Lens - decisions decisions (wrong ones)

Stitching is good, but it can fail to work where you have foreground detail very close to the camera (unless you do a vertical pano), and it's very much as case of planning a shot and then cropping your composition afterwards... it's not very immediate.

This was composed from vertical 24mm shots, using ICE:




But sometimes a shot would be hard to achieve in this way, and the perspective distortion of a UWA works in the images' favour. For example when you are taking a picture of an interior, or within a confined space and want to include it all in shot.

I wonder which lens you mean? Surely not the 17-50, which is so sharp it's almost unbelievable?

That's a really nice shot PoP .... except I think the water is all going to drain down the plug-hole on the left

I think it's the shape of the lake - the boathouse is perpendicular, I just checked

(By the way the pixel dimensions are 12000 x 4800 The reason it's taller than a standard 14mp pic is that ICE warped the shots to fit them together).

I've got AutoPanoPro for stitching .... awesome piece of software !

This is the right answer. Landscapes do not call for wide angle lenses. For they turn mountains into molehills through geometric distortion.

Thanks Will (and others) I will check out the software mentioned especially the free stuff.

The image you have posted shows what is possible, Thanks very much.

DA12-24 looks worth checking out. I've a Tamron 17-70 f/2.8 - great lens, but not for landscape - ultra soft and muddy. Don't need extra wide and think the sigma 8-16 would cause distortion but Martyn's pics are really great - like the shapes and the detail picked up, so will check that out too. I'll definitly try the stiching tools you suggest Glyn with my Pentax 55-300.

Just spotted this. Yes, it's the Tamron 17-50 - it's the 'f2.8'. I've taken good portraits with it but can't use for landscapes - got any pictures with that one?

The Cwmorthin shot in my portfolio was shot on the 17-50. I do find it very sharp

The front 17-50mm fixture can come "undone" and the focus becomes a bit variable. There is an easy fix for this but just check all is solid at the front end. It is a sharp lens but suffers slight distortion at 17mm.

More wide you go - more corrections the optic designers have to make in the lensmaking process - therefore you'll never see the UWA performing like more conventional lenses like 24, 28 or 35mm in terms of IQ. My widest is Pentax 20mm which is very good, but if I need ultimate IQ i go for 31mm.
Tamron SP 17mm is performing very weak on digital, i had it and sold it very quickly....even da16-45 at 16mm was better.

Wise words Martin I'm beginning to get the picture!

I'll check the front of the lens to see if anything is undone'ish.

Lots of things to think about. I'll do some experimenting over the weekend and see what I come up with.

Thanks to all from PammiH.

Wow - so many to choose from. I'll enjoy browsing the software.

Love the cats - White Cat, Anti Cat is a blast!

Another vote for the Tamron 17-50 being incredibly sharp, at all focal lengths. This has been noted in reviews as well. With my one maximum sharpness is at f5.6, but even f2.8 is decently sharp. Some people say it is sharper overall than the vastly more expensive Pentax 16-50.

I also had the wobbly front element/filter ring on mine, it's a common problem but only a 5 minute fix, just gently prise off the beauty ring and tighten the 3 screws beneath it.