[Clicker]

How about one of those Zenit shift lenses?

[Pentaxor]

So long story short... I just wrote a nice well thought out post and my post timed out when I went to post it....oops..so this ones a little rushed.

I am looking for a ultra wide lens. I currently have a Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II, which I like for the most part. This goes along with my DA 50 f1.4, DA 30mm f2.0, DA* 50-135 f2.8, Sigma 70mm macro, Tokina 70-210 f2.8 MF mounted to a K20D

I am currently building two websites for general contractors who of course have horrible shots of their work, which will not be going up onto the site I build for them. Which means I'm going to be touring South Carolina and Georgia taking indoor and outdoor architectural shots. Indoor will be using lights and tripod. (though playing with it for personal home use would be fun but not a necessity) I like to believe I'm a Photoshop expert (Color correcting product photography for many many years) and can post edit until the cows come home. I'd prefer to however shoot and get quality lenses to limit and go without my little dependent editing friend.

I think I will need something a little wider than the 17mm for the some shots and just like the idea of having something a little more to play with. So I'm looking at the following:

Pentax 14mm f2.8: Is this enough difference? I like primes and the f2.8 would be nice. Reviews have been good.

Pentax/Tokina 12-24mm f4. I was leaning this way, but it seems like I have a lot of crossover. Image and performance ratings seem very good, but...

Sigma 10-20mm f3.5: Seems like a good choice. Problem is I have problems with Sigma. I'm not a big fan of my Macro and I briefly used the older 10-20mm f4 -5.6 and thought it was ok. The reviews have been good. Is the extra 2mm worth trusting it over the Pentax? I can probably get over my pre 90's fear of Sigma.

Tamron 10-24mm f3.5-4: This is the one that really got me questioning things. It sounds from the reviews to be about the same quality as my 17-50mm which is a safe bet for me. Cost is much cheaper, tough cost is considered but I do want the best if I'm going to be dishing out money.


Any help in direction would be greatly appreciated

since you already have a 17-50 lens, then a Sigma 8-16 would be the ideal choice. I haven't tried the lens yet, but basing from the images that came from it, it is worth the consideration.

[buster110]

Thanks everyone... all good stuff. I guess I get a slap on the hand for searching in the DSLR Camera section for lens information. That would explain why I was a little shocked to not see this discussion come up before. I now know why. My mistake.

After spending the morning reading the numerous other threads on the subject, I'm still overwhelmed BUT clearly see that I most likely will not be disappointed with my choice, whichever that may be. There are great options out, even if I can't get the Tokina 11-17mm.

For the project in question, I really have no idea what I will be walking into. It will be based on what houses the client can get in, at what time of day, how much time I will have at each home and what they specifically did at each project. It could be that I need to shoot a small bathroom that I can't light at one moment, then run outside and shoot an addition and then jump in the car to go shoot a large kitchen that may need to focus on the quality dovetailing of the cabinets they built? I'm giving myself two days to shoot as much as I can get in. There won't be a lot of time for prep and I plan to just fill as many cards as I can and sort it all out when finished. I know I will need to edit in Photoshop, but if I can even limit the time per shot or even hope to get a few with no post then it will save me a lot of time. It's not ideal, but... I make my money on what I'm a pro at.... Advertising and Web design. Photography is a hobby and a courtesy option to my clients who after all are spending their yearly advertising budget on ads and web work and are happy enough with the shots they took. I'm the one who wants the photography to match the quality of my companies design—as the two go hand in hand.

It's not like I won't be taking my other lenses, so I can switch. I'll even have my istDS with me for another lens. (I still love that camera) I imagine I could use an 8 or 10mm in really tight rooms, but then is the amount of distortion created worth the shot and would a cropped room scene at 15mm give me enough of the room? It's hard to say until I get into it.

With that in mind I think I've ruled out the 14 or 15 primes. I would like to have one some day. After reading lots of posts and reading reviews, I believe the 12-24 gives me flexibility and is as sharp as either prime. Or let me rephrase... sharp enough for my needs.

I've heard and read a few good things about the Tamron 10-24 but believe the Sigma or Pentax is probably a little better quality lens even with paying the premium prices and the odd non 2:1 ratio is a little concerning... Seems like they're trying to get a little too much out of the lens?

I trust Pentax. I have had Pentax lenses since my K100SE limited some 25 years ago. I've been too stubborn to switch to Canikon and like being different from everyone else. (I live in the south and root for Iowa after all so I'm used to sneers and snickers.) Has my loyalty and trust of a brand cost me over the years? I don't think so and it's hard to switch now. I had horrible experiences with Vivitar and Sigma over the years and am a touch snobbish towards them. I guess I find myself in my own quagmire.

I've heard and seen lots of good posts, images and reviews on the Sigma's... Even the whole Sigma 10-20mm Club thread. I guess I need to sit on it for a while and decide if I can get over my stigma for the extra 2mm (or 4mm)

As someone said in an early thread.... "trust that the lens will lead you to where it can be used best". If I have to adjust a shot based on my capabilities then so be it.

