Landscape Lens recommendations?

Are there any recommendations for options to invest that would improve on these? I have the 18-135 and the 10-17.

Thinking 16-45 or 16-50 but don't have any experience of these.

Any suggestions welcome

Cheers

Pete

The 16-45 has always been well thought of but I would have thought the 10-17 pretty ideal. Some great landscapes are done with long lenses, 300mm?

The 12-24 is my first choice

It depends on your own style and the result required. Lenses from fisheye to ultra-telephoto can be used as landscape lenses.

The two lenses you list are fine in their own right, but if you want an extra lens I would stick with those two and add something longer. The 55-300mm is one option, or a prime if preferred.

Sigma 10-20mm is a superb lens and not too expensive either and for landscapes it is just perfect.

I prefer my DA 17-70mm for landscapes, I find the ultrawide lenses too wide and only tend to use mine (Sigma 12-24mm) when I need to get up close or squeeze something into the frame.

Saying that I don't do many landscapes

+1

There are so many different approaches you can us for landscapes it is difficult to recommend a single lens. For example, I love my old Pentax-M 28mm F3.5, it's very sharp but not a flexible as a zoom. I also liked the Pentax 16-45 when I owned one. The DA17-70 was very good too, but tended to vignette with my filter holder a little.

For all round landscape use the best lens I have owned (and still own) is the 12-24. Nothing else comes close if you want to use a zoom IMO.

Regards
David

Been mulling this one over myself. I trired the siggy 10-20 in a shop and its a nice lens but, im aftet a lighter set of kit. So think I might see if I can find a da 15mm at a sensible price in the new year.

You've got everything you need, I reckon, I rarely hanker after anything wider than 18mm. Your standard zoom is roundly criticised by reviewers but forum members love them. Stopped down to about f8, you'll get all the sharpness and depth of field you'll need.

I suppose a wider zoom might be nice if you're looking for extra foreground drama but I don't care for the distortion and miniaturisation of more distant features. Some like the weird compressed perspective of tele-zooms but my two gather dust. I've happily taken a 28mm out for the day but anything longer doesn't work for me.

I'd use your hard earned lucre to travel to some interesting places hope for decent light and see what you can find.

Me too. Or the 18-135.
Very rarely have I felt the need for anything wider, but if I do I stitch photos. I also use the 50-135mm, the 60-250 or the Bigma too, depending on what is in my bag, and what I want to photograph.
I do a lot of landscapes.

Either a Vivitar 28mm f2.8 or Pentax 28mm f3.5 are my first choices followed by my Sigma 10-20 or 18-55 kit lens

The 18-135 is a very useful excellent lens but I find I prefer my 16-45 for landscapes (for wide angle landscapes that is) as I find the extra couple of mm on the wide end makes quite a difference.
I did have a Sigma 10-20 for a while but found the IQ poor - maybe it was just my copy.

I was exceedingly happy with a Pentax SMC A 2.8 28mm and then I discovered the older, M42 Takumar version. They have the added advantage of being inexpensive and the disadvantage (?) of manual operation. I can't afford anything with a smaller number than 28!

90% of my landscapes are taken with the Sigma 10-20 or the Pentax 15 Ltd

I also have the Pentax 17-70 but rarely use this one for landscape.

If I had to lose every lens I own and only keep one - it would be the Sigma 10-20, it is a joy to use.

Carl