The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Building a K5 landscape kit

Sapphie

Member
Ok, I don't go in for any of this creepy 'street' stuff, I don't tend to do 'people'. I think the K5 is the ultimate camera (so far) for DR and general IQ, so is ideally suited or landscape photos.

Question: which lenses? Let's limit ourselves to 3. Zooms are allowed.

I already own the 18-135 and 43mm ltd (which is fantastic). So I guess I am allowed one more ... hmm let's think ... 15mm? 21mm? 12-24mm? 35mm macro? 70mm? 300mm?

I guess the answer is 'it depends on whether you prefer wide views or close up views'.

Lordy dordy ...

Lee
 

shadzee

New member
I would suggest the older FA 20-35mm F/4
It's one of those lenses I regret selling. It's very small, and has IMO the perfect range.

Other lenses I LOVE:
- FA 43
- FA 77
- DA 15/4
- F* 300/4.5
 

Knorp

Well-known member
Ok, I don't go in for any of this creepy 'street' stuff, I don't tend to do 'people'. I think the K5 is the ultimate camera (so far) for DR and general IQ, so is ideally suited or landscape photos.

Question: which lenses? Let's limit ourselves to 3. Zooms are allowed.

I already own the 18-135 and 43mm ltd (which is fantastic). So I guess I am allowed one more ... hmm let's think ... 15mm? 21mm? 12-24mm? 35mm macro? 70mm? 300mm?

I guess the answer is 'it depends on whether you prefer wide views or close up views'.

Lordy dordy ...

Lee
Well you said it already: it depends on ... and then all hell will brake lose !
But with the 18-135 zoom you cover a lot of ground already.
You should ask yourself what you think is important or better still what has your (long-term) interest ?
Ultra-wide ? Tele ? Macro ?

The options are (almost) endless I'm afraid.
Which is a good thing, I'd say. Keeps your brain and the economy going ... :D

All the very best.
 

benroy

Subscriber Member
If you are looking for corner to corner, edge to edge sharpness in your landscapes, the Pentax wide angles are not the answer...the 35 macro and the 43 might do the job, but the extreme wide angles are minor league players...IMO, of course.

Roy Benson
 

jonoslack

Active member
The options are (almost) endless I'm afraid.
Hi Lee
Just for once I really disagree with Bart . . . I don't think the options are endless at all, I think that it represents the real shortcoming of the Pentax range.

You're 18-135 is actually really good at 18mm, so that's something, the DA15 (as Armando so succinctly puts it) isn't as good.

If you want to go wider, then one of the zooms is probably the way to go. I'm using the Sigma 10-20 f3.5, which is good but rather large. The Pentax 12-24 also gets quite a good press.

Something I read (and believe) is that for ultra wides, making it into a zoom really doesn't pose much of a problem for IQ, so maybe one of these very wide zooms is the answer for you too?

all the best
 

woodyspedden

New member
If you are O.K. with manual focus I would suggest the Zeiss ZK 18mm. Still available here in the U.S. from Popflash Photo (I have no affiliation with them but did buy the 18mm).

This is a very fine lens, consistent with the Zeiss Z line in toto.

I like the looks of these lenses so much I am tempted to spend the big bucks for the 100 2.0 macro. I once owned version one of this lens for my Nikons and found it as good as it gets. Stunning

You don't actually need to buy the ZK bayonet if you can't find them where you live. Fotodiox makes an adapter for use with the ZF (Nikon bayonet) to Pentax K.

Just my thoughts

Woody
 
If you are O.K. with manual focus I would suggest the Zeiss ZK 18mm. Still available here in the U.S. from Popflash Photo (I have no affiliation with them but did buy the 18mm).

This is a very fine lens, consistent with the Zeiss Z line in toto.

I like the looks of these lenses so much I am tempted to spend the big bucks for the 100 2.0 macro. I once owned version one of this lens for my Nikons and found it as good as it gets. Stunning

You don't actually need to buy the ZK bayonet if you can't find them where you live. Fotodiox makes an adapter for use with the ZF (Nikon bayonet) to Pentax K.

Just my thoughts

Woody
I believe that an adapter to mount ZF lenses on a Pentax K body is not a simple ring and should be equipped with a correction lens to allow infinity focussing.
I'm not so sure that this will not affect IQ.
Cheers,
 

Sapphie

Member
Thanks for all the replies so far. Of course, I didn't expect a definitive answer and in that sense my query was a bit of a tease. Quite entertaining!

