Originally posted by Lowell Goudge Let's look at this another way
First of all I have the sigma 10-20 and I use this lens a lot. In fact on average I use it for 20% of all my shots, and 60% of all shots with this lens are at 10mm I would mis the extra FOV now that I have used it if it were taken away
My first "ultra wide" was the FA-J 18-35 on film. This is equivalent to the 12-24 on a DSLR so I had experience at that focal length and the additional width is greatly appreciated
There is a review of all current ultra-wides in a UK magazine and pentax is rated very poorly compared not only to the sigma but to canon and nikon also. The minimum focal length is considered along with Sony's offering as unimpressive. In fact the conclusion of that magazine is that compared to all other lenses in this range it is over priced for what you get
Lowell, you don't remember what British magazine and issue that was, do you? It might make interesting reading.
That last line kind of sums it up for me: On one hand, the idea of keeping my kit all Pentax is very appealing. But it just seems to me that $700 is out of line - for what you get. Nonethless, many Pentaxians swear by the 12-24... just as others swear by the Sigma 10-20.
Edit: Also, to make my choice a bit more complicated (I'm great at that), I currently have no fast, standard prime in my kit. So... if I were to buy the Sigma 10-20 new at $479 and the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 at $439, that's a total of $918. The Pentax 12-24 new is $699. The new 35mm f/2.4 is supposed to list at $219, which would bring the pair up to... $918. In this context, which pair is likely to be the better value? I love the DA Limiteds, but the fastest they get in the normal range is f/2.8.
Don't worry guys, I still plan to make my decision very soon.