FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Landscape Lenses

Page  <12
Author
Roger Rex View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 30 September 2005
Country: United States
Location: North Florida
Status: Offline
Posts: 7158
Post Options Post Options   Quote Roger Rex Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 July 2019 at 14:44
The Minolta 35 might be the perfect fit. It's the classic wide lens for landscapes AND 35mm is very commonly used by serious street photographers whereas the wider lenses you mention, e.g., 20mm, might be too wide for that application. I have been using this lens recently and its sharpness is superb but note that I am not a pixel peeper.
Hatred corrodes the container it is carried in. http://rogerrex.zenfolio.com/
 



Back to Top
f10yd View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: 28 June 2019
Country: Australia
Status: Offline
Posts: 10
Post Options Post Options   Quote f10yd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 July 2019 at 21:57
Thanks again all.

Considering the following:
- I like MF so much
- I want a 'dual purpose' WA for street and landscape
- my budget

Im strongly leaning toward a Leitax converted C/Y Zeiss 28mm 2.8...This package would be around the same price as a 35 or 28 2.0 Minolta, which will both have their own optical compromises as well as not being as nice in the MF department.

As a side note, this is the type of thing I got an a99 for...full frame, EVF and great body - to handle MF lenses better than any other system....Then I got distracted by the rabbit hole of Minolta AF lenses that previously Id have no interest in at all! Now I love them. Just wish the MF ring was twice the width..
Back to Top
addy landzaat View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 22 April 2006
Country: Netherlands
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Posts: 9575
Post Options Post Options   Quote addy landzaat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 July 2019 at 22:11
If you want dual purpose, 28mm is great. Long enough for street and wide for wide landscapes.
If I look at this review by Philip Reeve, you have to take account of this before you decide the Zeiss is what you want, as the corners are weak and it does not have AF (of course ). But then, the Minolta AF 28/2 is probably comparable (maybe slightly different strengths and weaknesses) - but the first generation lenses are really nice in the MF department.
Why not follow me on Instagram? @Addy_101
Back to Top
Miranda F View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 11 January 2014
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Bristol
Status: Offline
Posts: 3332
Post Options Post Options   Quote Miranda F Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 July 2019 at 10:17
If you can tolerate weak corners, you don't have to pay for a Zeiss! There are plenty of cheap primes and zooms available, and if you like MF, there are some nice film-era prime lenses available in 28mm, including old Zeiss, Pentax and various others in M42, and the Tamron 24mm and 28mm f2.5 adaptalls.
IMHO Japan had the optical design of these pretty well sorted by 1980 and none of those made after are going to be rubbish, though later ones have better coatings and will stand looking into the sun better without flare.

I'd say, buy one or two of those and look for a wider zoom (19-35, or 17-35) without blowing your budget.

Edited by Miranda F - 03 July 2019 at 10:20
Miranda F & Sensorex, Sony A58, Nex-6, Dynax 4, 5, 60, 500si/600si/700si/800si, various Sony & Minolta lenses, several Tamrons, lots of MF primes and *far* too many old film cameras . . .
Back to Top
djfoxy View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 07 September 2015
Status: Offline
Posts: 216
Post Options Post Options   Quote djfoxy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 July 2019 at 16:39
I use the minolta 17-35/2.8-4 a lot.

I am not especially fan of its rendering on A99m2 regarding resolution and contrast but still it's the cheapest for achieving uwa.

Now 17mm is also prone to massive distortion and in this regard I'd prefer 20mm.

I have also used my 28-75 for different panoramas scenes and that works actually pretty well.

If you have the possibility to try a couple of lenses at a store with your body, that couod help you a lot actually.
Minolta: XG1/ D7D/<beercan>135 f2.8/ 35-70 f4/ 35-105/ 70-210 f4/ 100-200 f4.5</beercan>/ 500 f8/ 17-35 f2.8-4/   50 f1.7/   50 & 100 f2.8 macro
Sony: A58/ A77ii / 28-75 f2.8 SAM/ DT 35 f1.8/ 85 f2.8
Back to Top
skm.sa100 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 08 January 2009
Country: United States
Location: Charlotte, NC
Status: Offline
Posts: 3356
Post Options Post Options   Quote skm.sa100 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 July 2019 at 23:53
Originally posted by f10yd f10yd wrote:

Hi all,

For landscape I want something thats sharp all over at some aperture between f4 and f11.



I'm extremely impressed with my Tokina 28-70/2.8 at f/4 and beyond.
More Dyxumer, less photographer.
 



Back to Top
wetapunga View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 02 September 2007
Country: New Zealand
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Posts: 5142
Post Options Post Options   Quote wetapunga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 July 2019 at 05:20
I used a Minolta 20mm as my main landscape lens for a while. It's a good 20mm and easy to carry.
The Minolta 17-35 f3.5 G has become my go-to lens for landscapes since then however. I beleive it's much better than the 17-35mm f2.8-4 D.

When I go shooting landscapes I tend to carry a 50mm f2.8 macro as well (the flat plane is good for landscapes) and something that can reach 100-135mm.
I do have the old 28mm f2.0. I like its colours but the bokeh seemed a touch more ragged than I liked. The main problem is it seemed to be an awkward length. Its not quite wide enough for many scenes, but not quite long enough to isolate a particular scene.(That's why I like the 50mm as well)
a7R, a77ii, QX100 | Minolta 17-35mm G, 20mm, 35-105mm O, 50mm M, 70-210 beercan, 85mm G, 100mm M, 300mm G | Sony 16-50mm, CZ16-80mm, 70-200mm G, 135mm f2.8 STF | Tokina 11-16mm
Back to Top
waleskeg View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 09 April 2007
Country: United States
Location: Metro Phila
Status: Offline
Posts: 2856
Post Options Post Options   Quote waleskeg Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 July 2019 at 17:36
Originally posted by wetapunga wetapunga wrote:

The Minolta 17-35 f3.5 G has become my go-to lens for landscapes since then however. I believe it's much better than the 17-35mm f2.8-4 D.


Agree
Back to Top
Dyxum main page >  Forum Home > Equipment forums > Lens Talk > A-mount lenses Page  <12

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.

Monitor calibration strip

Dyxum.com - Home of the alpha system photographer

In memory of Cameron Hill - brettania

Feel free to contact us if needed.