Ultra-wide angle - are there little known gems?

Flickeroo · 07-04-2010, 06:00 PM

I have a Pentax-A 28mm F2.8. I'd love to have something wider, even a fisheye would be fun.
It doesn't have to be AF, and it could be either K-Mount or M42.

I still don't know if I'd fall in love with ultra-wide or not, it would be more of an experiment, so I wouldn't want to spend more than $100. Looking around I only find lenses that are out of my budget.

The lens database is quite limited for little known ultra-wide gems that might be out there. I know there has to be some of you that might own or have tried some surprising ultra-wides that give good results.

Any suggestions? Maybe there aren't any. At least I'll know!

Thanks,

Flickeroo.

hangu · 07-04-2010, 06:16 PM

Sadly, ultrawides tend to be expensive. I was on the same search a while back. I ended up breaking my manual focus only rule and buying a DA 12-24mm lens. The ones off the top of my head include the Jena Flektogon 20mm, the Vivitar 19mm f3.8 and some of the 15mm and 20mm Takumars.

CWyatt · 07-04-2010, 06:31 PM

What focal length are you considering to be ultra-wide?

**interested_observer** · 07-04-2010, 06:33 PM - **1 Like**

Its been my experience that wide angle lenses tend to be a bit pricey. Your $100 budget may be a bit low, however waiting and watching the marketplace, evilbay and craigslist, may produce a find. There are several suggestions however that tend to be in the lower price range - at least used.

DA 16-45/f4 - is an excellent lens, and with its wide end at 16mm it is in the wide area. You can find it used for about $250. I would check the market place here on the forum. Its resolution and sharpness is very good. There are a lot of these lenses out there, and since it has been discontinued, I have watched quite a few of them go across the market place. At 16mm, I would think that this will probably be one of the most inexpensive high quality wide angle lenses you will be able to find - other than manual focus and possibly M42 lenses.

Zenitar-K 16mm f2.8 Fisheye - its a fisheye, however it is very useful. New, they go for about $200, but they again can be found in the marketplace.

DA 10-17 Fisheye - Again its a fisheye, with a field of view from 180 to 100 degrees, but on the long end, the fisheye effect is diminished. Its a very good lens, but it is a specialty lens. Again the marketplace.

Then comes the hard part. The wide angle rectilinear lens (non fisheye) that are 21mm and below. These tend to hold their price, and the price is relatively high (above $250 for the most part). The Pentax lenses run the highest, however the Sigma lenses though running less still offer great quality and very good value. So here is somewhat of a list - I do not guarantee that its complete, and I am sure where I was lacking others will fill the voids...

DA 14mm f2.8 - discontinued but is suppose to be excellent - same physical size as the DA 12-24, need to find one
DA*15mm f4 - excellent small prime
FA 20mm f2.8 - discontinued, excellent low light
DA* 21mm f3.2 - excellent, light weight, a small bit of distortion
SMC K 18mm f3.5 - discontinued, excellent - no AF, need to find one
SMC A 20mm f2.8 - discontinued, excellent - no AF, need to find one
Tokina 17mm f3.5 - discontinued, excellent, large lens (about the size of 12-24), no AF, need to find one. I see a couple become available every few months
Lentar (Tokina) 21/3.8 rumored to be relative inexpensive
DA 12-24 - excellent, rivals primes in IQ, 100 - 60 degrees FOV
Tamron 10-24 - reported to be not as good as Pentax and Sigma
Tamron 11-18 - reported to be not as good as Pentax and Sigma
Sigma 10-20 - excellent
Sigma 12-24 -excellent,
Sigma 8-16 - new just announced

Wide angle lenses tend to have a very large depth of field and as such, auto focusing in really not necessary, thus manual focusing will help with the budget. I think I would tend to look for M42 lenses in trying to hold down the cost.

Here is a link to an old Pentax Lens site, that you can search for good WA lenses that you might find available.

Stan's Pentax Photography

... hope that helps...

Last edited by interested_observer; 07-04-2010 at 06:50 PM.

