Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-18-2011, 10:29 AM   #31
Site Supporter
SpecialK's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: So California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,440
QuoteQuote:
If you were in my position, which one will you go for???
You don't actually have a position :-)

Rather than reading text about lenses, I'd look in the threads dedicated to each lens and see which image results you like better.

02-18-2011, 10:58 AM   #32
Veteran Member
Jewelltrail's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Rhode Island
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,180
QuoteQuote:
Ben Leg: It looks like the S 10-20 f4-5.6 is better than the tamron 17-50 f2.8 on the portion where they overlap.

Unfortunately there is mush less reviews for the Pentax products…. So I’m wondering if Pentax if the performance are similar.


The reason is that if I go with the S 10-20… I do get an extra 2mm… but over all I will use it for only 10-20% of my shots…. But if I go the 12-24, I will probably use it for 65-75% of my shots, but only if it does a great job in the 17-24 range.
24mm is the most important focal length on Crop sensor to me. If you compare the Tamron to the Da, @ 24mm, @ Photozone, you will see they are both clear of distortions here, but the Tamron has the advantage in sharpness---something important in landscapes. Also, the Tamron is a faster, constant zoom than the Da.

My decision was different than yours, because when I selected from the 12-24 & the 10-20, I already owned the Tamron 17-50.

SpecialK has given you good advice here:
QuoteQuote:
SpecialK: Rather than reading text about lenses, I'd look in the threads dedicated to each lens and see which image results you like better.
I would look at as many images from both lenses that I could find. Remember, in the case of viewing both lenses, shots will vary greatly in their appeal due to the experience of the ultra wide angle shooter, as well as the experience of the person doing the PPing.

Good Luck.

02-18-2011, 01:53 PM   #33
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by Jewelltrail Quote
The Tokina/Da has no numbers @ 10mm--that is a big point here. Even @ 12mm, f8, on the Tokina, vs 10mm, f8, on the Sigma, the numbers are statistically irrelevant.



Why don't you post a shot which is comparable, say 12mm, f8, with the Tokina/Da--%100 crops of the most extreme corners--then we can renew this talk.



Because the Tokina lens is the Da lens, minus a few hundred dollars. The Canon & Nikon people can buy the 12-24 f4 for far less than the Pentax people can. Pentax people often speak about the Da 12-24 as if it is a unique, Pentax formula, justified in its high price. But the lens can be bought for under $400 in C & N mount. It is nice to bring things back to Earth, by being honest & explaining the 2 lenses are really no different, save their price difference.


sure, I would consider doing that for the benefit of comparison, when I have the time. it's about spring time and shouldn't be a problem shooting outside soon. but, I would say that it is still best to have both lenses tested side by side to see the difference more definitely and intricately. something like the test conducted recently by forum members regarding the fast lenses gives more of a clear idea of the difference.

as someone already pointed out, the Tokina and Pentax may have similar optical formula but the coating for each is a question. I understand your rant regarding the 12-24 being expensive for the K-mount. so it's a matter of your willingness to spend for a particular lens. same goes why I feel tentative on buying the FA31 at it's current price, while the Sigma 30 is cheaper, right?
02-18-2011, 02:14 PM   #34
Veteran Member
causey's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Arlington, VA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,758
Is the FA 31mm offered in Nikon, Canon, and Sony mounts at half the price?

02-18-2011, 02:48 PM   #35
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by causey Quote
Is the FA 31mm offered in Nikon, Canon, and Sony mounts at half the price?
the point is your willingness to spend for a particular lens. if one has a cheaper alternative and dont want to spend a premium on a particular lens, then one would go for something that is within hand's reach. this is not about what lenses are not available on an specific mount. otherwise, we can bitch all day why the Sigma 150 is not available for K-mount and why the 180mm was discontinued and why Pentax/Hoya never released the 1.4x SP TC for the K-mount.
02-18-2011, 03:01 PM   #36
Veteran Member
causey's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Arlington, VA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,758
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxor Quote
the point is your willingness to spend for a particular lens. if one has a cheaper alternative and dont want to spend a premium on a particular lens, then one would go for something that is within hand's reach. this is not about what lenses are not available on an specific mount. otherwise, we can bitch all day why the Sigma 150 is not available for K-mount and why the 180mm was discontinued and why Pentax/Hoya never released the 1.4x SP TC for the K-mount.
The point is your willingness to spend for a particular lens knowing that the same lens is offered for half the price in other mounts--which opens up the possibility of changing systems, an option one may consider.
If Sigma hadn't been available in K mount, even supposing the DA was some $200 cheaper than it is, I would have switched to Nikon. Believe it or not, not all people have the same preferences. I simply don't like the build quality of my 16-45mm, nor its length--and both the build and the length are similar to those of the DA 12-24mm. Call me crazy, but I prefer the Sigma also for factors independent of price (although the price certainly is part of the equation). I just love its sturdiness and compactness.

