Which Wide Angle - YOU Choose

**GingerBeer** · 12-14-2010, 10:54 PM

I too voted for the DA 14mm with my $. It is so often overlooked in discussions about UWA lenses. It was such a difficult decision between it, the DA 12-24mm and the DA 15mm. I chose it for its max aperture and close focus (which can make for some interesting shots). I liked the extra versatility of FL of the DA 12-24mm and it looked to be a comparable performer sharpness wise. The DA 15mm was also very tempting largely because of its size. I'm really happy with the DA 14mm but I'd love to have all three. If I had to pick one from the list above, it would probably be the 12-24mm but I haven't voted for it because I'd still stick with the DA 14mm (if it were an option in this pole).

civiletti · 12-14-2010, 11:42 PM

According to tests I have seen, the DA 12-24 and Sigma 8-16 have higher acuity than the DA primes.

Jewelltrail · 12-15-2010, 12:31 AM

Quote:

civiletti: civiletti According to tests I have seen, the DA 12-24 and Sigma 8-16 have higher acuity than the DA primes.

Yes, particularly the 8-16. It is hard to believe a lens in this class scores those kinds of numbers.

Jewelltrail · 12-15-2010, 12:42 AM

Quote:

Doglover: Well, there was really only one review that claimed the older version was sharper. Other reviews have not claimed that.

The big difference between the 1st Sigma 10-20 & the 3.5 version, is the 1st version is much better in the extreme borders, @ 10mm. This is particularly true wide open, but also true @ f5.6. f8, & f11. Sharpness is comparable in other ranges.

Is the better flare performance of the 3.5 something you have observed. or something you can document from a test? I would like to read this. Tx.

Pentaxor · 12-15-2010, 01:02 AM

Originally posted by Jewelltrail

Yes, particularly the 8-16. It is hard to believe a lens in this class scores those kinds of numbers.

the only complaint I have with the 8-16 is the loss of significant focal length at the longer end. I think the 8-16 is best suited with the Sigma 17-50 and 70-200. a 3 lens combo for those who wanted an exclusive zoom setup. maybe add 2 primes to the mix like an 85/1.4 and Sigma 150 macro, and everything is good to go. wait, this looks like an All Sigma line-up.

Jewelltrail · 12-15-2010, 01:13 AM

Quote:

Pentaxor: the only complaint I have with the 8-16 is the loss of significant focal length at the longer end. I think the 8-16 is best suited with the Sigma 17-50 and 70-200. a 3 lens combo for those who wanted an exclusive zoom setup. maybe add 2 primes to the mix like an 85/1.4 and Sigma 150 macro, and everything is good to go. wait, this looks like an All Sigma line-up.

Good points---I could live with a line-up like this one, no problem. Some beautiful glass there.

RioRico · 12-15-2010, 03:10 AM

I'm doing a good job of confusing myself. My PayPal balance is creeping up into the territory where I can afford an ultrawide, but I can't seem to nail down the comparisons. Here's what I think I have gleaned from this and similar threads:

Sigma 8-16/4.5-5.6: Big, not very fast, edge softness & distortion, low CA & flare
Sigma 10-20/4-5.6: Not very fast, very good sharpness, not too pricey
Sigma 10-20/3.5: Bigger & faster & better CA/flare than the 4-5.6, costly
Tamron 10-24/3.5-4.5: A good deal with the December rebate, but maybe too soft?

I'm not considering fisheyes since I have the DA10-17, nor zooms narrower than 10mm since I want WIDER!! I'm not considering primes because in this range, at this cost, I need more flexibility. Is there a thread here (that I've missed) comparing these four ultra-widest zooms?

And I must consider weight and bulk. My carry bag (a sling Ameribag) is already stuffed with lenses I've found vital, and whichever of those four candidates I end up with will supplement rather than replace what I schlep around. Except that a Sigma 10-20/3.5 might supplant the Zenitar. I mostly shoot handheld, as my Velbron tripod doesn't quite fit in the Ameribag when it's loaded with lenses and debris.