Flickeroo · 07-04-2010, 08:40 PM

Originally posted by hangu

Sadly, ultrawides tend to be expensive. I was on the same search a while back. I ended up breaking my manual focus only rule and buying a DA 12-24mm lens. The ones off the top of my head include the Jena Flektogon 20mm, the Vivitar 19mm f3.8 and some of the 15mm and 20mm Takumars.

It'll help my search. Maybe I'll get lucky!

Originally posted by CWyatt

What focal length are you considering to be ultra-wide?

I'd say 20 and under. As I have a K-x, it would get me under 35mm...unless I'm mistaken. I still have to get my head around that ratio. Might not really be ultra-wide "for real", but it would give me a good place to start.

Originally posted by interested_observer

Its been my experience that wide angle lenses tend to be a bit pricey. Your $100 budget may be a bit low, however waiting and watching the marketplace, evilbay and craigslist, may produce a find. There are several suggestions however that tend to be in the lower price range - at least used.

DA 16-45/f4 - is an excellent lens, and with its wide end at 16mm it is in the wide area. You can find it used for about $250. I would check the market place here on the forum. Its resolution and sharpness is very good. There are a lot of these lenses out there, and since it has been discontinued, I have watched quite a few of them go across the market place. At 16mm, I would think that this will probably be one of the most inexpensive high quality wide angle lenses you will be able to find - other than manual focus and possibly M42 lenses.

Zenitar-K 16mm f2.8 Fisheye - its a fisheye, however it is very useful. New, they go for about $200, but they again can be found in the marketplace.

DA 10-17 Fisheye - Again its a fisheye, with a field of view from 180 to 100 degrees, but on the long end, the fisheye effect is diminished. Its a very good lens, but it is a specialty lens. Again the marketplace.

Then comes the hard part. The wide angle rectilinear lens (non fisheye) that are 21mm and below. These tend to hold their price, and the price is relatively high (above $250 for the most part). The Pentax lenses run the highest, however the Sigma lenses though running less still offer great quality and very good value. So here is somewhat of a list - I do not guarantee that its complete, and I am sure where I was lacking others will fill the voids...

DA 14mm f2.8 - discontinued but is suppose to be excellent - same physical size as the DA 12-24, need to find one
DA*15mm f4 - excellent small prime
FA 20mm f2.8 - discontinued, excellent low light
DA* 21mm f3.2 - excellent, light weight, a small bit of distortion
SMC K 18mm f3.5 - discontinued, excellent - no AF, need to find one
SMC A 20mm f2.8 - discontinued, excellent - no AF, need to find one
Tokina 17mm f3.5 - discontinued, excellent, large lens (about the size of 12-24), no AF, need to find one. I see a couple become available every few months
Lentar (Tokina) 21/3.8 rumored to be relative inexpensive
DA 12-24 - excellent, rivals primes in IQ, 100 - 60 degrees FOV
Tamron 10-24 - reported to be not as good as Pentax and Sigma
Tamron 11-18 - reported to be not as good as Pentax and Sigma
Sigma 10-20 - excellent
Sigma 12-24 -excellent,
Sigma 8-16 - new just announced

Wide angle lenses tend to have a very large depth of field and as such, auto focusing in really not necessary, thus manual focusing will help with the budget. I think I would tend to look for M42 lenses in trying to hold down the cost.

Here is a link to an old Pentax Lens site, that you can search for good WA lenses that you might find available.

Stan's Pentax Photography

... hope that helps...

Wow. Well, yes, it does indeed! It's unfortunate that wider is more expensive. I guess the complexity of the optics is greater than a zoom or a macro. Often the first reaction of any new user of SLRs or DSLRs is to look for a bigger focal length rather than a shorter one (that's what I did)...then it switches once they become more experienced and start thinking of composition a bit more.

Thank you everyone.

creampuff · 07-04-2010, 08:45 PM

DA 14mm f/2.8 is definitely NOT discontinued.
Cheapest wideangle for Pentax is the ubiquitous DA 18-55mm kit lens.
Buy Photoshop and stitch during post processing... you'll be surprised how wide you can get.

