[Class A]

I like my wide angles rectilinear, thank you kindly.

The lenses discussed here are all rectilinear (with the exception of the 10-17 which becomes a fisheye at the wide end).

You may not like UWAs but what you see is intended and part & parcel why one wants to use them.

[crf529]

8mm is not a FL that one is likely to need very often at all!

That's a matter of perception based on an assumption of what people will be shooting.

I'm looking at this lens for travel overseas, so it will need to be capable of photographing the insides of various landmarks and monuments in addition to the usual outdoor landscape scenes. Your pretty limited in terms of zooming with your feet indoors, so having 8mm on the wide end may be as useful to some as it is useless to you.

[RioRico]

I'll comment on what I know, which excludes the Pentax 12-24 and 14 and 15 and 16-45 etc, and the Sigmas.

I'm looking forward to a trip to Niagara Falls this summer, and wanting to get an UltraWide lens for the scenery.

UWA's aren't especially good for wide 'scapes -- they shrink vistas down to nothing. They are great for small spaces, interiors, and juxtaposing the nearby against the distant. When I use my Tamron 10-24 outside, even here in downtown Santa Fe NM, it's mostly at the long end. A 16-18 to 45-55 zoom is much better for 'scapes. My favorite 'scape lenses are Tokina 21/3.8 and Kiron 24/2, both manual.

1) How important would a fast aperture of f/2.8 be? Most likely I will be on a tripod when I use this and can use slower shutter speeds anyway.

Many sites (churches, monuments, etc) don't allow tripods indoors, so I brace myself against walls etc a lot. Until I got the T10-24, my go-to lens for less-lit interiors was the Zenitar 16/2.8 -- not too fishy on APS-C, defishes to 12mm equivalent, and noticeably faster than the DA10-17 and DA18-250 or DA18-55 in that neighborhood. I still keep the Zen16 for darker interiors, but bracing the T10-24 is quite good too. And sometimes that Kiron 24/2 saves my butt indoors. And sometimes a tripod *is* permitted, so no problem!

2) How often would one be frustrated with 13-15mm not being wide enough?

That depends on the space. Sometimes, only the DA10-17 FE will do. Sometimes, a few longer shots stitched together will do. And sometimes, you need a tele to focus in on details, especially in tall thin churches. A high dome just disappears at 16-24mm. Next time I'm in the incredibly ornate emaciated parrochia in Taxco Guerrero Mexico, I'll have the DA10-17, T10-24, and at least the SuperTak 135/2.5 to grab the distant glory. And maybe I'll have a 200/2.8 by then. I have no Spider-powers, so there's no other way to get good ceiling shots.

4) Is manual focus all that difficult with these?

My only manual UWA/FE's are the Vemar 12/8 FE (fixed focus, no problem!) and the Zen16, which isn't difficult to focus wide-open. But AF on the DA10-17 and T10-24 have made me lazy; I don't even bother with MF with them. As always, be careful that what the camera focuses on is what YOU want to focus on!
________________________________________

About the Tamron 10-24/3.5-4.5: I got mine with a US$100 rebate 5 months ago, for US$375 shipped. I am quite satisfied. A new Sigma 8-16 or 10-20 would have cost much more. A used Sigma 10-20 (old version) would have been a bit less, BUT... I have read too many messages that buyers had to return 2-3-4 copies of any Sigma or Tamron UWA before getting a good copy, so I didn't want to buy a still-expensive used lens with known issues. As with any costly lens, MAKE SURE YOU CAN RETURN IT!

I am very happy with the greater focal range of the T10-24. As I mentioned, outdoors I find myself at the long end pretty often. I've compared it to my 21mm, and the extra reach is significant. At the other end, it's noticeably wider than the Zen16 defished and with better detail. Close-focus is officially 8 inches, actually a little better at 10mm.

My recommendation: If you want REAL wide and have money, get a Sigma 8-16. If you have less money and want a good usable range, get a Tamron 10-24. If you have LOTS of money and want EVERYTHING, get all the UWA zooms and primes! And a bearer to schlep them around for you.