So I must balance cost, bulk, sharpness, speed, and zoom range. Ay yi yi...

Pentaxor · 12-15-2010, 03:37 AM

Originally posted by RioRico

I'm doing a good job of confusing myself. My PayPal balance is creeping up into the territory where I can afford an ultrawide, but I can't seem to nail down the comparisons. Here's what I think I have gleaned from this and similar threads:

Sigma 8-16/4.5-5.6: Big, not very fast, edge softness & distortion, low CA & flare
Sigma 10-20/4-5.6: Not very fast, very good sharpness, not too pricey
Sigma 10-20/3.5: Bigger & faster & better CA/flare than the 4-5.6, costly
Tamron 10-24/3.5-4.5: A good deal with the December rebate, but maybe too soft?

funny how you mentioned edge softness on the 8-16 since the lens seems to perform the best among the 3 DC Sigma lenses with regards to overall resolution, including corner resolution. I thought the two other Sigma DC's were done when the Sigma 8-16 came out. the faster Sigma even with a constant aperture of f3.5 would still be best used at smaller apertures (sorry, it's just can't perform like the DA12-24 at f4). maybe flare control is the only thing worth noting for the 10-20/3.5.

Frogfish · 12-15-2010, 07:52 AM

RioRico.
The older 10-20 is supposedly sharper than the constant 3.5. However why do you have the 10-20 3.5 as 'costly' ? It is only US$50 more than the older version AFAIK. And ..... the lense is NOT heavy !

guinnessman · 12-15-2010, 08:32 AM

Originally posted by Frogfish

RioRico.
The older 10-20 is supposedly sharper than the constant 3.5. However why do you have the 10-20 3.5 as 'costly' ? It is only US$50 more than the older version AFAIK. And ..... the lense is NOT heavy !

The 3.5 is $170 more than the 4.0-5.6 at sites like Adorama and B&H.

RioRico · 12-15-2010, 09:40 AM

Originally posted by Frogfish

And ..... the lense is NOT heavy !

OK, I re-checked my notes, and I withdraw any "real heavy" tag from the Sigma 10-20/3.5. I guess I'd confused it with the 8-16. Here is my basic table of the lenses and the numbers:

LENS ---------- WEIGHT --- ~COST --- RATING

Sigma 8-16/4.5-5.6 - 555g - ~US$650 - 9.33
Sigma 10-20/4-5.6 - 470g - ~US$490 - 9.11
Sigma 10-20/3.5 --- 520g - ~US$490 - 9.33
Tamron 10-24/3.5-4.5 - 405g - ~$380 - 8.67

My other concern that I didn't express above is nervousness over bad vs good copies. I can recall (but can't point to) numerous comments I've seen about owners having returned 2-3-4 bad copies before getting a good one. Which of these is more likely to be a lemon? I don't want to play ship-the-lens multiple times with NYC dealers.

**NaClH2O** · 12-15-2010, 10:18 AM

Originally posted by ohyouloveme

*snip*
Another thought - Which lens is the downright sharpest? Is it the DA12-24 like what i perceive around here? It appears that people are steering away from it because of it's price - If you had no restriction on budget, would that be your choice?

Sincere thanks to all of you once again.

The pentax 12-24 gets my vote. I have a restricted budget and I still got it (had to wait a while until a used one I could afford showed up) but I can't be more satisfied with my purchase. Sharp sharp sharp, excellent color rendition (something the sigmas lack IMO) excellent contrast, close focus. It's only downfall IMO is that it is f/4.0 and with the K-5 that isn't much a problem. I've heard some complaints about CA and purple fringing, but that hasn't been my experience.
If I had a second choice it would be the Zenitar 16mm f/2.8. This is a fun little lens. I've shot a LOT with it and have enjoyed every minute. One of the nice things about it is that on a digital APC sensor, it's not so fishy that you can't overcome it with careful framing and cropping. It has two faults: It is VERY soft at f/2.8, in fact it's not really useable until f4.0 or so, and it's prone to flare and CA. But it's still a fun fun little lens and not terribly expensive. Did I mention it's a fun lens?
links:
DA 12-24 f/4.0 Zenitar 16mm fisheye