**interested_observer** · 07-04-2010, 09:14 PM

Originally posted by creampuff

DA 14mm f/2.8 is definitely NOT discontinued.
Cheapest wideangle for Pentax is the ubiquitous DA 18-55mm kit lens.
Buy Photoshop and stitch during post processing... you'll be surprised how wide you can get.

Thanks! I stand corrected. I guess I was just folding too many items together at once. That, and I completely forgot to include the Kit lens and stitching. I guess its the heat that is getting to me....

urje · 07-05-2010, 02:09 AM

I'd go for the above-mentioned Zenitar fish-eye. In fact, I did! It's a great lens, manual focus is convenient, it's very sharp stopped down, and can be had for somewhere around $100 I think. Depending on the scene, the fish-eye effect sometimes appears more natural to my eyes than rectilinear UWA, and if you want a shot rectilinear, you can always defish. the resulting picture is about as wide as from a 15mm normal UWA.

And here some of the other shot I made with it (probably not all, as I'm not tagging as well as I should): Flickr: Search urje's photostream

Zav · 07-05-2010, 02:47 AM

Reports about the Samyang 8mm f3,5 are very good

And it's not so expensive but it's a fisheye.

H-Alien · 07-05-2010, 05:38 AM

I recently bought a secondhand (but brand new) Zenitar 16mm f2.8
Went out this morning to take some first snapshots (nothing spectacular)

Good example how the fisheye works, the top roof of the church shows no distortion since it's in the middle of the picture, the bottom does show the known fisheye distortion.

However due to the smaller sized sensor of my k200d you can get wide-angle results without screaming fisheye all over it.

And one more B/W conversion

I'm sure the other options provide sharper results and get wider then the Zenitar but if you're in the same situation as me, wanting a wide angle lens (it is quite a bit wider then the 18mm of the kit lens) but not spend a fortune on it.....then the Zenitar seems like a very decent choice. I got mine for €130,- including shipping.

Build quality seems great sofar (although the lenscap seems the wrong way around for me with the tabs at the top and bottom). The biggest issue for me is focusing, which is kind of hard when everything is so tiny in the viewfinder...

Marc Sabatella · 07-05-2010, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by Flickeroo

I'd say 20 and under. As I have a K-x, it would get me under 35mm...unless I'm mistaken. I still have to get my head around that ratio.

Do you have extensive experience with film cameras? If so, then it might be useful to *you* to make those sort of comparisons (20mm on K-x is like 30mm on your old film camera) - although even then, there's really no point in mentioning it here. And if you don't have a film camera, there's no point in even doing the comparison for your own benefit. That would be like me constantly asking myself how much I'd weigh on the moon every time I get on a scale. Who cares how much I weigh on a celestial body I'll never visit? Similarly, who cares what focal length would provide a similar FOV on a camera I'll never shoot?

Anyhow, I'd concur with the Zenitar 16 and the kit lens as the only obvious choices here for getting under 20mm for $100.

pb_red · 07-05-2010, 12:12 PM

Flickeroo, another thing to keep in mind is the resale value of the lenses. i think that the 15mm holds its value very well (as do other limited linses) so if you are worried about spending a bunch of money only to find out that an UWA is not your cup of tea you have the option of selling it and getting most of your money back.

jslifoaw · 07-05-2010, 12:45 PM

The kit lens is one of the best wide-angle lenses for the money (almost none). It would be unwise to discount it simply because it isn't a prime, made of metal, nor manual focus. Manual focus metal primes are not automatically better. (Autofocus metal primes...sometimes are

)

urje · 07-05-2010, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by jslifoaw

... Manual focus metal primes are not automatically better....

Well, in the case of an UWA, I love to use the metal manual focus ring of the zen and zone-focus effortlessly while shooting from the hip. with the fiddly kitlens focus ring, I never felt confident doing that (though I didn't try that often)

Flickeroo · 07-05-2010, 05:15 PM

Originally posted by Marc Sabatella

Do you have extensive experience with film cameras? If so, then it might be useful to *you* to make those sort of comparisons (20mm on K-x is like 30mm on your old film camera) - although even then, there's really no point in mentioning it here. And if you don't have a film camera, there's no point in even doing the comparison for your own benefit. That would be like me constantly asking myself how much I'd weigh on the moon every time I get on a scale. Who cares how much I weigh on a celestial body I'll never visit? Similarly, who cares what focal length would provide a similar FOV on a camera I'll never shoot?

