2mm on UWA: Real World Difference

JHD · 10-07-2010, 07:39 AM

I have a Sigma 10-20 and a DA15. They are both very nice lenses, but the 10-20 spends a lot more time on my camera the DA15. Another point worth considering is warranty. Here in Canada Pentax only provides a two year warranty whereas the Sigma 10-20 has a 10 year warranty. Strange that a zoom lens can be backed up with 8 years more warranty than a prime. Why can't Pentax stand behind their products like Sigma does?

Biro · 10-07-2010, 07:50 AM

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.

zerodaze · 10-07-2010, 11:01 AM

Originally posted by typical8o8

not to threadjack, here's a post showing the difference in angle of view between 8mm and 10mm. it doesn't answer the OP's question specifically but gives some idea of a 2mm difference in UWA.

Thanks for the link Typical8o8 as a lot of us are apparently wondering how to best to get into the UWA category. But the linked article starts out with this... "Canon, Nikon, Sigma, and Tamron all make great ultra-wide lenses." Why didn't they include Pentax in that listing?

**Lowell Goudge** · 10-07-2010, 05:12 PM

Biro

Look for the august issue of Digital Camera World

Acheron · 10-08-2010, 03:29 PM

Be carefull with Sigmas
I have 10-20 4-5.6 on Pentax K200D and have decentering
Lens was sent to Japan for repairs, but problems with decentering persists. I will have to send this lens againt to Japan for repairments becouse it is annoying to have almost 30% od picture wasted due to the high cromatic aberation and loss of sharpness

JHD · 10-08-2010, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by Acheron

Be carefull with Sigmas...

Be careful with any brand. At least Sigma stands behind their products long after the Pentax warranty fades from memory.

Pentaxor · 10-08-2010, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by JHD

Be careful with any brand. At least Sigma stands behind their products long after the Pentax warranty fades from memory.

True !

Big G · 10-08-2010, 04:42 PM

I have two copies of this lens; one in Pentax mount, one in Canon mount. Never had an issue with mine.

tibbitts · 10-08-2010, 09:22 PM

The sigma 10-20mm does seem to have more reports of quality control issues than most lenses, so it's important to test out your copy thoroughly while you can still return it for exchange or credit.

Paul

**Canada_Rockies** · 10-08-2010, 09:55 PM

One thing that has bothered me about this discussion for a long time is the actual focal length as compared to the stated focal length. There are almost no lenses ever made that have actually the focal length engraved on them when they are tested, as Modern Photography used to do and Pop Photo still does to a certain extent. Does the Sigma 10-20 actually cover 11 - 19 or 9 - 21? Does my Pentax cover 14-28? I have no idea. The reason this is ingtriquing to me is that I have come across situations in the past where the actual focal length compares to a Boeing 747 and the stated focal length to a kite. Yeah, I'm overstating the case, I know.

Biro · 10-08-2010, 10:45 PM

Originally posted by tibbitts

The sigma 10-20mm does seem to have more reports of quality control issues than most lenses, so it's important to test out your copy thoroughly while you can still return it for exchange or credit.

Paul

This is true. Many Pentaxians swear by their Sigma 10-24s. And we've all seen some fantastic images. But, often, there's a qualifier: "Great lens if you get a good copy."

Originally posted by Canada_Rockies

One thing that has bothered me about this discussion for a long time is the actual focal length as compared to the stated focal length. There are almost no lenses ever made that have actually the focal length engraved on them when they are tested, as Modern Photography used to do and Pop Photo still does to a certain extent. Does the Sigma 10-20 actually cover 11 - 19 or 9 - 21? Does my Pentax cover 14-28? I have no idea. The reason this is ingtriquing to me is that I have come across situations in the past where the actual focal length compares to a Boeing 747 and the stated focal length to a kite. Yeah, I'm overstating the case, I know.

So, Albert... how do you like your 12-24? Do you wish you had an extra 2mm at the wide end?

**Canada_Rockies** · 10-09-2010, 08:58 AM

Originally posted by Biro

This is true. Many Pentaxians swear by their Sigma 10-24s. And we've all seen some fantastic images. But, often, there's a qualifier: "Great lens if you get a good copy."

So, Albert... how do you like your 12-24? Do you wish you had an extra 2mm at the wide end?

I love the lens. I was pleasantly surprised by the low distortion levels and the Pentax image quality. I have not yet been disappointed by the field of view at 12/18mm, but no doubt will decide it is not yet wide enough in a few years. I got it because 16/24 was getting too long for some of my photography in the mountains.

Sometimes you just cannot safely step back any further in the mountains. Later today I am going up a local ridge with a friend, and in light of the steep terrain, I am taking only the 12-24 and 16-50; did I mention that the trail is steep?

