UWA choices

I had originally planned to save money for a DA*16-50mm f2.8, then by chance I got the possibility of purchasing three FA* lenses for a good price, including the FA*28-70mm f2.8. Right now I am thinking that maybe this lens can become my new "standard zoom"?

I do almost 100% of my photography outdoors in nature. I like the combination of going for walks and exploring nature, and practicing photography. For landscapes I prefer using either a K28mm f3.5 or a Sigma 24mm Super Wide. For birding and other far away objects I use the Tokina AT-X 80-400mm. I also bring along the DA 18-55WR if the weather is bad. What do you think about the following lens combination?

Wide: 24mm prime (and/or DA18-55WR)

Normal: 28-70mm zoom

Tele: 80-400mm zoom


What will I loose by not having a DA 15mm or a DA 12-24 for my intended use?


Regards
Bjørn

For landscapes you won't lose much (anything) as a 24/28 is a better landscape lens anyway. However the 15 is a simply wonderful lens that goes everywhere with me. It really is terrific.

That aside you have a nice line-up that would seem to cover all your immediate needs, and have two choices in how to advance, either buy better zooms than you have now or start buying primes !

You lose the ability to capture large sweeping landscapes with big skies, or capture shots in confined spaces. You can stitch shots from a longer lens, but it doesn't work so well in tight spots.

I was toying with the idea of the 15mm but then I wondered why not spend the money on the 16-50 as the difference is negligible and you get a much more flexible. And when I am after wide the 15mm is not as wide as I would like it to be anyway so I have settled for the 10-20 Sigma which is a good though not outstanding lens. Having said that 28 is quite long on a cropped body I think.

Of course the UWA lenses are a bit of an acquired taste I like them but I am not good enough a photographer to produce very good shots with them...

I don't think you will lose anything. My widest lens is the 17-70 and I am happy with that for landscapes.
A 15 ltd would be very nice to have but I'm not sure it adds much really.
A UWA such as the 10-20 is tricky to use and personally I don't like landscapes taken with such a wide angle - they look wrong, too cramped, instead of the wide sweeping effect you want.

Forgive me, but they certainly do not look cramped when done well. The key with the 10-20 is knowing how and when to use it properly. Too many newbs simply point it at a landscape and expect good things. You need a good sky or a 'hemmed in' view point, in a narrow street or ravine etc. Check out the 10-20 club on the other forum. The point re the 15mm is a good one though, its qualities are subtle, as it's quite a conservative focal length. I have one and love it though, I think its all the ELD glass that gives it it's wow factor.

I have seen plenty of 10mm landscapes, and mostly I think they would be better as two photos stitched, whether done by an expert or a beginner. The proportions of the standard photo do not lend themselves to such wide angle landscapes imho. Interiors and cityscapes are another matter.

+1

Do you think that it's because we are getting very used to the 16:9 proportions of out TV screens? I must admit that 4:3 can now look quite constrained by comparison.

Thank you all for your advice! I have no experience with UWA on crop sensor other than the wide end of the kit lens, so it is very interesting to read your comments and views on UWA lenses!

I believe there is much truth in your assumption about 16:9 vs 4:3.

Bjørn

Not just 16:9 and this was realised long before widescreen tv with the advent of cinemascope (generally regarded as 2.35:1). The Searchers wouldn't have been the same in anything less.