Landscapes lens - budget recommendation - Used acceptable.

Is this the lens you're referring to?
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/like/141882605399?adgroupid=13585920426&hlpht=true&hlp...

Quite a few versions of this lens. That one's the NON-SMC version not quite as good. It's actually made in a different factory along with the Takumar version.

This the SMC version. It's on the nameplate and it doesn't have the RED wart on the side. It has a Black one.

http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/lenses/zooms/short/F28-80f3.5-4.5.html

--

I've got one of these with the black dot. ISTR it was £7 on eBay. It is not that good - contrast is rubbish, flare resistance is poor (not all the internal elements are SMC coated) and the vicious AF is likely to kill your camera AF motor or drive shaft sooner or later. The 'macro' setting only works at 80mm. It is not all that sharp either. A relic of the 70's ...

Oh well -- that's shot that one down quite comprehensively.

Most of the criticisms have been addressed by simple use of a hood. I screwed a big Tamron hood on it and this totally transformed its performance. For the record, mine is non smc and has got both a red wart AND a black one. Nearly all zooms of the period called themselves 'macro' when the best you ever got was 1:4 so that one is not a valid complaint. I can't comment on the AF and its motor wrecking propensities because I generally use Takumars and Russian M42s

Personally, I like longer lenses for landscape!
Different people tend to like different focal lengths for landscape. Something to do with the way the individual sees the world. Some like wide views, some like the compressed view the longer lens gives. Most of us will use both extremes and in between.

The 16-45 f4 would be a good choice. Good range, constant f4, close focus and a good quality lens. All in all a really good allrounder. Prices of these have tumbled recently but don't be fooled, this lens is very good

The M28mm 3.5 is wonderful. Gives you a near to 'normal' prime on APSc.

An M or A 50mm gives you a nice short telephoto for both landscape and every other use. Cheap to buy, even the larger aperture versions are not very expensive but all are very good lenses. Also gives you a low light lens for general use.

M135 3.5 is a great lens and can be picked up for around £30-35. A compact but great lens you can only love.

Sounds like you got out of bed on the wrong side this morning

The lens you had wasn't the £200 in 1990 SMC version. You described it in this review and noted it only has 8 elements (SMC = 12 elements)

http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-F-28-80mm-F3.5-4.5-Macro-Zoom...

Your shots from it however look good.....
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/kh1234567890/tags/pentaxf2880mmf3545

AF is noisy, but I prefer MF anyway. My previous favourite small zoom was the A 35-70 f/4 which is all MF as are nearly all my primes. Both of these zooms are well up to prime standards at f/8 and blow away the F 35-70mm f/3.5 - 4.5

The Macro setting is very good and has excellent bokeh. It's only down to 0.25m but that's usual for a zoom.

"A relic of the 70's .. " is just nonsense Dimitrov gives 1987-1991. The budget versions made in another factory probably continued after that.

Pentax 28-80's (all variations) seem very popular and capable on Flickr 6,438 total

http://www.flickriver.com/search/pentax+28-80mm/

This random macro looks OK with a K20D

https://www.flickr.com/photos/melanistic141/5846898954/in/photostream/

--

And it's sat unloved in the junk box ever since. £5 plus postage if anyone wants it ...

FF ready !!

Wow well this thread turned out to be much more interesting than I thought it would.

When I posted I expected to just get a couple of recommendations on old glass probably prime lenses less than 18mm, because that is what I generally think of as a 'landscape lens' simply because back in the days when I used film that was generally what I was 'taught' was correct. Over the last decade I have used bridge Camera's and have always shot at the low end of 'zoom' for landscapes.

But instead we have a really interesting debate as everyone seems to favour a different focal length for landscapes - some of them much higher than I would have expected.

The thread has made me decide to experiment with the lenses I currently have to see if my assumption about focal length is silly.

With my KS-2 I got the smc dal 18-50mm and the smc dal 50-200mm as kit lenses and my wife bought me the DA 50mm f1.8 as an "indoor portrait lens." Interestingly though someon on a pentax facebook group commented on how my 'indoor portrait lens' is their favourite landscape lens as at f8 apparently it is 'amazingly crisp'.

I've added a lot of the lenses mentioned to my ebay watch lists and may grab one if cheap enough but this thread has made me realise that really there is perhaps no such thing as a 'landscape lens' just lenses that I like for landscapes.

To my mind, any lens from a fisheye up to as long as you can get can be used for landscapes. A photograph of a range of distant hills taken at 200mm is just as much a landscape as a standard view taken with the kit lens at 18mm. So to answer the original question.; any lens you've already got will do fine!

Get the DA35 f2.4 it's tack sharp, if it's not wide enough simply take a series of shots and stitch them together.

I've put a pic of a steel cable on the gallery shot against the light with the F 28-80. As can be seen the macro function is lousy, it's anything but sharp and the contrast is out of the window -- or so it is attempted to make us believe. Personally, I'm quite pleased with the result from such a useless lens -- if he's offering it to you for £5 then what have you got to lose?

That's terrible It's looks as sharp at the corners as the centre..... Shouldn't the corners be soft and mushy Also the corners haven't gone dark as they should do.... shouldn't they? .... vignetting I think they call it

Looks like all you can use that for is taking pictures

Luckily there's a new FF camera to moan about

--