I was up there last just before I got my K10 and 12-24 -- my widest was the FA 24-90 on MZ-S and there was no place to back up at the top without losing an awful lot of altitude very, very quickly. I could not quite get wide enough. Here's the hike we are doing. I live in Sparwood Heights.

Hiking

Hike up the Matevic Draw, and get a bird's eye view of Sparwood. This hike up to the alpine involves about two hours of steady climbing on a well-marked, forested trail. Viewpoints are scarce until out of the woods. The trailhead is accessed via the power line, off Sycamore Road in Sparwood Heights.

glanglois · 10-09-2010, 11:39 AM

I've the Sigma 10-20 and the Pentax 10-17. The Pentax fisheye is a fun lens but should not really be compared with rectilinear UWAs. The 10-17 is a wide angle for a narrow use, a niche as Big G notes. I really don't use it much but the images when I do are wonderful.

The Sigma 10-20 is almost always on one body when I'm shooting with two. The other may be a 100-300 Sigma for aircraft, a 18-250 Sigma, or possibly a 55-300 Pentax (all outdoors) or a Sigma 17-70 indoors. Regardless, the 10-20 finds a home on the other body and frequent use - usually at 10-15mm. 15-20mm is very infrequent for me.

No problems with either!

JoepLX3 · 10-09-2010, 12:17 PM

I bought the Tamron 10-24 mm (the 24 mm makes it more of a walk-around lens), but was wondering why the Sigma is so much more popular on this site?

Pentaxor · 10-09-2010, 01:08 PM

Originally posted by JoepLX3

I bought the Tamron 10-24 mm (the 24 mm makes it more of a walk-around lens), but was wondering why the Sigma is so much more popular on this site?

other than the focal length advantage of the Tamron, it fell short on the IQ side of things. for most people here, IQ is more of a top priority.

10-07-2010, 07:50 AM	#17
Biro Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 1,200 Original Poster	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. Last edited by Biro; 10-07-2010 at 08:07 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The real world difference f/1.4 -vs- f/2	Oscar1	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	13	02-06-2010 10:33 PM
DA* and DA Limited, What's the real difference?	golfcoachnoel	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	12-16-2009 10:38 AM
Snowflakes in the real world	MightyMike	Post Your Photos!	6	12-23-2008 06:40 AM
CA in the DA*16-50 vs Tamron 28-75 in real world	123K10D	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	10	02-23-2008 02:44 PM
Real world use.	Rob.K	Pentax DSLR Discussion	29	02-12-2007 01:26 PM

10-07-2010, 07:39 AM	#16
JHD Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 1,406	I have a Sigma 10-20 and a DA15. They are both very nice lenses, but the 10-20 spends a lot more time on my camera the DA15. Another point worth considering is warranty. Here in Canada Pentax only provides a two year warranty whereas the Sigma 10-20 has a 10 year warranty. Strange that a zoom lens can be backed up with 8 years more warranty than a prime. Why can't Pentax stand behind their products like Sigma does?

10-07-2010, 11:01 AM	#18
zerodaze Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Arizona Posts: 57	Originally posted by typical8o8 not to threadjack, here's a post showing the difference in angle of view between 8mm and 10mm. it doesn't answer the OP's question specifically but gives some idea of a 2mm difference in UWA. Thanks for the link Typical8o8 as a lot of us are apparently wondering how to best to get into the UWA category. But the linked article starts out with this... "Canon, Nikon, Sigma, and Tamron all make great ultra-wide lenses." Why didn't they include Pentax in that listing?

10-07-2010, 05:12 PM	#19
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,886	Biro Look for the august issue of Digital Camera World

10-08-2010, 03:29 PM	#20
Acheron Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Croatia Photos: Gallery Posts: 100	Be carefull with Sigmas I have 10-20 4-5.6 on Pentax K200D and have decentering Lens was sent to Japan for repairs, but problems with decentering persists. I will have to send this lens againt to Japan for repairments becouse it is annoying to have almost 30% od picture wasted due to the high cromatic aberation and loss of sharpness

10-08-2010, 03:59 PM	#21
JHD Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 1,406	Originally posted by Acheron Be carefull with Sigmas... Be careful with any brand. At least Sigma stands behind their products long after the Pentax warranty fades from memory.

10-08-2010, 04:37 PM	#22
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by JHD Be careful with any brand. At least Sigma stands behind their products long after the Pentax warranty fades from memory. True !

10-08-2010, 04:42 PM	#23
Big G Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 581	I have two copies of this lens; one in Pentax mount, one in Canon mount. Never had an issue with mine.

