Next lens advice..

Im looking to invest in a decent landscape lens for my K20D.

I have been looking at a few...

Pentax 14mm SMC DA f2.8 ED (IF)
Sigma 10-20 mm F3.5 EX DC HSM

Now the zoom feature on the Sigma will give me more versatility, but I am thinking that the sharpness of the prime lens will give me much better shots?

I was thinking about the..

Pentax 17-70mm f4 AL IF SDM

As although thats not as wide as the 14mm prime, it would give me a great "all round lens" and I think represent better value for money.

Thoughts/suggestions welcome

All three have great reputations and it really depends on what you want it for as they are all very different.

10-20mm. 10mm is really WIIIIIDDDEEEEE although 20mm is more like a "normal" wide-angle lens.

14mm is still pretty wide but as a prime is pretty small and discreet.

The 17-70 is not all that wide or long but makes a very good replacement for the kit lens. Much bigger than a prime though.

None will give you "much better shots", only you can do that.

Cheers, Kris.

It might be helpful to know which lenses you already own as you want to avoid too many overlaps if possible. All three of the lenses you have mentioned have their fans on here (along with the excellent Pentax DA12-24 f/4) so I'm sure many will be happy to give you their own personal opinions on which is best for you.

So true!

Lovely lens although I find it better for interiors (spirit level a must!) and great on site (no need to climb right to the top of a ladder...) rather than landscapes. Landscapes tend to turn into all foreground and sky if you are not very careful (although Matt has some good tips about getting very low or high with this lens). I find myself taking more landscape shots with the 50-135mm than the 12-24mm.

K.

By better shots I mean that a prime will be much better glass than a zoom and produce sharper images (supposedly).

Will the 17-70 be a much better lens that my kit lens? Is it worth replacing the lens seeing as they cover the same focal lengths, wouldn't I be better with a 50-150?

The 12-24 would be perfect, but its mega £££. I do like the Samsung 12-24, but finding them second hand is almost impossible!

Other than my kit lens I have older lenses from a film SLR

Vivitar series 1 70-210 macro zoom.
Pentax 50mm 1.8
Pentax 28mm

Possibly, even probably, but you need to weigh versatility against that extra sharpness. Modern zooms are generally very sharp.

The kit lens is very variable. Some people have great ones and are quite happy (including me) some have less good ones and prefer the better zoom.

The 50-135mm is a stunning lens but also megabucks.

Amin and I both had some for sale but mine has gone, and I think all Amin's have too although send him a message in case.

Some of the older lenses are rather good. Because of the crop factor on an APS-C sensor you get a narrower field-of-view than on a 35mm SLR but you are often using the "sweet spot" at the centre of the image circle. Try them out, you might be pleasantly surprised.

K.

I agree with this. My 12-24 is fantastic for interiors, architecture and (at the 24mm end) street shooting. For landscape work I prefer something longer to give a more natural perspective - I tended to use the FA43 for most (nearly all) my landscape shots but recently I've been using the DA35 with great success. I'd suggest your 28mm + 50mm lenses would probably fit the bill better than either the DA14 or Sigma 10-20.

For a "budget" high quality lens think about the DA 16-45, it's a great lens and although I recently upgraded to the DA 17-70, it's only "slightly" better.

For wide FOV landscape shots I prefer to use a longer lens and use a stitching program to make a panoramic as the front to back perspective is more realistic, with a very wide angle lens the distance from near to far is more exaggerated.

Here is an example, the first was taken with the Sigma 10-20 and cropped top and bottom to match the stitched shot taken with the DA 16-45 at 24mm and with three frames. You will notice that the hills in the background seem much further away and the far shore line appears to recede more in the 10mm shot. Both shots were taken on a tripod from the same position within a minute or so from each other.

10mm shot




Stitched shot

The DA 16-45 is also very good lens and 16mm is wide enough for most and it's a good replacement of the kitlens.
or what about the Tamron 10-24?

He said 50-150 not 50-135 Kris, so he probable means the sigma or make a mistake.
I don't believe we have someone owning the sigma here on this forum, most of them went for the Pentax DA*50-135 since it was a better offer when the price was low.
If you want the Pentax I can advice you to search outside the UK, this a good start link I know one member here who has done successful business with them.
€ 799,00 = £739,- then you also get P&P but that's ~£10 so all in all you save more then £100

As for the DA 12-24 is £665 excl. P&P more to your liking?

I like the 12-24 for landscapes (as well as interiors, street, night shots and just about anything else even including the odd - in both senses! - portrait). Yes, at the wide end you have to be careful about what you're putting in the foreground and what the it's doing to distance-perspective (as Richard has pointed out) - but I don't find this particularly problematic. I'd suggest that if you've found yourself shooting a lot with the kit lens at 24 and under, then you'd like the 12-24. I haven't owned a Sigma 10-20, but find it hard to believe that it can match the performance of this lens (though many swear by the Sigma).

The other thing to bear in mind comparing these is that, while you get 2 extra mm with the Sigma, 12-24 is actually a lot more versatile a range. This wasn't a criteria for me when I bought the DA. In fact the extra 2mm on the Sigma almost swayed me. However, now I'm very happy indeed I've got the extra 4mm long.

As others have mentioned, the 16-45 would be an excellent budget option. And from your comments I think you'd like the 1mm extra it offers over the 17-70. It also performs better than the latter as far as barrel distortion goes (my one disappointment over the 17-70). However, for pure versatility the 17-70 is the one to go for.

Though at current prices I'd seriously consider the Sigma 17-70 and the Tamron 17-50. The latter appears to be a very nice lens indeed - though the range isn't quite as good. While the Sigma is a lot cheaper, and still a good performer (though variable at longer focal lengths, from what I could gather).

The 18-55 I have is great simply because of its versatility.

Thats why I think I may be leaning towards the 16-45 or the 17-70. The 17-70 sacrifices 1mm but gains quite a bit more reach.

Thinking about it I may get the 17-70 for now, then invest in a 10-20 at a later stage. My 70-210 vivitar suits my zoom needs for the time being and is razor sharp!

Or you hope Pentax will nick the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 lens and rebadge it. We are yelling that for years now but they aren't listening!

There is also the new DA15mm if you want the lightweight option, I have just purchased one, but yet to really put it to use, a much smaller and lighter option than the 14mm.

If I was going for a wide prime for landscapes, I would go as wide as possible. Ill look into the 15mm though as I know the 14mm lens is massive!