DSLR lenses are expensive investments. Given a photographer's love for his equipment, it's no wonder people are inclined to justify their purchases as well as their love of equipment. There is no single, objective truth about a kind of lens or another when the personal element can play so important a part in the evaluation as it plays when it comes to (comparable) DSLR lenses. Depending on luck, on various kinds of preferences, and on one's pixelpeeping dispositions, some such personal experiences are happier than others.
Still, a potential buyer can carefully gather information from all, without disregard for either complaints or enthusiastic testimony. As Ernest (Jewelltrail) suggested, we can offer knowledge which ultimately rests on a variety of factors, including some highly subjective ones. A careful potential buyer will not care much for the lack of understanding that the happy owners of X lens manifest towards the unhappy owners of the same lens, nor for the bickering among people owning 'competing' lenses. But he will form an idea of what he can expect when buying this or that lens.
I use the long end (24mm) of the 12-24mm more frequently than the wide end; therefore, I consider the 12-24mm more suitable for street photography and travelling better than the 10-20mm. Besides, the DA12-24mm is sharp wide open, corner to corner.
For street photography, I see your point. Since I'm doing landscape on a tripod, I don't mind changing to a 24mm lens [my only other sigma, a manual focus 24mm f2.8 macro that has great IQ for its cost].
Tom, since you have used both 8-16 and 12-24... for a landscape shot at 12-16mm, f8, from a tripod, which lens would you choose? Would you still use the same lens at f16? Many thanks for sharing your experience!
At f8, I prefer the Sigma. At f16, I think the difference would be negligible, so the DA's ability to take filters would give it the nod.
Remember. the 12-24, in any mount, except Pentax where it takes on a new name (Da), is under $400.
Very good point just to counteract that little devil in one's ear that suggests that if something is more expensive, it must also be better to the same extent.
The Tokina just costs 57% of the Pentax version.
Then Pentax version may use different coatings but I doubt that the difference is worth that much.
Originally posted by benjikan
DA 12-24 NO Contest! My favorite lens in my arsenal.
It is probably safe to assume that you have never tried a Sigma 10-20 and hence are not in great position to comment using such absolute terms. What if the 10-20 were even better? What about the contest then? It may not be better, but how do you know? It surely has less CA.
Originally posted by panoguy
( Sigma QC anyone?).
Nowadays probably better than Pentax QC (how many copies of DA* 55s does one have to go through to get a good one? QC issues with the 16-50 are legion. SDM = "Sudden Death Motor", K-5 sensor stains, K-5 FF issues, K-5 flash issues, etc. etc.)
Yes, one needs to check a Sigma lens copy on receipt and sometimes one may have to exchange it for a better copy. But I heavily doubt that Pentax has a better record. Users even complained about FA Ltds not being up to scratch.
Finally, more to the point: The 2mm difference between 10mm and 12mm may sound negligible but it is quite a difference in FOV. The next two mm down to 8mm have an even bigger effect. I got my UWA zoom to do UWA shots, so every little mm helps. I can confirm that most of the time 10mm is the focal length of choice and that's not because it is the end point of the zoom. It is because it gives the most dramatic effect.