10-08-2010, 09:22 PM	#24
tibbitts Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Oklahoma USA Posts: 2,193	The sigma 10-20mm does seem to have more reports of quality control issues than most lenses, so it's important to test out your copy thoroughly while you can still return it for exchange or credit. Paul

10-08-2010, 09:55 PM	#25
Canada_Rockies Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,385	One thing that has bothered me about this discussion for a long time is the actual focal length as compared to the stated focal length. There are almost no lenses ever made that have actually the focal length engraved on them when they are tested, as Modern Photography used to do and Pop Photo still does to a certain extent. Does the Sigma 10-20 actually cover 11 - 19 or 9 - 21? Does my Pentax cover 14-28? I have no idea. The reason this is ingtriquing to me is that I have come across situations in the past where the actual focal length compares to a Boeing 747 and the stated focal length to a kite. Yeah, I'm overstating the case, I know.

10-08-2010, 10:45 PM	#26
Biro Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 1,200 Original Poster	Originally posted by tibbitts The sigma 10-20mm does seem to have more reports of quality control issues than most lenses, so it's important to test out your copy thoroughly while you can still return it for exchange or credit. Paul This is true. Many Pentaxians swear by their Sigma 10-24s. And we've all seen some fantastic images. But, often, there's a qualifier: "Great lens if you get a good copy." Originally posted by Canada_Rockies One thing that has bothered me about this discussion for a long time is the actual focal length as compared to the stated focal length. There are almost no lenses ever made that have actually the focal length engraved on them when they are tested, as Modern Photography used to do and Pop Photo still does to a certain extent. Does the Sigma 10-20 actually cover 11 - 19 or 9 - 21? Does my Pentax cover 14-28? I have no idea. The reason this is ingtriquing to me is that I have come across situations in the past where the actual focal length compares to a Boeing 747 and the stated focal length to a kite. Yeah, I'm overstating the case, I know. So, Albert... how do you like your 12-24? Do you wish you had an extra 2mm at the wide end?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-09-2010, 08:58 AM	#27
Canada_Rockies Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,385	Originally posted by Biro This is true. Many Pentaxians swear by their Sigma 10-24s. And we've all seen some fantastic images. But, often, there's a qualifier: "Great lens if you get a good copy." So, Albert... how do you like your 12-24? Do you wish you had an extra 2mm at the wide end? I love the lens. I was pleasantly surprised by the low distortion levels and the Pentax image quality. I have not yet been disappointed by the field of view at 12/18mm, but no doubt will decide it is not yet wide enough in a few years. I got it because 16/24 was getting too long for some of my photography in the mountains. Sometimes you just cannot safely step back any further in the mountains. Later today I am going up a local ridge with a friend, and in light of the steep terrain, I am taking only the 12-24 and 16-50; did I mention that the trail is steep? I was up there last just before I got my K10 and 12-24 -- my widest was the FA 24-90 on MZ-S and there was no place to back up at the top without losing an awful lot of altitude very, very quickly. I could not quite get wide enough. Here's the hike we are doing. I live in Sparwood Heights. Hiking Hike up the Matevic Draw, and get a bird's eye view of Sparwood. This hike up to the alpine involves about two hours of steady climbing on a well-marked, forested trail. Viewpoints are scarce until out of the woods. The trailhead is accessed via the power line, off Sycamore Road in Sparwood Heights.

10-09-2010, 11:39 AM	#28
glanglois Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Madison, Wis., USA Posts: 1,506	I've the Sigma 10-20 and the Pentax 10-17. The Pentax fisheye is a fun lens but should not really be compared with rectilinear UWAs. The 10-17 is a wide angle for a narrow use, a niche as Big G notes. I really don't use it much but the images when I do are wonderful. The Sigma 10-20 is almost always on one body when I'm shooting with two. The other may be a 100-300 Sigma for aircraft, a 18-250 Sigma, or possibly a 55-300 Pentax (all outdoors) or a Sigma 17-70 indoors. Regardless, the 10-20 finds a home on the other body and frequent use - usually at 10-15mm. 15-20mm is very infrequent for me. No problems with either!

10-09-2010, 12:17 PM	#29
JoepLX3 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 518	I bought the Tamron 10-24 mm (the 24 mm makes it more of a walk-around lens), but was wondering why the Sigma is so much more popular on this site?

10-09-2010, 01:08 PM	#30
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by JoepLX3 I bought the Tamron 10-24 mm (the 24 mm makes it more of a walk-around lens), but was wondering why the Sigma is so much more popular on this site? other than the focal length advantage of the Tamron, it fell short on the IQ side of things. for most people here, IQ is more of a top priority.