[Bmer]

Have Kx and am thinking of adding a wide angle zoom to my lens collection. Do alot of low light and landscape shooting. Will have to save my nickels and dimes, but any recommendations Pentax or 3rd party ?
Currently Have DA40mmF2.8Ltd, Da18-55mmF3.5 & a DA20-200mmF4.5

[mkvlln]

Pentax 12-24
Sigma 8-16
Sigma 10-20

You can't go wrong with these.

or if you want to limit yourself, get the DA 15 to add to your DA limited collection.

[aurele]

you can add the Pentax 10-17. it's a kind of fish eye at 10mm and a UWA at 17mm. Very good too.

You can't go wrong with any of those.

[hray]

Another one: Tamron 10-24 f/3.5-4; I like mine a lot.

[Coeurdechene]

There's a pentax 14mm too that is fine...and the Samyang equivalent wich is manual focus but it's half the prize than the pentax..

I'm too at this crossing and i'm having trouble deciding between the Sigma 10-20 f3,5 and the Tamron 10-24 f3,5-4...i've read and read and cannot make my mind (The tammy is like 180 cheaper so it's weakenesess are considered bearing this in mind).
"Good" thing i got no money so i got time to decide.

[pxpaulx]

or if you want to limit yourself, get the DA 15 to add to your DA limited collection.

Seconded.

You've already got the 40mm - if you like it, and enjoy the compact size, you'll absolutely love the 15mm and it will make a great pair. Unless you have a real, specific need for anything wider than 15mm (something like doing real estate photography), you absolutely can't go wrong with the 15mm. We were in Italy for 2 weeks a couple of months ago, and it was on my camera 80% of the time!

I've owned the 10-20 and the 12-24 - they are both great lenses. Problem with them is they are quite large. You'll have a lot of fun with them sure, but after awhile unless you know you'll absolutely want it when you go out shooting, it'll probably end up being the last lens to make it in your bag due to size and weight.

[JHD]

I have a Sigma 10-20 and I did have a DA15. The Sigma 10-20 allows you to take pictures in tight places and situations with great results impossible to duplicate with the DA15. There are a number of reasons why I sold the DA15, but in short there is no substitute for 10mm, 11mm, 12mm, 13mm, 14mm, 16mm, 17mm, 18mm, 19mm and 20mm. And you'd be amazed at how much a difference there is between 10mm and 15mm - 102.4˚ vs 86˚. I'd post a picture to illustrate my point, but it' dark out and I'm off to bed.

If you really want to get creative and results are what matter most, the size and weight of the Sigma a non-issue. Check out the... https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/lens-clubs/84539-sigma-10-20mm-club.html This lens is the real deal.

[Kammerer]

I'm also thinking to add a wide-angle lens. DA 12-24 and DA 15 are the contenders. I had the DA 15 on loan, and liked it very much.

Check out the... https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/lens-clubs/84539-sigma-10-20mm-club.html This lens is the real deal.

I looked at this thread, and it seems that all these images are quite soft. Difficult to say, because no-one is posting high-resolution files. But this is the impression I get.

[northcoastgreg]

Will have to save my nickels and dimes, but any recommendations Pentax or 3rd party ?

If money is an issue, I would look to get either the Tamron 10-24 or the earlier version of the Sigma 10-20. Although the Pentax 12-24 is the best of the wide angle zooms, you'll have to save quite a few nickels and dimes to get it, as it's nearly twice the cost of the Tamron. The third party alternatives are very nice in their own right and will produce better images than your kit glass.

[northcoastgreg]

I looked at this thread, and it seems that all these images are quite soft.

While not all the images at that thread are tack sharp, I think "quite soft" is an exaggeration. All the wide angle zooms are plenty sharp. If the pictures look soft that probably has to do with an over-reliance on SR, rather than just using a tripod, or on focusing errors.

[Jewelltrail]

I'm also thinking to add a wide-angle lens. DA 12-24 and DA 15 are the contenders. I had the DA 15 on loan, and liked it very much.



I looked at this thread, and it seems that all these images are quite soft. Difficult to say, because no-one is posting high-resolution files. But this is the impression I get.