[jimH]

I love the depth of focus in this shot!

[deadwolfbones]

If you're shooting a lot of interiors, consider the Sigma 12-24, as well. It's extremely rectilinear and very very wide.

[Ex Finn.]

I have used the DA 12-24 for some time now. It performs well in tight quarters. Nice color and contrast, no post processing needed.

[jpzk]

Got the Tamron-10-24, I use it extensively on vacation last summer
Here a photo in Santorini.

This is an excellent shot!

Care to tell me on how you managed to fit this image here and keeping all of the details?
Each time I try this, using the "Manage Attachments" option for a post/thread, I end up with a much lesser quality pic than I would hope for.

JP

[TiminyCricket]

Well, for me the choice was easy. I wanted an ultra wide perspective, but did not want a fish-eye. So, I got the Sigma 8-16mm, as the widest non-fisheye lens currently available. The way I see it, if you're going to spend a ton of money on a wide-angle it should be the widest one available. The reviews I'd read of the lens were favorable-enough, so that sealed the decision for me. You have to be careful when there are people on either edge of the frame, as it will stretch them out, but this is a natural, physical property of having such a wide field of view and with practice and care it should not post a problem whilst still allowing for one heck of a wide field of view.

[bobmaxja]

This is an excellent shot!

Care to tell me on how you managed to fit this image here and keeping all of the details?
Each time I try this, using the "Manage Attachments" option for a post/thread, I end up with a much lesser quality pic than I would hope for.

JP

Thank you first

I use flickr and choose the large size. Work very easily

[JoepLX3]

Well, for me the choice was easy. I wanted an ultra wide perspective, but did not want a fish-eye. So, I got the Sigma 8-16mm, as the widest non-fisheye lens currently available. The way I see it, if you're going to spend a ton of money on a wide-angle it should be the widest one available. The reviews I'd read of the lens were favorable-enough, so that sealed the decision for me. You have to be careful when there are people on either edge of the frame, as it will stretch them out, but this is a natural, physical property of having such a wide field of view and with practice and care it should not post a problem whilst still allowing for one heck of a wide field of view.

I kind of agree with you, but I looked for an used lens and found the Sigma 10-20 mm as well as the Tamron 10-24 mm and ended up buying the Tamron.
- Reading several reviews on both lenses I noted the Sigma was maybe best full open, but stopped down only slightly the Tamron took the overall lead (soft corners, but better center sharpness, lowest distortion and good flare resistance). On top of all, a little overlap in wide range can be very handy.

Comparison to other wideangle zooms we've tested recently suggests the Sigma's class-leading days may be numbered. On APS-C, it simply can't match the biting central sharpness of the Tamron in the 10-18mm range (for which, we suspect, users will mainly be buying this type of lens), and has more problematic distortion characteristics. However in a typical case of swings and roundabouts, the Sigma shows superior sharpness when shot wide open, and is better in the corners of the frame at all settings; it also has lower chromatic aberration, is better built and uses a superior focusing system.

Pro Sigma
Equal widest angle in its class
Very low chromatic aberration
Fast and silent HSM autofocus
Good build quality

Con Sigma
Rather inconsistent sharpness (partially due to curvature of field)
Pronounced, complex distortion at 10mm

Pro Tamron
Equal widest angle in its class, and largest zoom range (by a whisker)
Low distortion
Generally good resistance to flare

Con Tamron
Soft wide open (low local contrast)
Soft corners at all focal lengths and apertures
Wide diameter lens hood takes up lots of space in a bag

Either way, having an UWA zoom is fun (a kind of "must have" after kit lenses, besides fast portrait prime/zoom and/or macro) and if you don't buy two then the one you bought will be the best!!!

[hyperboost671]

I'm in a predicament as well, Sigma 8-16 or Pentax 12-24.... Hmm.. which one?

[Pentaxor]

I'm in a predicament as well, Sigma 8-16 or Pentax 12-24.... Hmm.. which one?

which one do you use more often or of more use in a zoom? 8mm or 24mm?

[hyperboost671]

which one do you use more often or of more use in a zoom? 8mm or 24mm?

I think I phrased it wrong, I'm planning of buying the Sigma or the Pentax.

[RioRico]

I think I phrased it wrong, I'm planning of buying the Sigma or the Pentax.

I think the question was, which end of the UW scale would you work at more? For instance, I use my Zenitar 16/2.8 more than my DA10-17 because I shoot more around 16 and the Zen is 1/3 stops faster there. But I still keep the 10-17 for going much wider. If you intend to work really really wide a lot, get the 8-16. If you intend to shoot not-so-wide a lot, get the 12-24.

[buster110]

I just received the DA 12-24... after a few test shots, the image quality is exactly as I thought and was told it would be. I am second guessing not getting the extra 2mm for those screwing around shots, but I think this is exactly what I need for the applications I need it for (architectural indoor/outdoor) and at 24mm, this can really become my tool around town lens... my two cents