Landscape Newbie
In fact just to give you an idea of how much I love this lens, and what you can achieve with it:
Seriously it's a corker. There is a newer and more expensive HSM version but really, why do you need silent focusing with a wide angle lens? Grab a great value used version of this lens for around £200- £250 and be very happy!
I have the Pentax 17-70 and find that plenty wide enough for landscape. I had a 10-20 but didn't like it for landscapes so it went.
If so then standard wide range zooms include Pentax 16-45 (which you'll probably only get second hand, the Pentax 17-70, or the Tamron 17-50. All are excellent.
Going wider there is the Pentax 12-24, the Sigma 10-20 and the Sigma 8-16. I've just bought a 12-24 for its reputation, but haven't used it much yet. You've seen my photostream on flickr. Nearly all my seascapes are with the 10-20. Also used it for wildlife (squirrel shots)
Your right Gwyn I might now even like that wide until i have a go woth one. Alan? I noticed you got that new lens and look forward to seeing more - in fact I am going to go back and start looking at your old stuff!
Check out ones photographs on Flickr!
https://www.flickr.com/photos/awprentice/
I don't like an ultra wide angle for landscapes. Rather than giving you a sweeping landscape view it gives you a squashed up view. UWAs have their place yes, but for landscapes it is better to not go so wide, and if you really want a sweeping view then take two or three photos and make a panorama from them.
I have the Pentax 17-70 and find that plenty wide enough for landscape. I had a 10-20 but didn't like it for landscapes so it went.
Couldn't agree more with this. With ultra-wides you get an imposing, if sometimes exaggerated, foreground but can lose to obscurity, for example, a middle distance tree or distant mountain.
In old money, 28mm is just about right, with the occasional use of a 24mm. So I find 18mm or 16mm with a cropped sensor cover 98% of my landscape stuff which is all I do, really. Because you're rarely shooting things which move, you can set the lens at moderate aperatures where they work best, thus your kit lens, at f8, should yield very pleasing results.
For a different, squashed-up perspective, a moderate telezoom, say 70-200, can be quite fun.
But I bet there'll be lots of posts following this which say the opposite...
Andrew
"These places mean something and it's the job of a photographer to figure-out what the hell it is."
Robert Adams
"The camera doesn't make a bit of difference. All of them can record what you are seeing. But, you have to SEE."
Ernst Hass
My website: http://www.ephotozine.com/user/bwlchmawr-199050 http://s927.photobucket.com/home/ADC3440/index
https://www.flickr.com/photos/78898196@N05
But just because it can shoot at 10mm, doesn't make it compulsory
True - but if you aren't using it that wide you are better off getting different lens with better IQ. Just imho of course.
But just because it can shoot at 10mm, doesn't make it compulsory
True - but if you aren't using it that wide you are better off getting different lens with better IQ. Just imho of course.
Its there to use. Just not compulsory . I did also mention the 16-45, 17-70 and Tamron 17-50
Zooms are rarely at their best at the very short or very long ends of their range. I know this to be the case with 2 of the zooms that I own/owned, including the 17-70.
I found that I was wanting to take many shots at 17, or as wide as the 17-70 can go, and so I decided to sell the 17-70 and buy a Sigma 10-20, to use mainly in the range 14-17, I reckon. I say, I reckon, because I can't tell you yet how I got on as i don't get my hands on the lens until next week.
And yet i still would like to try, every now and again, shots like smoochy's with a big foreground and real fade. Why not?
But I also have a 28mm lens to complement it.
Check out ones photographs on Flickr!
https://www.flickr.com/photos/awprentice/
The 18-55 is also perfectly capable for landscape shots and I used this lens almost exclusively until I bought the 16-45 (which is a better lens BTW). The 18-55 suffers a little from a lack of edge sharpness, but nothing too drastic and the 18-55WR is a great lens for taking out in the drizzle, but you would need to replace the K-x if you're planning shoots in inclement weather!
Regards
David
My recommendation would be before spending any cash go out with the 18-55 and so how you get on
Simon
My Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/landscapephotographyuk
Find me on Google+ link
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
1489 posts
12 years
Ive always photography birds and general nature from day one (http://www.flickr.com/photos/awprentice/) but lately I have tried my shutter at Landscape work and am absolutely hooked!
My ailing k-x is getting it tough at the moment changing from 150 500 - to the kit 18-55 so at some stage I want to get a wider lens one more suited to this style of snapping.
Can anyone recommend me the best lens for the job from Pentax - also interested in hearing from Sigma 10-20 users because thats the one thats floating my boat right now
Ta
Check out ones photographs on Flickr!
https://www.flickr.com/photos/awprentice/