I do not think you took much time looking in the Sigma 10-20 Club. There are some misfoucsed shots in there, but the lens clearly is comparable in sharpness o the Da 15mm. For example, the Da Prime 1st:



And now the Sigma Zoom:



And here are some shots with my Sigma 10-20:

[interested_observer]

Morning,

I have both the 12-24 and the 10-17FE, and do low ambient light landscapes. The two lenses complement each other very well. From their focal length labels (mm) they appear to overlap, however in my opinion what you really need to do is look at the field of view. For instance the 12-24 runs from 99 to 60 degrees, while the 10-17FE runs from ~180 to 100 degrees wide - they essentially bookend each other.

That bring me to the second item - distortion. Obviously the 10-17FE has distortion, as its a fish eye. The distortion is greatly reduced, but not eliminated as you transition from the 10 end to the 17 end.

All of this comes down to what you want to shoot. The one reason why I went with the Pentax 12-24 is its distortion is well controlled, better than the Sigma and the Tameron offerings - however I gave up some width. I have found that, especially for architecture - things with straight lines, or where the eye easily detects distortion along the edges and corners, the Pentax does very well. There are times where I find that its too wide. If you shoot landscapes and nature - things with non regular lines, you can get away with a lot more distortion before the eye notices this. However, all these lenses tend to push the center back in order to pull in the sides. So, depending on your subject and how you frame, along with the amount of detail desired, all of these factors contribute to the lens decision - what to buy and how to use.

Now, I picked up my 12-24 before the 15 and Sigma's 8-16 were available. Would I have done things differently - or would I make a different decision, given what I know now? I really do not think so. I have seen wonderful shots with all these lenses. They all have their own individual strengths and weaknesses. There are times you can not go wide enough, others when its too wide. There is always stitching and then just tipping the camera up in to portrait mode.

The 12-24 is not as sharp as the 15 in absolute terms, however the 12-24 is within spitting distance, and gives up very little - while having a wider range. The other factor is size. The 12-24 is a rather large lens (as is the 14). The 15 is very small and light in comparison. However, I have traveled with the 12-24 quite a bit, and have never found its size to be problem.

The CA issues are correctable in software. F4 tends to be fast enough - even in low light, since you are probably going to be on a tripod anyway (or with one of the higher ISO bodies - you have some additional leeway there). Also, with the wide angle, the lenses tends to pull in the light, and I have found that a wide f4 collects a lot more light than a longer lens at the same aperture.

In terms of sharpness - the 12-24 is absolutely wonderful. I also have the 31 Ltd, that I use for stitching - that surpasses the 12-24 in detail and sharpness - as expected. Where I am going with this, is not everything is tied to absolute width.

Price - UWA lenses are expensive. There is no getting around this, other than winning the lottery. It does take some saving up for it though - either new or in the marketplace....

So that is my two cents worth....

[Kammerer]

While not all the images at that thread are tack sharp, I think "quite soft" is an exaggeration. All the wide angle zooms are plenty sharp. If the pictures look soft that probably has to do with an over-reliance on SR, rather than just using a tripod, or on focusing errors.

Greg, you may be right about this. Some images do look soft (can be for many reasons, as you said), while others are simply too small to judge. Looking at 800x600, you cannot tell.

Some images in your gallery are made with DA 12-24. Have you used Sigma 10-20, and how would you compare them?

[Kammerer]

I do not think you took much time looking in the Sigma 10-20 Club. There are some misfoucsed shots in there, but the lens clearly is comparable in sharpness o the Da 15mm.

Thanks much for posting examples, Jewelltrail. Love the Desolation Trail photo! But... it looks soft, doesn't it? (ducking)

I'm trying not to read too much from the sharpness tests. According to Photozone, at f/8 the DA should be sharp from corner to corner, but in the image below (shot at f/8) the bottom left corner is soft, while the center of the frame is sharp - look at the high-res image linked below.

By the way, this site definitely softens images embedded into posts.

High-resolution

[JHD]

I looked at this thread, and it seems that all these images are quite soft. Difficult to say, because no-one is posting high-resolution files. But this is the impression I get.

The DA15 isn't any sharper than the Sigma 10-20. I've seen soft images from the DA15 too. It's called user error, or in some cases a bad copy.

There isn't anything about the DA15 that justified it's place in my bag, so out the door it went. I much prefer the Sigma, because of what can be done with its focal length. IMO this is why a photographer picks his lenses. You don't settle for a 200mm when you need 500mm. At the short end on the opposite scale, that is how great the difference is between 10mm and 15mm.