Anyhow, I'd concur with the Zenitar 16 and the kit lens as the only obvious choices here for getting under 20mm for $100.

Hi Marc. I just didn't how to answer the question of how wide I'm looking for in another way.

I cannot say that I have "much" experience with film cameras, other than a quick introduction course 25 years ago where I had a Pentax K1000 for a short time. However, I am in the process of learning about photography by reading books. Many of these were written before the advent of digital, therefore I must base what I see as results a bit differently with a digital camera. I can't recreate an exercise using a lens of the same focal length, so I improvise. I also don't want to only read recent books because they often spend much more time on technical aspects like correcting lighting with a button on the camera or in PP instead of getting it right the first time around.

I do have a film camera which intend to use in the future once I control manual settings a bit more. It's an old Spotmatic in pristine shape. The reason why I'd use it is that film has it's own look that digital can't quite recreate...but I'm sure you know this before you think I'm being once again pointless or redundant.

As for the suggestions from everyone, it gives me a great headstart to search for particular lenses that do the job correctly and that I might enjoy. The Kit lens itself wasn't something I had specially considered at first, but it might very well be all I really need. I just get lazier with a zoom, while a prime forces me to think more.

Michel.

Michel.

07-04-2010, 06:00 PM	#1
Flickeroo 1,000,000th Poster! Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Montreal, QC Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 172	Ultra-wide angle - are there little known gems? I have a Pentax-A 28mm F2.8. I'd love to have something wider, even a fisheye would be fun. It doesn't have to be AF, and it could be either K-Mount or M42. I still don't know if I'd fall in love with ultra-wide or not, it would be more of an experiment, so I wouldn't want to spend more than $100. Looking around I only find lenses that are out of my budget. The lens database is quite limited for little known ultra-wide gems that might be out there. I know there has to be some of you that might own or have tried some surprising ultra-wides that give good results. Any suggestions? Maybe there aren't any. At least I'll know! Thanks, Flickeroo.

07-04-2010, 06:33 PM - 1 Like	#4
interested_observer Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,707	Its been my experience that wide angle lenses tend to be a bit pricey. Your $100 budget may be a bit low, however waiting and watching the marketplace, evilbay and craigslist, may produce a find. There are several suggestions however that tend to be in the lower price range - at least used. DA 16-45/f4 - is an excellent lens, and with its wide end at 16mm it is in the wide area. You can find it used for about $250. I would check the market place here on the forum. Its resolution and sharpness is very good. There are a lot of these lenses out there, and since it has been discontinued, I have watched quite a few of them go across the market place. At 16mm, I would think that this will probably be one of the most inexpensive high quality wide angle lenses you will be able to find - other than manual focus and possibly M42 lenses. Zenitar-K 16mm f2.8 Fisheye - its a fisheye, however it is very useful. New, they go for about $200, but they again can be found in the marketplace. DA 10-17 Fisheye - Again its a fisheye, with a field of view from 180 to 100 degrees, but on the long end, the fisheye effect is diminished. Its a very good lens, but it is a specialty lens. Again the marketplace. Then comes the hard part. The wide angle rectilinear lens (non fisheye) that are 21mm and below. These tend to hold their price, and the price is relatively high (above $250 for the most part). The Pentax lenses run the highest, however the Sigma lenses though running less still offer great quality and very good value. So here is somewhat of a list - I do not guarantee that its complete, and I am sure where I was lacking others will fill the voids... DA 14mm f2.8 - discontinued but is suppose to be excellent - same physical size as the DA 12-24, need to find one DA15mm f4 - excellent small prime FA 20mm f2.8 - discontinued, excellent low light DA 21mm f3.2 - excellent, light weight, a small bit of distortion SMC K 18mm f3.5 - discontinued, excellent - no AF, need to find one SMC A 20mm f2.8 - discontinued, excellent - no AF, need to find one Tokina 17mm f3.5 - discontinued, excellent, large lens (about the size of 12-24), no AF, need to find one. I see a couple become available every few months Lentar (Tokina) 21/3.8 rumored to be relative inexpensive DA 12-24 - excellent, rivals primes in IQ, 100 - 60 degrees FOV Tamron 10-24 - reported to be not as good as Pentax and Sigma Tamron 11-18 - reported to be not as good as Pentax and Sigma Sigma 10-20 - excellent Sigma 12-24 -excellent, Sigma 8-16 - new just announced Wide angle lenses tend to have a very large depth of field and as such, auto focusing in really not necessary, thus manual focusing will help with the budget. I think I would tend to look for M42 lenses in trying to hold down the cost. Here is a link to an old Pentax Lens site, that you can search for good WA lenses that you might find available. Stan's Pentax Photography ... hope that helps... Last edited by interested_observer; 07-04-2010 at 06:50 PM.

