[causey]

Well, there are no ultra-wides for Pentax that are supported by DxO; only the DA 12-24mm is supported. But the price of the DA 12-24mm is an issue which almost made me switch to Nikon. On the other hand, Sigma 10-20mm is a very capable lens, plus it has the useful even wider end, but most people who have actually compared the two say the DA is quite significantly better.

DxO is an amazing piece of software, which can improve the perceivable sharpness of any lens it supports. I tend to believe they listen to suggestions from consumers. I asked them numerous times--though this form--to support the DA 16-45mm I'm thinking DxO might ease the decision of those who, like myself, long for a UWA zoom cheaper, but no less sharp in the corners, and no less contrasty, than the Pentax 12-24mm. So, let's motivate them. (As one might expect, the Sigma 10-20mm--I'm talking about the old version--is DxO-supported with Canikon bodies along with three-four other UWA lenses.)

---

Last edited by causey; 10-30-2010 at 03:04 PM.

[civiletti]

I chose the Sigma 8-16 over the DA12-24. After several months, I am satisfied with the choice. Either lens outperforms the available prime lenses - an unusual situation.

[causey]

The Sigma 8-16mm costs the same as the DA 12-24mm.

[Jewelltrail]

It would be nice if DXO could improve an already wonderful lens, but I am happy with my Sigma 10-20: f8, iso 100, 2 secs, no crop, no sharpening needed, though it certainly is PPed.

[civiletti]

Nice image, Jewelltrail.

I paid $600 for the 8-16. Given the focal length and the image quality, the price is comparitively reasonable. Many Pentax prime lenses in easier to design focal lengths and no better image characteristics cost more.

[causey]

Indeed, great pic, Ernest. And, no doubt about it, the Sigma is a great lens. But I downloaded lost of full-sized pics taken with it and with the da 12-24, and the sharpness of those taken with the da 12-24 scratches the eye. I'm sure DxO would make of Sigma something very close to that.

[Jewelltrail]

Stefan:

Please share a few of those 12-24 full sizers with me. I downloaded some 12-24 full-sizers before I selected the 10-20, some time back. I was not impressed with the 12-24--perhaps I got bad images. BTW, I just sent you a full-sized 10-20 pic--lt me know how it compares when you get a second--tx.

Regards,
Ernest

[civiletti]

Here are a couple tests of the 8-16:

Sigma AF 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 DC HSM - Lab Test / Review

Field Test – Sigma AF 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 DC HSM Darwin Wiggett

Photozone also tested the Tokina 12-24 [which the same as the DA12-24 except for coatings], but it was done on a smaller sensor camera than used for the 8-16 test.

Photozone has tests of both the DA12-24 and the Sigma 10-20 in k-mount.

[Jewelltrail]

civiletti:Nice image, Jewelltrail.

Tx for the complement and tx for the tests; I look forward to reading them soon.

[causey]

Thanks for the pic, Ernest. Very sharp, indeed. But I think it's easier to get the appearance of sharpness when something like that big rock is in the forefront; it seems to me more difficult to achieve the same kind of result with the Sigma. I went to Pentax Lenses on Pixel-Peeper, from where I downloaded full size pics...

[Jewelltrail]

Thanks for the pics Stefan. Not wanting to turn this into a pissing contest online, , I sent you my honest opinion. Short answer for forum: I saw nothing in the Full sizers I downloaded to change my mind about the 12-24 & the 10-20.

However, these shots, I believe, do answer the question why DXO supports the 12-24

Ernest