NaCl(you can't go wrong with either one but the 12-24 is more versitile)H2O

civiletti · 12-16-2010, 01:01 AM

Originally posted by Pentaxor

the only complaint I have with the 8-16 is the loss of significant focal length at the longer end. I think the 8-16 is best suited with the Sigma 17-50 and 70-200. a 3 lens combo for those who wanted an exclusive zoom setup. maybe add 2 primes to the mix like an 85/1.4 and Sigma 150 macro, and everything is good to go. wait, this looks like an All Sigma line-up.

It depends on your photo style. I shoot mostly primes for maximum IQ, but use the 8-16 at the wide end because it's better than the primes. 24mm is the widest prime I carry, which I find a suitable step up from 16mm.

RioRico · 12-16-2010, 05:00 AM

But what about good vs bad copies? Which of the ultrawides generate the best and worst experiences with copy quality?

ohyouloveme · 12-17-2010, 03:19 AM

thanks for all the opinions. it's good to know that i can't go wrong with any. the links put up here for me to see are nothing short of spectacular

by the way, is there anyplace i can compare the field of view between 10mm and 12mm? i do vaguely remember a thread here where someone did a comparison at a lake(or someplace like that). i'd like to know if the difference is as vast as i'm imagining it to be.

View Poll Results: If You Could Just Pick One..
Pentax DA 12-24	33	22.00%
Pentax DA 10-17	7	4.67%
Pentax DA 15	50	33.33%
Tamron 10-24	10	6.67%
Sigma 10-20	32	21.33%
Sigma 8-16	18	12.00%
Voters: 150. You may not vote on this poll

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Wide angle on a budget	sheylings	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	21	03-31-2010 10:10 PM
Misc Wide angle	wllm	Post Your Photos!	6	12-07-2009 09:57 AM
Which wide angle should i go for ??	Bossy	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	03-22-2009 05:05 AM
which wide angle?	Ken Eremko	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	08-06-2008 09:53 AM
Wide Angle	daacon	Monthly Photo Contests	0	06-23-2008 02:00 PM

12-14-2010, 10:54 PM	#46
GingerBeer Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Brisbane Posts: 126	I too voted for the DA 14mm with my $. It is so often overlooked in discussions about UWA lenses. It was such a difficult decision between it, the DA 12-24mm and the DA 15mm. I chose it for its max aperture and close focus (which can make for some interesting shots). I liked the extra versatility of FL of the DA 12-24mm and it looked to be a comparable performer sharpness wise. The DA 15mm was also very tempting largely because of its size. I'm really happy with the DA 14mm but I'd love to have all three. If I had to pick one from the list above, it would probably be the 12-24mm but I haven't voted for it because I'd still stick with the DA 14mm (if it were an option in this pole).

12-14-2010, 11:42 PM	#47
civiletti Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Oregon Photos: Albums Posts: 1,435	According to tests I have seen, the DA 12-24 and Sigma 8-16 have higher acuity than the DA primes.

12-15-2010, 12:31 AM	#48
Jewelltrail Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Rhode Island Photos: Albums Posts: 4,180	Quote: civiletti: civiletti According to tests I have seen, the DA 12-24 and Sigma 8-16 have higher acuity than the DA primes. Yes, particularly the 8-16. It is hard to believe a lens in this class scores those kinds of numbers.

12-15-2010, 12:42 AM	#49
Jewelltrail Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Rhode Island Photos: Albums Posts: 4,180	Quote: Doglover: Well, there was really only one review that claimed the older version was sharper. Other reviews have not claimed that. The big difference between the 1st Sigma 10-20 & the 3.5 version, is the 1st version is much better in the extreme borders, @ 10mm. This is particularly true wide open, but also true @ f5.6. f8, & f11. Sharpness is comparable in other ranges. Is the better flare performance of the 3.5 something you have observed. or something you can document from a test? I would like to read this. Tx.

