The 16-50mm is IMHO very fine but heavy and bulky compared to the 16-45mm.

With such stunning high ISO performance these days it's perfectly viable to simply up the ISO and a loss of one stop won't really be noticed. In any event, wide aperture lenses are often not used wide open so their only advantage is ease of viewing and focusing in dark conditions.

........not forgetting the DA 17-70 of course
Not much bigger or heavier than the 16-45, it fits in the same lens pouch.

John

Or the 18-135 . Now my travel lens of choice. What you little you lose in IQ you gain in convenience, and range.

Two fair additions to the list.

We're drifting away from the topic, but I'll add that the Tamron 17-50mm is a very versatile lens - it does shallow dof very well without being soft at wider apertures, and of course it's great stopped down too.

Back to the OP's topic, I'd recommend the sigma 10-20mm or the more expensive pentax 12-24mm. I believe the sigma IQ can rival the pentax if you take care to find the 'sweet spots' - for me this is 12mm at f8-f11, when the sigma's distortion is considerably reduced. You can afford to stop down becuase ultrawides are tolerant of hand holding especially with SR. Speeds of 1/4s are not unusable if you can brace the camera and breathe out slowly while taking the shot

Sigma also have several options in that range include 2 EX lenses.

I respect your wish not to answer

If you're looking at a 17-70 then I would highly recommend the Sigma 17-70. it also has very close focus ability if you want to get into some abstracts while travelling.

But I already did answer.