[catastrophe]

Hi,
I'm thinking of getting a k-x maybe with the Sigma 17-70mm as a kit, I also want a wide lens as well, which of the following should I get? Pentax 12-24mm, Sigma 10-20mm or DA15?

Out of these, I heard the 12-24 is the best, followed by DA15 then the Sigma. But would it be not that much value since it's only 5mm wider than the 17-70mm and cost around $800? I heard both of the Sigma has distortion in the wide end too. Another option I considered is to sell the 17-70 (any idea how much I should sell it for new?), then get Pentax 12-24, DA40, then add a Tamron 90mm when I get the money.

Any suggestions will be appreciated.

Thanks.

[tsangpo]

Consider holding off on the DA40 till the DAL 35mm is released.
Might also be worth just getting the standard 18-55 kit lens instead of the sigma 17-70

[dcmsox2004]

hi.. welcome !!
if there's a budgetary consideration... the da 16-45mm is a good lens... (check our ratings).... quite a respectable performer... also.. with the k-x, you can correct barrel distortion with that da lens..... a great feature...can usually be had for 250-300 u.s. ..... which would leave you room to purchase more lenses..... a tammy 90 can also be had for about 350 or so... at least here in the states... also.... a pentax 100mm fa f2.8 macro lens for about 350 for 400 u.s. dollars...
best of luck.... you'll be very happy with a k-x... and many being sold in our marketplace... lightly used for about 400...... also, the kr is coming out soon.... too many options.....
regards... dave m

[hcc]

You already get some good suggestion. I woudl add that one should not be afraid of lens distortion. There are some situations when the lens distortion can add a nice artistic touch. In other situations when you want to remove lens distortion, PTLens (PTLens) is an excellent software for that and highly recommended by many Pentaxians.

Generaly, you will have always some distortion with a zoom, simply because the zoom lens is a compromise over the focal length range. The best means to have negligible distortion consists in using prime lenses.

[brofkand]

I would stick with the 18-55, and maybe get a fast prime. I'd look seriously at the 35 2.4 when it is released; it may be a shocker.

The reason I say stick with the 18-55 is for most people that don't do landscapes, architectural, etc., 18mm is plenty wide enough. You have to really know your enemy when you shoot wider than 18mm. You start to do weird things to perspective if you get much wider.

[oxidized]

I dont own the 12-24 but I do own the Sigma 10-20. Its a simply extraordinary lens! Sharp from corner to corner and the extra 2mm on the wide end definitely get utilized quite a bit! Believe me! Plus, as far as a I remember it is considerably cheaper compared to the 12-24.

[northcoastgreg]

Hi,
I also want a wide lens as well, which of the following should I get? Pentax 12-24mm, Sigma 10-20mm or DA15?

The 12-24 is an amazing lens, particularly between 12 and 16mm. Because it goes out to 24mm (rather than just 20), I can use it as my kit lens (I don't shoot much wider all that often).

Another option I considered is to sell the 17-70 (any idea how much I should sell it for new?), then get Pentax 12-24, DA40, then add a Tamron 90mm when I get the money.

Undoubtedly the 17-70 is a more versatile lens, since it gives you both the wide, normal, and short tele. But if it's IQ you're after, the 12-24 followed by high quality primes would definitely be the way to go.

Unless you're a casual shooter who doesn't care much about IQ, I would avoid the 18-55 kit lens. It's a decent enough lens for the price but the 12-24 and the DA (or FA) limiteds are capable of so much more.

[olenl]

15mm is very close to 18mm kit lens has. Although unlike kit, it can be really sharp at f/8-f/11 IF you learn how to use it, and light source rendering is much nicer. still if you want it to be REALLY wide, consider getting sigma 10-20 or 8-16 instead. I personally don't like too wide due to perspective distortion (stretching of objects along the radius as they get farther from center of the image). this kind of distortion is not lens related, is't the intrinsic property of rectilinear projection most lenses use (except for fisheye which are truely wide, giving close to 160 degrees horizontal).

[asdf]

Maybe, wait for DAL 35 f/2.4. Look around for FA 35 f/2 reviews (it's basically the same lens as DAL 35 f/2.4 but faster).

[Impartial]

One way to answer would be to decide whether you are a prime shooter or a zoom shooter, deep down. If you are a prime shooter, you want your k-x body-only or with the cheapest kit lens, and then something like DA-15, DA-35 upon arival, FA-50, and DFA-100 (or a cheaper substitute).

What kind of shooter do you want to be?

If you are a zoom shooter, you go for a 17-70 (or wait for the new Pentax 18-135), along with a 10-20 or one of the older wide zooms. You could pick up a macro prime at whatever length (or price point) you like.

[catastrophe]

Thanks for the suggestions guys, I'll maybe use the 17-70mm now to find what focal length I need the most then get a DA35 or DA40. How much will a new Sigma 17-70mm sell for? Or one with little use.

[Clicker]

I would get the Sigma 8-16 (it's rectilinear for ap-c) + Pentax 16-45, especially if you like shooting landscapes including urban and enviroment portraiture.