My view is:

UV filters - not really necessary

Polarisers - essential for landscape photography (I use Hoya Pro 1 D)

ND - useful, I have a B+W 10 stop for long exposures & a 4 stop for waterfalls etc

ND Grad - useful to balance sky/land, I use the Hi-tech "P" system although I'm not convinced they are great quality and will probably change them.


As a general rule I'd say avoid cheap filters, Hoya Pro filters are not too expensive but very good

Simon

Its a difficult one to call this really as there are so many options and each depends upon your own personal preference. I previously owned the Sigma 10-20 but sold it quickly as I just didn't like the distortions at the wide end (much the same as those in the photos above from the 8-16).

I now have the DA12-24 and find it pretty much perfect for my needs (size been the exception) - distortion is pretty much non-existant and it's very sharp even wide open, great for architecture or landscapes.

As I said though it's a case of personal priorities/preferences - yours may well be different from mine

Simon

I tried a T/C a while ago with the 55-300 (tamron 1.4) my recommendation would be don't bother - too slow and IQ suffers too much

Simon

Unfortunately the negativity isn't just based on price, optical results seem pretty unimpressive, at least in the corners - the suggestion is that the 18-250 outperforms it and the DA17-70 definitely does.

The initial review by Pentaxforums wasn't exactly overflowing with enthusiasm and this seems to give an indication as to why - having said that several owners on here are happy with its performance so perhaps the review is overly negative, the Photozone conclusion has definitely made my mind up about the DA17-70 though, I'm keeping it!!

Simon

Very suprised this hasn't sold Archie - I take most of my landscape shots with the 17-70, it's excellent!!

Simon

I'd go with slightly tighter crop but leaving the tree in the shot, it helps the framing for me

Simon

I'm still considering the merits of the K5 and whilst I'm well aware of the improved iso, burst speed etc non of these are really that relevant to landscape photography.

What I'm more interested in is the improved dynamic range that's been talked about but I'm intrigued as to how much benefit I'll see from this in "real world" shots, I'd be interested to hear from those who have seen benefit from thanks

thanks

Simon

Nice set of shots Mike, my favourite has to be the squirrel shot - are they all taken with the 18-135?

simon

Thanks for the feedback - No1 is definitely a bit obvious but I couldn't resist it with the colours.

2 was an attempt to show more of the setting rather than just Snowdon - I think I may have overdone the processing slightly on this one

3 was mainly because of the sky which may need a bit more work to get the best from it

4 is my favourite too although here's another I quite like

Nicely composed shot Phil, the diagonals in the hill and the tree really work for me

Simon