The ultimate landscape lens?

I'm after a lens to start doing Landscapes!,,,any suggestions?.............Ken

Depends what effect you want... I mean you could use a fish eye but that isn't very general. I think if looking for something new the 16-45 would be quite good but possibly not wide enough at the equivalent of 24-67.5mm. The problem is that the 12-24mm is very expensive and only adds a little to the lower end. It does let in a lot of light with the 77mm front end though.

Anything worthwhile in the vintage dept!...I have a few old manual focus pentax lenses but nothing under 50mm,,,.........Ken

Wait... Important thing I've missed, is this for an SLR or DSLR and what model?

Sorry I should have said!....I'm the proud owner of a Istds!........

SMC Pentax-DA 12-24mm Zoom is a very good landscape lens. Some prefer the Sigma 10-20mm Zoom. Both are of a rectilinear design (I think). If you are after the fisheye look (curvilinear) then the SMC Pentax-DA 10-17mm might be worth a try or the 14mm DA Prime. The ultimate, for me, is the Pentax 12-24mm.

I would say the most versatile landscape lens would be, for me at least, the 16-45mm.

Remember, landscapes are not just about sweeping views, getting the most in shot in one go. Often the most effective compositions are ones with less in, and these often need a longer focal length.

Ultra-wide angles have their place, but I wouldn't say they were the 'ultimate' lenses for landscapes.

That is, obviously, only my opinion, and it all depends on the type of image you want to achieve. I find I don't often need wider than 16mm, but I have the Sigma 10-20mm for when I do.

Dan

For me - it would be the SMC-DA 16-45 plus a set of half decent ND grads (Cokin P size will do).

I wish I could show you some of the 20"x16" I have taken on the *ist-D...

Matt

Only you yourself can truly answer your question because most landscape photographers fall into their own way of thinking about landscape and this will reflect into how they capture images and thus, what lenses they gravitate to.

Some of the factors which will affect your choices are;

What kind of terrain,..ie., vast vistas to small local scenes and situational views.

What kind of transport situation,...ie., whether working from a vehicle or steep mountain tracks / rucksack equipped etc.

What kind of timescale ie., late distant views will require large aperture,..bright scenes you can use small lenses.

What size your work will be reproduced at and in which media. ie., large prints for exhibitions require the most careful lens choices and testing,...web illustrations are not usually as demanding.

The budget of the user.....

The pictorial eye of the photographer,..ie.,do you only like large sweeping views,...must those views have foreground interest,.....do you prefer 'cut out' segments of those views or landscape features.

Purpose of the work,...ie., do you need to comprehensively cover a particular area of are you casually selecting the odd view.

A good way of thinking about some of this is to go to the nearest library and spend some time looking thru landscape books both photo and art. The landscape books of Charlie Waite are particualrly useful when considering lens choices.

In my own landscape exploits over the last 20 years 60% has been with a 50mm lens on 6x6 format,..this equates to slightly longer than half 'standard' lens focal length,......30% has been mainly 'cut outs' of landscape features etc using a moderate telephoto about two and a quarter times 'standard lens' focal length,..180mm on 6x6. Only the remaining 10% were shot with the 'standard' 80mm lens, and the occaisional long lens etc. During this time various lenses have been tried including a fish-eye and shift lens but were found to not really be my thing!

For DSLR use I am looking for a 20 or better, 24mm lens with at least f2.8 max aperture,......an 80 to 90mm lens with at least f2.8 max aperture,..and, a 28 to 35mm f2 or larger. Also 50mm f1.4 since it looks useful and is small to carry. Whether or not this can be encompassed in a zoom lens or moderate physical size and high enough optical quality, is still being determined

in broad terms when selecting photo gear, it helps to bear in mind Andreas Feininger's great advice to photographers when buying,..'always remember the "three P's",...the 'purpose', the 'pocket' and the 'personality' of the user....

Hope some of this helps...

In terms of getting wide angle shots, I appreciate the comments about the sigma 10-20 and the pentax 16-45. I find the wide end of the 18-55 wide enough most the time, but I tend to get quite a bit of CA at 18mm. I know a few mm's make more of a difference at the wide end than the long end, but would some kind soul with both the 16-45 and the 18-55 be kind enough to mount their camera on a tripod and upload a shot at 16mm and at 18mm of the same scene? I'd be interested to see the difference 2mm FL makes. I'm very tempted by the 16-45

Mr Ist...
It's not just the extra 2mm - the 16-45 is sharper and AFAICT has much less CA.
I do have both and will try and get you a sample some time soon
Matt

Thanks matt...
That would be great if you could put up a couple of shots to show the fl difference.

I didn't want to regurgitate this - I think its been in a few threads already - the quality is certainly superior to the 18-55

The 16-45 is actually quite a bit wider then the 18-55.

83° - 35° vs 76° - 29°

Secondly the 1.5x multiplier on Pentax DSLRs means 16 is 24 and 18 is 27.

Whilst I use ultra-wides for landscapes it's worth a mention that telephoto lenses are also superb landscape optics.

Telephoto lenses pull in distant mountains and so on and prevent them from becoming insignificant in the frame.

They also make compositions without any sky easier to achieve.

I'm with JR on htis one.
Whatever lens you have that suits the subject/composition/light is the ultimate if it gets you the best shot possible.