Next lens advice..

I thought that conventional wisdom had it that ultra wide lenses weren't ideal for landscapes? I love the effect they have on the clouds when using the 10-20 at 10 but it's no longer a landscape really.

Mike

I think you'll find 17-70 is a great versatile range. If cost is important, the Sigma one is also very good, has a slightly better macro function, and is cheaper. People who've used both suggest the Pentax has slightly nicer colour rendition, but the Sigma is a fine lens that will leave some change for another lens sometime....

You might be able to track down Sigma 10-20 and 17-70 secondhand for not much more than the cost of the Pentax 17-70 new......

A Sigma 10-20 went for £339 on the bay last week just to give you an idea of what they are fetching, Amin has still got some Samsung 12-24 lenses for sale around £400 which I am still considering,
Jack.

Is there such a thing as a landscape lens (leaving aside f64 lenses on view-cameras)?

I don't think landscape photography places any particular demands on a lens, unlike macro (V Sharp, flat field, close focus), portrait (50mm - 120mm, good skin rendition, wide aperture), sport (long, fast, and fast focussing), etc..

The right landscape lens is the one that gets everything you want in the frame, without making distant objects look too small. And this will vary from scene to scene, so it is useful to have a zoom.

As far as I am concerned, I have used focal lengths from around 16mm to 135mm with reasonable success. Even 400mm on occasion.

So in my view there is no ideal landscape lens.

G

I believe that landscape lenses should have little falloff in the corners, since it's the whole picture that's important and not just the centre.

I think I tend to agree with George, the ideal lens would depend on your particular style of shooting, personally I dont think I would ever use anything wider than my 16-50.

Simply shooting with a kit lens for a few months should tell you which lens you need next, ie do you often feel the need to go wider or longer.

I take your point, but I would expect any decent lens to be sharp and well-lit all the way to the edges on an APS-C camera.

G

My kit lens fits the bill for image width, it just lacks range and possibly quality.

I dont think I need anything wider than 16mm, but I find myself torn between the 17-70 f4 and the 16-50 f2.8. The 16-50 i think would be a much better lens as its weather proof and has SDM, but the 17-70 has alot of extra reach. So its whether I want lens quality or versatility.

Anyone have these lenses and care to share their experience with them?

Luke

I bought the DA*16-50 a few months ago and feel it was well worth it.

It is sharp even when at 2.8 and is obviously brighter to look through that the kit or an f4 lens. It is not particularly fast when focussing but at the focal length it covers that is not a problem. I shot a lot with it on my recent trip to Yellowstone and was very impressed. The weather sealing is another advantage and the build quality is really top-notch. Unfortunately all this is reflected in the price!

If you go for it you wont need another lens in that range.

Thanks Peter!

Im thinking the 16-50 f2.8 a couple of primes and a 50-150mm should see all my shooting needs!