A very wide on par with 77/1,8

eurostar · 10-22-2008, 03:07 AM

I'm sure this question has been posted already, but the search function doesn't give me any result worth.

So, while I have the DA10-17 and DA 17-70 and so am very well covered for wideangle shots, I would like to have one wideangle prime able to give me comparable quality (sharpness, colour rendition, bokeh) to my 77/1,8 limited and 200/4 A* macro.

Ideally should be around 16mm (on film I was using a 24mm exclusively for all landscape shots). I am waiting for the 15 limited, but is there anything, from Pentax or others lensmaker, today, that could live near those two fabulous lenses? I was especially thinking about Pentax DA 14/2,8 and Zeiss Distagon 18/3,5.

Thanks in advance...

tomtor · 10-22-2008, 08:18 AM

You should not dismiss the highly regarded DA12-24/4 zoom. It is on par with the DA14.

It is hard to compare it to a FA77 because of the huge difference in focal length and larger DOF, but is has a good rendering, nice colors/contrast, sharpness, etc.

The main advantage of the DA15Limited will be its compact size.

Art Vandelay II · 10-22-2008, 09:33 AM

It's not a prime, but have you looked at Sigma's 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX HSM? That will be my wide angle lens when/if I save up the $700 for it. Plus it is a 35mm lens, so it is future proof.

Here's a review of it:
Sigma AF 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX HSM DG - Lab Test Report / Review

The distortion is exceptional for a zoom that wide.

Alfisti · 10-22-2008, 12:00 PM

imho the 12-24 is BETTER than the 77. It is very sharp wide open but also contrasty wide open.

It's my best lens optically and i have the 100 macro, 77, 21 and 50/1.4.

GaryM · 10-22-2008, 12:26 PM

I don't think it's possible to get a wide angle (wider than 24mm) that's quite as good optically as the typical short telephoto. Almost everyone makes a really great 70-105mm, even for relatively cheap prices, but optically brilliant wide angle primes are rare. Maybe Zeiss or Leica can pull it off for big $$$, but it seems to be just a matter of the laws of physics.

thePiRaTE!! · 10-22-2008, 05:46 PM

If you do get the T*18, I'd be very curious to hear your thoughts. It does tempt me.

eurostar · 10-23-2008, 03:01 AM

Well, thank you. I, too, fear that is too difficult to make very wide lenses with the magic of some tele lenses. As I wrote in the opening post, I am not a lot interested in correction of distortion, as I use it mainly on landscape shots. Well, I will take a look again at the DA 12-24, I have used it a little, borrowed from a frend, it's sharp and contrasted but I felt it missed the marvel I get from my 77 and 200 macro...

As for the Zeiss, I am tempted but first I would like to see what comes from the 15 limited. From a fied of view point, I am at ease more with a 23 equivalent than a 27...

Alfisti · 10-23-2008, 06:28 AM

That "marvel" has as much to do with the focal lengths as the lenses themselves. A super wide has very little bokeh obviously, it's about being sharp, contrasty and great with colour and the 12-24 is all of those.

eurostar · 10-23-2008, 10:14 AM

Yes, that I know (I use Pentax since 1984), still there is a difference between, for example, the A*200macro and the F*300/4,5. They are both extremely sharp, yet the 200 has more character than the 300.
I was looking for something like that in a wideangle, razor sharp but with character... sorry if I can't explain it better but English is not my language...

In any case I will borrow the 12-24 for a more extensive try...

Alfisti · 10-23-2008, 11:04 AM

I think a lot of the character is in the OOF rendering, not just how creamy it is but the feeling of depth. On a superwide that's kinda moot.