TP: What's the optimal wide angle for landscapes?

those 14mm's are rectlinear, and expensive.
i think sigma once made a 14/3.5 that is cheap..

infrastellar: i thought the wider is the better in landscape photography.. and you are doing it great! now it seems that i was wrong with that prejudgement.

why do you think 20mm is better for landscapes?
and something more 'urgent' than the question above: here

Well, I don't know what is truely wide enough or not. However, I do have the Sigma 10-20mm wide angle zoom for my Maxxum 5D. I couldn't see myself without it. It's not too steep in price either($450-489). It is rectilinear and its barrel distortion is well controlled. In fact between 10-12mm distortion is at it's worst depending on the type of shot you're making, but nothing you can't fix rather easily with photoshop. From 12-20mm distortion of any kind isn't relevent. Again, depending on the type of shot you are taking. If it's landscape, not a problem. If it's architectural (buildings in its entirety), you'll always have something to fix regardless of what lens you use unless it is a landscape of buildings you are taking a picture of. In doors with close quarters, you'll not be able to fix everything, just mildly adjust angles of the room with photoshop.

You can't go wrong by having this lens. Though, I have the 18-70mm KM kit lens I barely ever use it. It isn't always wide enough for me nor does it always have enough reach. So, I use the Sigma 10-20mm when I need it and the Sigma 24-135mm as my walk around lens. These two lenses give me most of what I need. On the rarity that I need more reach (mainly with wildlife) I have my Sigma 135-400mm or my 70-200mm "Beer can." But, I tend to use the Sigma by far more because it has significantly less chromatic aberrations then the "Beer Can" and is practically as sharp through most of its range.

I hope some of what I've written helps you out.


Regards,
Niko

Some of my best lanscape shots is made with takumar 50mm...
So it´s up to you what is wide enough!

Edited by Maffe - 12 May 2007 at 19:48

Defenetly the 10-28 range.
Sigma 10-20 is very nice <nd I have seen great panos with that lens.
A 20mm prime is also great, so I think is up to you, I even did a big pano with a beercan, so it all depends.

Really nice shots JR! Excellent examples. They really show off what these lenses can do for an APS-C sized sensor DSLR.


Niko

Well, in the end, what you need for a landscape varies.

The widest I have is 17mm, and it's not wide enough a lot of the time. I'm really wanting to see what the Sony wide zoom will be, and those zeiss primes. The wide end is the next place I need to fix with my stuff.

The Tamron 2.8/14 is an interesting lens. Not sure I want to give up front filter threads though. I think I'd be ok with a 4/14 to get them back.

I'm not very interested in the 11-18. If they came out with a good 4/12-24 like nikon has, that could be interesting. But I want to see something that works well with both FF and APS. So have to look at a lens that works on both, and fits well with a stuff up to 70mm. So that means either a super wide that goes to 24mm, or something like a 17-40 that can then be teamed up with something like a 1.2/55.   

Sony could really use a good rectilinear 14 and 18mm lens.

I have to think they have been thinking this through. they got a 2.8/24-70 coming. So it would make sense to build something that fits with that. And seeing they have APS and a FF body coming, they would be wise to be smart.