Landscape lens help

I would stick to the 10-20mm sigma. I hardly take mine off my camera when doing landscapes. But then a prime lens is sharper because of the glass. All depends on what lens you want. a zoom or a prime!? I would like a 18mm prime lens but nikon dont do a 18mm prime.
 
Between 10-20mm there isnt much difference that moving my tripod closer/further back woldnt really make.

Im just thinking that with the 14mm prime the images would be super sharp, but as a sacrifice I would be moving my gear around more.

For sharper images, thats not really a bother.

Plus its not an OEM prime, its a pentax prime!
 
People do seem to be stuck on getting as wide as possible for landscapes. I find that often with a really wide lens you just end up with lots of tiny things in the distance and unless you have really good fg interest the picture doesn't often work.
I generally use a 24-60mm for landscapes and occasionally an 18-70mm and dont find I need any wider, in fact I sometimes use 70-300mm as well.
I agree that the prime should be sharper and you can always stitch images to get a wider view.
Just my 2p.

Andy
 
I agree with Andy! I have the 10-20 sigma and am looking at offloading it. Its a nice lens, but i think you would be better off getting a prime and standing a little further back simply to get sharper images.

I'm not knocking the sigma, but i think the (lack) of sharpness in it will frustrate.
 
daniel2040 said:
I agree with Andy! I have the 10-20 sigma and am looking at offloading it. Its a nice lens, but i think you would be better off getting a prime and standing a little further back simply to get sharper images.

I'm not knocking the sigma, but i think the (lack) of sharpness in it will frustrate.
Click to expand...

I disagree with the comment about it being LACK of sharpness. Mines fine and i get good pin sharp images, Maybe you dont know how to use it correct :shrug:? But I do agree a prime is sharper but moving back and fourth is not an option some times. Good luck in your choice. (y)
 
Another lens worth looking at is the Tokina 11-16 2.8 ;)
 
I used to own the Sigma 10-20 and once I found a decent copy it produced excellent quality images, certainly no sharpness issues...

I too agre with Andy though about using it for landscapes, infact I actually sold mine recently as I just didn't find it particularly useful my my own landscape "style"....many of the very wide shots required very strong foreground to give the shot some interest, unfortunately so much so that it often meant the foreground became the main focus and the distant scenery got a little lost.

It's certainly a good lens, it needs to be used carefully though - also make sure you check your copy as it does seem prone to a little sample variation

Simon
 
simonkit said:
I used to own the Sigma 10-20 and once I found a decent copy it produced excellent quality images, certainly no sharpness issues...
Click to expand...

off topic, how can I be sure my 17-70 is a good copy?
I did the 3batteries test, it looked ok to me, but my photos do not look very sharp. is it normal or is just me?
 
The sigma 17-70 looks good, although I think the Pentax 17-70 would be a better choice.

I have been reading reviews on the 14mm prime and everyone gives it 9/10 or even 10/1, but people are saying that reflections in water arent great, now shooting landscapes (lakes) wouldnt be a good idea then!

Im going to read up on the lens more and see what i can get from other users of it :)
 
Luke_ said:
The sigma 17-70 looks good, although I think the Pentax 17-70 would be a better choice.

I have been reading reviews on the 14mm prime and everyone gives it 9/10 or even 10/1, but people are saying that reflections in water arent great, now shooting landscapes (lakes) wouldnt be a good idea then!

Im going to read up on the lens more and see what i can get from other users of it :)
Click to expand...

I now use the Pentax 17-70 almost exclusively - if I need wider I stitch 2/3 shots.

I've owned both Sigma & Pentax 17-70s and both are very good lenses - I do prefer the Pentax for what I consider to be nicer colour/contrast than the Sigma, not convinced it's any sharper and distortion is pretty much equal between the 2, the Pentax might actually have slightly more at 17mm

It's not exactly scientific but I initially do the "brick wall" test on new lenses - having set the camera up on a tripod, I then view them 100% on the PC - it's usually very obvious if you have any centering defects etc, certainly was with my 2 10-20 copies

Simon
 
Thanks simon!

I suppose the investment in the 17-70 would pretty much cover all areas that I shoot.

Have used it for macro or Bokeh?
 
max11 said:
off topic, how can I be sure my 17-70 is a good copy?
I did the 3batteries test, it looked ok to me, but my photos do not look very sharp. is it normal or is just me?
Click to expand...
but how can I check it is working propeorly,as sigma is famous to produce some bad copy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top