Last edited by causey; 02-18-2011 at 05:53 PM.
02-18-2011, 04:22 PM   #37
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by causey Quote
The point is your willingness to spend for a particular lens knowing that the same lens is offered for half the price in other mounts--which opens up the possibility of changing systems, an option one may consider.
If Sigma weren't available in K mount, even supposing the DA was some $200 cheaper than it is, I would have switched to Nikon. Believe it or not, not all people have the same preferences. I simply don't like the build quality of my 16-45mm, nor its length--and both the build and the length are similar to those of the DA 12-24mm. Call me crazy, but I prefer the Sigma also for factors independent of price (although the price certainly is part of the equation). I just love its sturdiness and compactness.
that is something to consider about. but anyways, it's a lost for Pentax if certain 3rd party lenses are unavailable for the K-mount. I also forgot to mention the Sigma 100-300 which are still available and being sold in other mounts and are significantly cheaper (especially in the used market) than the Pentax equivalent.
02-18-2011, 04:49 PM   #38
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,314
QuoteOriginally posted by ben_leg Quote
Hi everyone,
I did some research, and I could get a used Pentax 12-24 f4 for the price of roughly the price of a new sigma 10-20 f3.5
If you were in my position, which one will you go for???
Does the 2mm make a big difference???

Thanks for your help
I did a scan of photos using exif plot to evaluate my shots. 60% of the shots with the 10-20 were at 10mm I would miss the 2 mm

02-18-2011, 07:04 PM   #39
Site Supporter
SpecialK's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: So California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,440
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
I did a scan of photos using exif plot to evaluate my shots. 60% of the shots with the 10-20 were at 10mm I would miss the 2 mm
I don't disagree about the 2mm, but I'm pretty sure 60% of all zoom shots are at one end or another :-) It's a natural stop. If the majority was in the middle you could get by with a prime at the FL.
02-18-2011, 07:09 PM   #40
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,314
QuoteOriginally posted by SpecialK Quote
I don't disagree about the 2mm, but I'm pretty sure 60% of all zoom shots are at one end or another :-) It's a natural stop. If the majority was in the middle you could get by with a prime at the FL.
I don't know if it is human nature or just that you really want more or less of what ever lens you have. Note I have since acquired an 8mm fisheye

But actually a zoom that really gets proper use should have a more central distribution or at least uniform at all focal lengths
02-18-2011, 10:09 PM   #41
Veteran Member
Jewelltrail's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Rhode Island
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,180
QuoteQuote:
Pentaxor: I would assume the hyperfocal distance you were referring is the distance where everything is sharp?
I know what you mean in your definition of the Hyperfocal Distance, but this is a more helpful way of understanding the HD--more accurate too:

... the hyperfocal distance setting ... is simply a fancy term that means the distance setting at any aperture that produces the greatest depth of field.

edit:
QuoteQuote:
Pentaxor: I would had vouched for the Tokina 11-16. so for the Pentax mount,
Actually, now there is a Tokina lens I would love to own. To be honest, it was my first choice when I started this research years ago, but Pentax & Tokina are not going to make it a possibility--we must get over this one, together.
02-18-2011, 10:42 PM   #42
Veteran Member
Jewelltrail's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Rhode Island
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,180
QuoteQuote:
Pentaxor: sure, I would consider doing that for the benefit of comparison, when I have the time. it's about spring time and shouldn't be a problem shooting outside soon. but, I would say that it is still best to have both lenses tested side by side to see the difference more definitely and intricately. something like the test conducted recently by forum members regarding the fast lenses gives more of a clear idea of the difference.
Pentaxor, I agree, that a side by side comparison of the 2 lenses might prove fruitful to some, but, as we both know, who & how the tests are done will always raise controversy. I am confident enough in my choice of the 2 to simply offer my opinion along with pertinent facts or figures, as the thread unfolds. I realize it is only my opinion, nothing more. I am here to serve the OP.

Both lenses have their own niche for advantages--both have strengths which the other doesn't. For this reason alone, no test is ever going to definitively answer which one is better. It is about which lens is better for each prospective buyer, since each buyer brings thier own unique needs to the table. There will always be those who prefer the Sigma over the Da, and vice versa. But that fact will not make one better than the other.

The goal is to have each buyer make the choice which is best for them--that is the goal, and the point of a forum, where ideas and facts are exchanged for the amelioration of the whole (forum), not for a "My lens is better than your lens" show.

I remember when I opened a similar thread to this one, years back. Many people offered me advice, all of it was good, some of it was excellent--there was not a sinlge post in the thread which did not do something to help me make my choice--I was grateful to all who took the time to help me, because I knew each was trying to help me.