07-04-2010, 08:40 PM	#5
Flickeroo 1,000,000th Poster! Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Montreal, QC Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 172 Original Poster	Originally posted by hangu Sadly, ultrawides tend to be expensive. I was on the same search a while back. I ended up breaking my manual focus only rule and buying a DA 12-24mm lens. The ones off the top of my head include the Jena Flektogon 20mm, the Vivitar 19mm f3.8 and some of the 15mm and 20mm Takumars. It'll help my search. Maybe I'll get lucky! Originally posted by CWyatt What focal length are you considering to be ultra-wide? I'd say 20 and under. As I have a K-x, it would get me under 35mm...unless I'm mistaken. I still have to get my head around that ratio. Might not really be ultra-wide "for real", but it would give me a good place to start. Originally posted by interested_observer Its been my experience that wide angle lenses tend to be a bit pricey. Your $100 budget may be a bit low, however waiting and watching the marketplace, evilbay and craigslist, may produce a find. There are several suggestions however that tend to be in the lower price range - at least used. DA 16-45/f4 - is an excellent lens, and with its wide end at 16mm it is in the wide area. You can find it used for about $250. I would check the market place here on the forum. Its resolution and sharpness is very good. There are a lot of these lenses out there, and since it has been discontinued, I have watched quite a few of them go across the market place. At 16mm, I would think that this will probably be one of the most inexpensive high quality wide angle lenses you will be able to find - other than manual focus and possibly M42 lenses. Zenitar-K 16mm f2.8 Fisheye - its a fisheye, however it is very useful. New, they go for about $200, but they again can be found in the marketplace. DA 10-17 Fisheye - Again its a fisheye, with a field of view from 180 to 100 degrees, but on the long end, the fisheye effect is diminished. Its a very good lens, but it is a specialty lens. Again the marketplace. Then comes the hard part. The wide angle rectilinear lens (non fisheye) that are 21mm and below. These tend to hold their price, and the price is relatively high (above $250 for the most part). The Pentax lenses run the highest, however the Sigma lenses though running less still offer great quality and very good value. So here is somewhat of a list - I do not guarantee that its complete, and I am sure where I was lacking others will fill the voids... DA 14mm f2.8 - discontinued but is suppose to be excellent - same physical size as the DA 12-24, need to find one DA15mm f4 - excellent small prime FA 20mm f2.8 - discontinued, excellent low light DA 21mm f3.2 - excellent, light weight, a small bit of distortion SMC K 18mm f3.5 - discontinued, excellent - no AF, need to find one SMC A 20mm f2.8 - discontinued, excellent - no AF, need to find one Tokina 17mm f3.5 - discontinued, excellent, large lens (about the size of 12-24), no AF, need to find one. I see a couple become available every few months Lentar (Tokina) 21/3.8 rumored to be relative inexpensive DA 12-24 - excellent, rivals primes in IQ, 100 - 60 degrees FOV Tamron 10-24 - reported to be not as good as Pentax and Sigma Tamron 11-18 - reported to be not as good as Pentax and Sigma Sigma 10-20 - excellent Sigma 12-24 -excellent, Sigma 8-16 - new just announced Wide angle lenses tend to have a very large depth of field and as such, auto focusing in really not necessary, thus manual focusing will help with the budget. I think I would tend to look for M42 lenses in trying to hold down the cost. Here is a link to an old Pentax Lens site, that you can search for good WA lenses that you might find available. Stan's Pentax Photography ... hope that helps... Wow. Well, yes, it does indeed! It's unfortunate that wider is more expensive. I guess the complexity of the optics is greater than a zoom or a macro. Often the first reaction of any new user of SLRs or DSLRs is to look for a bigger focal length rather than a shorter one (that's what I did)...then it switches once they become more experienced and start thinking of composition a bit more. Thank you everyone.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Choice	Biro	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	15	12-28-2009 07:22 PM
Soccer Field using Ultra-Wide Angle	lastdodobird	Post Your Photos!	8	03-05-2008 04:37 PM
Cheap ultra wide angle lens?	CJCram	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	10	01-29-2008 11:01 AM
For Sale - Sold: WTT ultra wide angle, flash...	Not Registered	Sold Items	1	01-25-2008 02:27 PM
Ultra-Wide Angle Recommendations	tux08902	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	17	01-14-2008 10:33 PM