It is a pity that the wide primes are not considered really sharp enough right across the frame.

I probably would plump for the 12-24 but then a lot of that range is already covered by the 18-135.

Maybe my 18-135 and 43 are indeed enough for now. I guess something in me is searching for some kind of 'holy grail' without having to fork out for Leica or even Zeiss in PK mount ...

Lee
 

jonoslack

Active member
If you are O.K. with manual focus I would suggest the Zeiss ZK 18mm. Still available here in the U.S. from Popflash Photo (I have no affiliation with them but did buy the 18mm).

This is a very fine lens, consistent with the Zeiss Z line in toto.

I like the looks of these lenses so much I am tempted to spend the big bucks for the 100 2.0 macro. I once owned version one of this lens for my Nikons and found it as good as it gets. Stunning

You don't actually need to buy the ZK bayonet if you can't find them where you live. Fotodiox makes an adapter for use with the ZF (Nikon bayonet) to Pentax K.

Just my thoughts

Woody
Hi Woody
I'm sure that it's great, but one of the things about the 18-135 is that it's really good at 18mm, which means that getting another lens to cover something you already have (even it it's going to be faster and better).

As for spending the big bucks on the 100 f2 - lovely lens of course, but it is big bucks, and the 100 WR f2.8 is much smaller, also has a lovely bokeh, and is very sharp. It does have noisy AF . . . but then the Zeiss doesn't have AF at all, and the MF on the 100 WR is easy to use and works well.

I've got the Zeiss ZK 50 f1.4, lovely lens, but I don't use it much for similar reasons.

Lee
the 12-24 does cover the same ground, but I'm rather wishing I'd got it, not because there's anything wrong with my 10-20 sigma f3.5 (good lens), but actually, it's nice having the lens going to a normal equivalent - means that you have one lens which goes from reasonably wide to mid telephoto, and another from Wide to normal (if you consider 36mm normal).

all the best
 

Knorp

Well-known member
Question: which lenses? Let's limit ourselves to 3. Zooms are allowed.

I already own the 18-135 and 43mm ltd (which is fantastic). So I guess I am allowed one more ... hmm let's think ... 15mm? 21mm? 12-24mm? 35mm macro? 70mm? 300mm?

I guess the answer is 'it depends on whether you prefer wide views or close up views'.
Just for once I really disagree with Bart . . . I don't think the options are endless at all, I think that it represents the real shortcoming of the Pentax range.
Dear Jono, how can you possibly disagree with me ?
Lee is not looking for an ultra-wide per sé !

All the very best.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Dear Jono, how can you possibly disagree with me ?
Lee is not looking for an ultra-wide per sé !

All the very best.
Okay, Okay - I rather thought that it was about wides (quite wrongly).
Okay - I do agree with you - your arguments are so persuasive.

:deadhorse:

How about the 60-250? I like mine (it's not small though).

all the best
 

woodyspedden

New member
Hi Woody
I'm sure that it's great, but one of the things about the 18-135 is that it's really good at 18mm, which means that getting another lens to cover something you already have (even it it's going to be faster and better).

As for spending the big bucks on the 100 f2 - lovely lens of course, but it is big bucks, and the 100 WR f2.8 is much smaller, also has a lovely bokeh, and is very sharp. It does have noisy AF . . . but then the Zeiss doesn't have AF at all, and the MF on the 100 WR is easy to use and works well.

I've got the Zeiss ZK 50 f1.4, lovely lens, but I don't use it much for similar reasons.

Lee
the 12-24 does cover the same ground, but I'm rather wishing I'd got it, not because there's anything wrong with my 10-20 sigma f3.5 (good lens), but actually, it's nice having the lens going to a normal equivalent - means that you have one lens which goes from reasonably wide to mid telephoto, and another from Wide to normal (if you consider 36mm normal).

all the best
Jono

I didn't buy the K-5 with the kit lens. Sounds like that may have been a mistake. I really need autofocus most of the time but the 18mm lenses have such large DOF that I don't find focus much of a problem

Nevertheless I intend to "borrow" the kit lens and see how I like it. If it is as good as you say (and your images seem to attest to that) then I will probably get one for myself

Thanks for the advice

Woody
 
Top