12-15-2010, 01:02 AM	#50
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by Jewelltrail Yes, particularly the 8-16. It is hard to believe a lens in this class scores those kinds of numbers. the only complaint I have with the 8-16 is the loss of significant focal length at the longer end. I think the 8-16 is best suited with the Sigma 17-50 and 70-200. a 3 lens combo for those who wanted an exclusive zoom setup. maybe add 2 primes to the mix like an 85/1.4 and Sigma 150 macro, and everything is good to go. wait, this looks like an All Sigma line-up.

12-15-2010, 01:13 AM	#51
Jewelltrail Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Rhode Island Photos: Albums Posts: 4,180	Quote: Pentaxor: the only complaint I have with the 8-16 is the loss of significant focal length at the longer end. I think the 8-16 is best suited with the Sigma 17-50 and 70-200. a 3 lens combo for those who wanted an exclusive zoom setup. maybe add 2 primes to the mix like an 85/1.4 and Sigma 150 macro, and everything is good to go. wait, this looks like an All Sigma line-up. Good points---I could live with a line-up like this one, no problem. Some beautiful glass there.

12-15-2010, 03:10 AM	#52
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	I'm doing a good job of confusing myself. My PayPal balance is creeping up into the territory where I can afford an ultrawide, but I can't seem to nail down the comparisons. Here's what I think I have gleaned from this and similar threads: Sigma 8-16/4.5-5.6: Big, not very fast, edge softness & distortion, low CA & flare Sigma 10-20/4-5.6: Not very fast, very good sharpness, not too pricey Sigma 10-20/3.5: Bigger & faster & better CA/flare than the 4-5.6, costly Tamron 10-24/3.5-4.5: A good deal with the December rebate, but maybe too soft? I'm not considering fisheyes since I have the DA10-17, nor zooms narrower than 10mm since I want WIDER!! I'm not considering primes because in this range, at this cost, I need more flexibility. Is there a thread here (that I've missed) comparing these four ultra-widest zooms? And I must consider weight and bulk. My carry bag (a sling Ameribag) is already stuffed with lenses I've found vital, and whichever of those four candidates I end up with will supplement rather than replace what I schlep around. Except that a Sigma 10-20/3.5 might supplant the Zenitar. I mostly shoot handheld, as my Velbron tripod doesn't quite fit in the Ameribag when it's loaded with lenses and debris. So I must balance cost, bulk, sharpness, speed, and zoom range. Ay yi yi...

12-15-2010, 03:37 AM	#53
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by RioRico I'm doing a good job of confusing myself. My PayPal balance is creeping up into the territory where I can afford an ultrawide, but I can't seem to nail down the comparisons. Here's what I think I have gleaned from this and similar threads: Sigma 8-16/4.5-5.6: Big, not very fast, edge softness & distortion, low CA & flare Sigma 10-20/4-5.6: Not very fast, very good sharpness, not too pricey Sigma 10-20/3.5: Bigger & faster & better CA/flare than the 4-5.6, costly Tamron 10-24/3.5-4.5: A good deal with the December rebate, but maybe too soft? funny how you mentioned edge softness on the 8-16 since the lens seems to perform the best among the 3 DC Sigma lenses with regards to overall resolution, including corner resolution. I thought the two other Sigma DC's were done when the Sigma 8-16 came out. the faster Sigma even with a constant aperture of f3.5 would still be best used at smaller apertures (sorry, it's just can't perform like the DA12-24 at f4). maybe flare control is the only thing worth noting for the 10-20/3.5.

12-15-2010, 07:52 AM	#54
Frogfish Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Shanghai Posts: 4,490	RioRico. The older 10-20 is supposedly sharper than the constant 3.5. However why do you have the 10-20 3.5 as 'costly' ? It is only US$50 more than the older version AFAIK. And ..... the lense is NOT heavy !