07-04-2010, 06:16 PM	#2
hangu Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: NYC Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,071	Sadly, ultrawides tend to be expensive. I was on the same search a while back. I ended up breaking my manual focus only rule and buying a DA 12-24mm lens. The ones off the top of my head include the Jena Flektogon 20mm, the Vivitar 19mm f3.8 and some of the 15mm and 20mm Takumars.

07-04-2010, 06:31 PM	#3
CWyatt Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,291	What focal length are you considering to be ultra-wide?

07-04-2010, 08:45 PM	#6
creampuff Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Singapore Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,953	DA 14mm f/2.8 is definitely NOT discontinued. Cheapest wideangle for Pentax is the ubiquitous DA 18-55mm kit lens. Buy Photoshop and stitch during post processing... you'll be surprised how wide you can get.

07-04-2010, 09:14 PM	#7
interested_observer Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,707	Originally posted by creampuff DA 14mm f/2.8 is definitely NOT discontinued. Cheapest wideangle for Pentax is the ubiquitous DA 18-55mm kit lens. Buy Photoshop and stitch during post processing... you'll be surprised how wide you can get. Thanks! I stand corrected. I guess I was just folding too many items together at once. That, and I completely forgot to include the Kit lens and stitching. I guess its the heat that is getting to me....

07-05-2010, 02:09 AM	#8
urje Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Deventer, NL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 113	I'd go for the above-mentioned Zenitar fish-eye. In fact, I did! It's a great lens, manual focus is convenient, it's very sharp stopped down, and can be had for somewhere around $100 I think. Depending on the scene, the fish-eye effect sometimes appears more natural to my eyes than rectilinear UWA, and if you want a shot rectilinear, you can always defish. the resulting picture is about as wide as from a 15mm normal UWA. And here some of the other shot I made with it (probably not all, as I'm not tagging as well as I should): Flickr: Search urje's photostream

07-05-2010, 02:47 AM	#9
Zav Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,371	Reports about the Samyang 8mm f3,5 are very good And it's not so expensive but it's a fisheye.

07-05-2010, 05:38 AM	#10
H-Alien New Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Huissen (Netherlands) Photos: Albums Posts: 18	I recently bought a secondhand (but brand new) Zenitar 16mm f2.8 Went out this morning to take some first snapshots (nothing spectacular) Good example how the fisheye works, the top roof of the church shows no distortion since it's in the middle of the picture, the bottom does show the known fisheye distortion. However due to the smaller sized sensor of my k200d you can get wide-angle results without screaming fisheye all over it. And one more B/W conversion I'm sure the other options provide sharper results and get wider then the Zenitar but if you're in the same situation as me, wanting a wide angle lens (it is quite a bit wider then the 18mm of the kit lens) but not spend a fortune on it.....then the Zenitar seems like a very decent choice. I got mine for €130,- including shipping. Build quality seems great sofar (although the lenscap seems the wrong way around for me with the tabs at the top and bottom). The biggest issue for me is focusing, which is kind of hard when everything is so tiny in the viewfinder...

