Lens' for landscape
6,213 posts
Link
Posted 24/07/2007 - 15:10
Have fun!
If I were you, I'd get that 10-20, and pack it with the 18-55, and the 70-300!
alot of people immediately think wide angle when they think landscape...
DON'T rule out telephoto! How else can you get a zig-zag line of the great wall compressed against big mountians? HUGE sun setting over the roofline of an ancient temple?
Fired many shots. Didn't kill anything.
If I were you, I'd get that 10-20, and pack it with the 18-55, and the 70-300!
alot of people immediately think wide angle when they think landscape...
DON'T rule out telephoto! How else can you get a zig-zag line of the great wall compressed against big mountians? HUGE sun setting over the roofline of an ancient temple?
Fired many shots. Didn't kill anything.
Link
Posted 24/07/2007 - 15:31
In terms of angle of view the 28-90 becomes a 42-135 mm lens; whereas the kit lens 18-55 is 27.5 - 82.5 mm (approx.)...
I think the 18-55 and 70-300 will be adequate, the kit lens is very compact and good in spite of its' low price...., I doubt whether the expenditure on the 10-20 will be worth it as it will only be used so often.... and the 70-300 is very good for detail shots (which will probably tell you more about where you are than a wide-angle...
Have a good trip
I think the 18-55 and 70-300 will be adequate, the kit lens is very compact and good in spite of its' low price...., I doubt whether the expenditure on the 10-20 will be worth it as it will only be used so often.... and the 70-300 is very good for detail shots (which will probably tell you more about where you are than a wide-angle...
Have a good trip
Link
Posted 24/07/2007 - 16:10
I agree with that - the 18-55 and 70-300 will cover almost every eventuality whilst allowing you to travel fairly light.
I would only go for a wider lens if you are seriously into ultra-wide photography, in which case you will know that already.
I would be quite happy with the two lenses mentioned.
Best regards, John
I would only go for a wider lens if you are seriously into ultra-wide photography, in which case you will know that already.
I would be quite happy with the two lenses mentioned.
Best regards, John
Link
Posted 25/07/2007 - 09:22
I use the 10-20 mm Pentax quite a lot - It's very good if you're taking pictures of buildings and there are lots of obstructions or people milling about. You can still get the shot you need by standing much closer than they are.
Watch out though there is a fair amount of CA at 10-12mm
This shot (not the best in the world) was taken at 13mm with a taxi and about 50 people behind me. I would never have got it without the 10-20mm.
Shot is as taken
Old wood best to burn, old wine to drink, old friends to trust, and old authors to read.
Watch out though there is a fair amount of CA at 10-12mm
This shot (not the best in the world) was taken at 13mm with a taxi and about 50 people behind me. I would never have got it without the 10-20mm.
Shot is as taken
Old wood best to burn, old wine to drink, old friends to trust, and old authors to read.
Link
Posted 25/07/2007 - 11:14
Rodger, do you mean 10-20 Pentax or Sigma? Wasn't aware of a 10-20 Pentax.
My Sigma shows very, very little CA at any focal length.
Dan
K-3, a macro lens and a DA*300mm...
My Sigma shows very, very little CA at any focal length.
Dan
K-3, a macro lens and a DA*300mm...
Link
Posted 25/07/2007 - 12:43
Daniel Bridge wrote:
Rodger, do you mean 10-20 Pentax or Sigma? Wasn't aware of a 10-20 Pentax.
Dan
Rodger, do you mean 10-20 Pentax or Sigma? Wasn't aware of a 10-20 Pentax.
Dan
its the Pentax DA 10-17ED IF Fish Eye - Sorry for the typo Old wood best to burn, old wine to drink, old friends to trust, and old authors to read.
Link
Posted 01/08/2007 - 13:43
Pwynnej wrote:
In terms of angle of view the 28-90 becomes a 42-135 mm lens; whereas the kit lens 18-55 is 27.5 - 82.5 mm (approx.)...
I think the 18-55 and 70-300 will be adequate, the kit lens is very compact and good in spite of its' low price...., I doubt whether the expenditure on the 10-20 will be worth it as it will only be used so often....
In terms of angle of view the 28-90 becomes a 42-135 mm lens; whereas the kit lens 18-55 is 27.5 - 82.5 mm (approx.)...
I think the 18-55 and 70-300 will be adequate, the kit lens is very compact and good in spite of its' low price...., I doubt whether the expenditure on the 10-20 will be worth it as it will only be used so often....
I've used my 10-20 more than any other lens since I went digital. The 18-55 doesn't really go wide enough for my purposes however the 16-45 I find a more useful range and it gets a fair bit of use. I've also got a 10-17 and while it doesn't get used much it's not usual for the best shot on any given day to be taken with it.
Regards
Steve
Link
Posted 01/08/2007 - 13:45
Daniel Bridge wrote:
Rodger, do you mean 10-20 Pentax or Sigma? Wasn't aware of a 10-20 Pentax.
My Sigma shows very, very little CA at any focal length.
Dan
Rodger, do you mean 10-20 Pentax or Sigma? Wasn't aware of a 10-20 Pentax.
My Sigma shows very, very little CA at any focal length.
Dan
Never noticed any significant CA with my Sigma 10-20 although I have done with my Pentax 10-17 although it's still not a massive problem. The 10-17 makes up for it by being amazingly sharp as well as offering a unique perspective.
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.
Young ONe
Member
Adelaide, AUSTRALIA
Couple of things,
1.
I will be going to China for 5 weeks later this year, and plan on taking just the 28-90mm, and just want to know if this will be suitable.
2.
Regarding landscape, this is what I am mainly interested in, so in the future would be looking for an appropriate lens. From what I have read and researched the 10-20mm is very popular, however comes with a hefty price tag. Just after some thoughts and recomendations (would probably stay with pentax & sigma).
http://jarad.fotopic.net
-------------------------------------------------------
Pentax MZ-60, Pentax K100D Super