12-15-2010, 08:32 AM	#55
guinnessman Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Missoula, MT Posts: 175	Originally posted by Frogfish RioRico. The older 10-20 is supposedly sharper than the constant 3.5. However why do you have the 10-20 3.5 as 'costly' ? It is only US$50 more than the older version AFAIK. And ..... the lense is NOT heavy ! The 3.5 is $170 more than the 4.0-5.6 at sites like Adorama and B&H.

12-15-2010, 09:40 AM	#56
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Originally posted by Frogfish And ..... the lense is NOT heavy ! OK, I re-checked my notes, and I withdraw any "real heavy" tag from the Sigma 10-20/3.5. I guess I'd confused it with the 8-16. Here is my basic table of the lenses and the numbers: LENS ---------- WEIGHT --- ~COST --- RATING Sigma 8-16/4.5-5.6 - 555g - ~US$650 - 9.33 Sigma 10-20/4-5.6 - 470g - ~US$490 - 9.11 Sigma 10-20/3.5 --- 520g - ~US$490 - 9.33 Tamron 10-24/3.5-4.5 - 405g - ~$380 - 8.67 My other concern that I didn't express above is nervousness over bad vs good copies. I can recall (but can't point to) numerous comments I've seen about owners having returned 2-3-4 bad copies before getting a good one. Which of these is more likely to be a lemon? I don't want to play ship-the-lens multiple times with NYC dealers.

12-15-2010, 10:18 AM	#57
NaClH2O Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Bronx NY Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,631	Originally posted by ohyouloveme snip Another thought - Which lens is the downright sharpest? Is it the DA12-24 like what i perceive around here? It appears that people are steering away from it because of it's price - If you had no restriction on budget, would that be your choice? Sincere thanks to all of you once again. The pentax 12-24 gets my vote. I have a restricted budget and I still got it (had to wait a while until a used one I could afford showed up) but I can't be more satisfied with my purchase. Sharp sharp sharp, excellent color rendition (something the sigmas lack IMO) excellent contrast, close focus. It's only downfall IMO is that it is f/4.0 and with the K-5 that isn't much a problem. I've heard some complaints about CA and purple fringing, but that hasn't been my experience. If I had a second choice it would be the Zenitar 16mm f/2.8. This is a fun little lens. I've shot a LOT with it and have enjoyed every minute. One of the nice things about it is that on a digital APC sensor, it's not so fishy that you can't overcome it with careful framing and cropping. It has two faults: It is VERY soft at f/2.8, in fact it's not really useable until f4.0 or so, and it's prone to flare and CA. But it's still a fun fun little lens and not terribly expensive. Did I mention it's a fun lens? links: DA 12-24 f/4.0 Zenitar 16mm fisheye NaCl(you can't go wrong with either one but the 12-24 is more versitile)H2O

12-16-2010, 01:01 AM	#58
civiletti Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Oregon Photos: Albums Posts: 1,435	Originally posted by Pentaxor the only complaint I have with the 8-16 is the loss of significant focal length at the longer end. I think the 8-16 is best suited with the Sigma 17-50 and 70-200. a 3 lens combo for those who wanted an exclusive zoom setup. maybe add 2 primes to the mix like an 85/1.4 and Sigma 150 macro, and everything is good to go. wait, this looks like an All Sigma line-up. It depends on your photo style. I shoot mostly primes for maximum IQ, but use the 8-16 at the wide end because it's better than the primes. 24mm is the widest prime I carry, which I find a suitable step up from 16mm.

12-16-2010, 05:00 AM	#59
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	But what about good vs bad copies? Which of the ultrawides generate the best and worst experiences with copy quality?

12-17-2010, 03:19 AM	#60
ohyouloveme Inactive Account Join Date: Apr 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 79 Original Poster	thanks for all the opinions. it's good to know that i can't go wrong with any. the links put up here for me to see are nothing short of spectacular by the way, is there anyplace i can compare the field of view between 10mm and 12mm? i do vaguely remember a thread here where someone did a comparison at a lake(or someplace like that). i'd like to know if the difference is as vast as i'm imagining it to be.