07-05-2010, 10:38 AM	#11
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Originally posted by Flickeroo I'd say 20 and under. As I have a K-x, it would get me under 35mm...unless I'm mistaken. I still have to get my head around that ratio. Do you have extensive experience with film cameras? If so, then it might be useful to you to make those sort of comparisons (20mm on K-x is like 30mm on your old film camera) - although even then, there's really no point in mentioning it here. And if you don't have a film camera, there's no point in even doing the comparison for your own benefit. That would be like me constantly asking myself how much I'd weigh on the moon every time I get on a scale. Who cares how much I weigh on a celestial body I'll never visit? Similarly, who cares what focal length would provide a similar FOV on a camera I'll never shoot? Anyhow, I'd concur with the Zenitar 16 and the kit lens as the only obvious choices here for getting under 20mm for $100.

07-05-2010, 12:12 PM	#12
pb_red Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Seattle Posts: 194	Flickeroo, another thing to keep in mind is the resale value of the lenses. i think that the 15mm holds its value very well (as do other limited linses) so if you are worried about spending a bunch of money only to find out that an UWA is not your cup of tea you have the option of selling it and getting most of your money back.

07-05-2010, 12:45 PM	#13
jslifoaw Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Toronto/Victoria Posts: 460	The kit lens is one of the best wide-angle lenses for the money (almost none). It would be unwise to discount it simply because it isn't a prime, made of metal, nor manual focus. Manual focus metal primes are not automatically better. (Autofocus metal primes...sometimes are )

07-05-2010, 01:11 PM	#14
urje Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Deventer, NL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 113	Originally posted by jslifoaw ... Manual focus metal primes are not automatically better.... Well, in the case of an UWA, I love to use the metal manual focus ring of the zen and zone-focus effortlessly while shooting from the hip. with the fiddly kitlens focus ring, I never felt confident doing that (though I didn't try that often)

07-05-2010, 05:15 PM	#15
Flickeroo 1,000,000th Poster! Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Montreal, QC Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 172 Original Poster	Originally posted by Marc Sabatella Do you have extensive experience with film cameras? If so, then it might be useful to you to make those sort of comparisons (20mm on K-x is like 30mm on your old film camera) - although even then, there's really no point in mentioning it here. And if you don't have a film camera, there's no point in even doing the comparison for your own benefit. That would be like me constantly asking myself how much I'd weigh on the moon every time I get on a scale. Who cares how much I weigh on a celestial body I'll never visit? Similarly, who cares what focal length would provide a similar FOV on a camera I'll never shoot? Anyhow, I'd concur with the Zenitar 16 and the kit lens as the only obvious choices here for getting under 20mm for $100. Hi Marc. I just didn't how to answer the question of how wide I'm looking for in another way. I cannot say that I have "much" experience with film cameras, other than a quick introduction course 25 years ago where I had a Pentax K1000 for a short time. However, I am in the process of learning about photography by reading books. Many of these were written before the advent of digital, therefore I must base what I see as results a bit differently with a digital camera. I can't recreate an exercise using a lens of the same focal length, so I improvise. I also don't want to only read recent books because they often spend much more time on technical aspects like correcting lighting with a button on the camera or in PP instead of getting it right the first time around. I do have a film camera which intend to use in the future once I control manual settings a bit more. It's an old Spotmatic in pristine shape. The reason why I'd use it is that film has it's own look that digital can't quite recreate...but I'm sure you know this before you think I'm being once again pointless or redundant. As for the suggestions from everyone, it gives me a great headstart to search for particular lenses that do the job correctly and that I might enjoy. The Kit lens itself wasn't something I had specially considered at first, but it might very well be all I really need. I just get lazier with a zoom, while a prime forces me to think more. Michel. Michel.