A landscape prime

Its bonus time at work this payday so I have some funds.

I am thinking of getting myself a ltd. for landscapes.

I am thinking of either the 15mm or the 21mm.

Theres only one way to decide...

FIGHT!!!!

The answer's obvious, you need them both.

I have no experience of either lens but in terms of useful focal length I'd be tempted to go for the greater versatility of the 21mm.

Both nice lenses, and useful focal lengths in different ways. However there is nothing else like the 15mm in manual lens world, whereas many 20mm and 24mm options exist. So I went for the 15mm. You don't gain much compared to a zoom like the 16-45mm in IQ terms, with either lens. You have to really value the small size and beautiful build quality.

Whilst I don't own either lens I can give you my opinion of how I find the focal lengths. I think it depends how much of the landscape you want to capture. At 15mm you can end up losing your 'view' as it tends to minimise everything. With my Sigma 10-20 I started using it at the long end quite a lot, hence a swap to the 12-24.

I figured that I could use it for landscapes and keep things simple by having a lens correction profile at the one focal length.

I am a little confused about the prime/zoom IQ debate. It seems general consensus that primes will out perfom a zoom on IQ but on PU this seems a hotly debated topic.

I generally use the 18-55 kit lens at the moment and sometimes the 17-70 f4.

I also have the Sigma 10-20 which I tend not to use for landscapes as I find it a bit too wide. I could sell it if I went for the 15mm.

I think the small size, which is the main USP of these lenses, has required a few slight compromises. However they both are very good and offer some advantages over a zoom lens which are harder to quantify on a MTF chart. The contrast and flare resistance is very good. You can shoot pretty much directly at the sun with the DA15mm, and won't really get any flare.

If you're talking about IQ in the sense of image sharpness then the DA12-24 matches/outperforms both of these primes by most accounts - when shooting landscapes you're more often than not going to be using a small aperture (F11 etc) so sharpness differences between zooms and primes become less noticeable too.

Having said the above I don't think IQ is just about image sharpness it's also about colour/contrast rendition and this is where primes usually better zooms - the DA21mm in particular seems to get very good comments in this respect.

Simon

At one time there was no doubt that a decent prime would outperform the best zooms in every way.

Since the advent of computerised lens design and robot production, there are few primes that are clearly better than the best zooms, and many modern zooms are better than many respected older primes.

So it comes down to other things, namely size, weight, and speed.

The only primes I use now are the three FA Ltds, the 50 1:1.2, the 300 1:4.5 and 400 1:5.6. The zooms are the 12-24, 17-70, and F 70-210.

I have loads of other lenses, but they seldom get used, which is crazy.

G

I have the 12-24, I find it a very useful range and it's a very good lens. Other ranges I might consider swapping a zoom for primes but here I just wouldn't.

I don't own either. However from a focal length perspective the 15mm is too wide for my liking and the 21mm might be a little too long.

If I was given the choice, I would opt for the 21mm.

Good luck in the decision.

On a site note: Why is there no modern AF APSc equivalent of the good old 28mm.

I don't really agree with that. The 15 Ltd IQ is simply superb, incredibly sharp (1:1 looks better than some lenses before cropping !) and incredible colour depth, just beautiful. I only use my Sigma 10-20 for work now.

I have just bought a pure landscape lens ..... a MF Contax Zeiss 28/2.8. It focuses to infinity from 3 metes/yds onwards, so basically everything is in focus all the time. You don't need AF and you want as little distortion as possible (the 10-20 / 15 Ltd and 21 Ltd all have more or less distortion at the edges - though I found the 15 Ltd considerably better in this regard than the 10-20 - and I haven't used the 21 Ltd so can't comment).

If your scene is wider than the lens then it's time to blend 2 or more shots into a panorama - lots of great software out there for that.

On MTF only, the 12-24 beats the 15mm. This is well documented. But as I said above, the 15 does have special qualities that don't necessarily show up on MTF charts. Flare resistance and contrast, and I forgot to mention colour. It is a lovely lens and I wouldn't be without mine now. But I've always enjoyed using primes. And the 15mm was always luring me since I first read about it, I was fortunate recently to get an unexpected insurance payout which allowed me to buy this little gem.

It's been replaced by several zooms that go to 18mm.

Mind you, I always thought that 28mm was not quite wide enough, and would have bought a 24mm had I been able to afford it. 15mm is almost equivalent to a 24mm on 135.

G

Hence the danger of relying on tests, which can't measure the more subtle aspects of a lens.

G

If intended for landscape photos maybe you should look also for some good manual focus primes, like A20/2.8 or K20/4.....the latter is quite decent performer....better than K18 or DA 16-45 which I had. One downside si that it features 5 leaf apertures...so when shooting against the sun, you might get some pentagonal flare...