QuoteQuote:
Pentaxor: as someone already pointed out, the Tokina and Pentax may have similar optical formula but the coating for each is a question.
I believe the 2 lenses have identical optical formulas, not similar ones, though I could be wrong. This is something a prospective buyer is entitled to know, because it may affect their decision, positively or negatively.

Sure, some think the Pentax coatings are different, and that is great you make this fact clear to the OP. I recently read the coatings were updated on the Canon & Nikon mount, and that it is now up to par with the Pentax mount. However, as you suggest, the earlier coatings of the Tokina 12-24 C & N mount were thought to be inferior. All of this is general information, presented to the OP, not as Gospel--he or she can discard or gather as they see fit--it may even send them off into a new direction of their own research.

edit:
QuoteQuote:
Pentaxor: I understand your rant regarding the 12-24 being expensive for the K-mount. so it's a matter of your willingness to spend for a particular lens.
Not sure why you took this as a "rant"--I have no problem with this. Pentax is entitled to do whatever they please in this arena--indeed, it is their perogative. To be honest, even if the Da 12-24 were offered @ the C & N price of $399, I still would have bought the Sigma. I really like the Sigma, and love 10mm--most of my shots are done @ 10mm. Again, a fact which played in my decision though, was already owning the Tamron 17-50, which I love. I rarely ever shoot the Sigma at 17-20mm--if I do, it is only to avoid switching lens mounts--a real rush or real lazy day for me. So it is really a Sigma 10-16 for my purposes, and the da only would have been a 12-16 for me--does this make any sense?

Last edited by Jewelltrail; 02-18-2011 at 11:39 PM.
02-20-2011, 02:31 PM   #43
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Eureka, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,832
QuoteOriginally posted by Jewelltrail Quote
Sure, some think the Pentax coatings are different, and that is great you make this fact clear to the OP. I recently read the coatings were updated on the Canon & Nikon mount, and that it is now up to par with the Pentax mount.
The second version of the Tokina 12-24 apparently uses better coatings. Whether those coatings are "equal" to the coatings used in the DA 12-24 is an open question. Given the higher price of the Pentax version of the lens, it's likely that the Pentax coatings are superior. But whether they are equal or not, they are different, and different coatings means that the lenses are not identical, since coatings can have a significant impact on the performance of the lens. The notion, therefore, that the Tokina 12-24 and DA 12-24 are identical (except for their mounts) is a myth. Nor can we safely assume that each lens costs the same to produce. It's quite possible that the Pentax lens costs more to produce and that is reflected in the price.
02-20-2011, 06:37 PM   #44
Veteran Member
causey's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Arlington, VA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,758
Yes, they are absolutely non-identical, except they have identical optical formulas. The DA likely has better coatings, while the Tokina definitely has better build. I can see why the Pentax costs twice as much as the Pentax.

QuoteOriginally posted by northcoastgreg Quote
The second version of the Tokina 12-24 apparently uses better coatings. Whether those coatings are "equal" to the coatings used in the DA 12-24 is an open question. Given the higher price of the Pentax version of the lens, it's likely that the Pentax coatings are superior. But whether they are equal or not, they are different, and different coatings means that the lenses are not identical, since coatings can have a significant impact on the performance of the lens. The notion, therefore, that the Tokina 12-24 and DA 12-24 are identical (except for their mounts) is a myth. Nor can we safely assume that each lens costs the same to produce. It's quite possible that the Pentax lens costs more to produce and that is reflected in the price.
02-22-2011, 01:26 AM   #45
Veteran Member
Jewelltrail's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Rhode Island
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,180
QuoteOriginally posted by northcoastgreg Quote
The second version of the Tokina 12-24 apparently uses better coatings. Whether those coatings are "equal" to the coatings used in the DA 12-24 is an open question. Given the higher price of the Pentax version of the lens, it's likely that the Pentax coatings are superior. But whether they are equal or not, they are different, and different coatings means that the lenses are not identical, since coatings can have a significant impact on the performance of the lens. The notion, therefore, that the Tokina 12-24 and DA 12-24 are identical (except for their mounts) is a myth. Nor can we safely assume that each lens costs the same to produce. It's quite possible that the Pentax lens costs more to produce and that is reflected in the price.
Greg, nobody here said the lenses are identical. I did say I believe the optical formulas are identical though.
QuoteQuote:
northcoastgreg: The notion, therefore, that the Tokina 12-24 and DA 12-24 are identical (except for their mounts) is a myth.
Not sure where you got this notion from, but it is nowhere to be found in this thread. If you read what I wrote, you will see that I make clear I believe the optical formulas are identical.

Finally, nowhere in the thread does anyone say the cost for producing each lens is identical.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
k-mount, pentax lens, price, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:36 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top