[cmohr]

Ummmm........Thats a tree branch on the right.

Looking at the pics again today I can clearly see I did not have the horizion even remotely close to level, inner ear infection ..Lol. I took those very quickly and was not exactly happy with the photos as they really dont convey the concept of obtaining the before unobtainable.

Yes, even the corrected 8mm still has some degree of distortion, but as we are all saying, it is an Ultrawide. Theres no denying the magic of the DA15 and none of the above lenses are in any way "better" or "replacements" for such a wide angle, but, just as a wide anlge has its place over a standard FL, the ultrawide has its place over a wide angle.

Wide angles have always been my thing baby!!

I had the 24 superwide back in the old film days, and loved the perspective it gave, then when going to the Sigma 12-24 on 35mm it just opened up a new world, I added to that the 17-28, and finally an 8mm circular fisheye, all on the 35mm platform. So with the reduced format of digital, you long for those extremes again, after having become so accustom to having that flexability, trust me you miss no longer having them as an option. I like being able to show what I see infront of me, but, retaining the interest point for the photo, I prefer to get close to the subject to eliminate "extras" in the foreground. people just aren't my cup of tea, the less people I photograph the happier I am. As too, I like the dramatic perspective and drawn out distortion of the ultrawide, So most of my photos are being taken with 24mm or less as a FL. Each to their own, not everybodys choice, but not an incorrect or wrong choice.

My only comment on lens choice would be this. Its generally acepted that now most will already have FL/Fov coverage above 18mm. So given that, the widest possible ultrawide would be my recommendation, based on my experiences and preferences for an ultra wide angle. The reason I have so many wide angles is the last 20years of photography means you tend to build up a stable as technology becomes available and I have a use for it, when I save enough, I try to get it. (I am actually going to rationalize the collection soon)

Choosing a diagonally corrected ultrawide is mainly based around two things, IQ and FoV. I can only comment on the Sigma range as they are the three lenses I have (and the Pentax 12-24 do not exist when I first purchased the 12-24), but, considering the coverage, 8-16, 10-20 and 12-24, to be honest, every time I put an ultrawide on the camera, its set at its widest, and I either move closer of if I can further away to frame the shot, the 10-20 and the 12-24 I would rarely zoom in at all, as I would have already achieved the photo with the bottom end of a standard zoom FoV so I would never had needed to mount the ultrawide, I do find with the 8-16 I do zoom to frame in some instances. Maximum aperature is another consideration for some, but not for me with an ultrawide.

If you are trying to decide, get yourself out in your own city, get into some churches, public buildings, closed in city streets and allyways, parks ect, see what works and what limits you.

Crikey!! I need a lye down after that.

[klh]

I finally made up my mind. Thanks for all the advice.

In the end, I decided that the smaller size would encourage me to keep it close at hand, so I placed an order with B&H for the DA15. It's a little frustrating, though, because I got an email saying the lens was back in stock (I've been checking daily). I looked it up and the price was still $509.95. By the time I placed it in my cart, the price had gone up to $529.95.

Should be here Friday!

[NaClH2O]

*snip*

Yes... it's just not very easy to see.

AF is the way to go.

Disagree, I manually focus all the time with my DA 12-24, and my two FE's (the Zenitar 16mm Fisheye and the Samyang 8mm Fish Eye) are manual focus lenses by design. I have no problem generating sharp in focus shots with any of these lenses as the DOF is so very wide. AF is pretty much unnecessary for UWA lenses.

NaCl(with a DOF measured in feet it's hard to misfocus)H2O

[Ikarus]

AF is pretty much unnecessary for UWA lenses.

What he said!

[woof]

1. not very
2. I'm finding 12 nice to have, but it's pretty rare 15mm isn't wide enough for me
3. The 15 is an absolute joy to use compared to my 12-24, as a result I use my 15 far more, in fact it's probably my most used lens.
4. UWAs are easy use hyperfocal, actually the DA15 is as it has markings but the 12-24 doesn't, for that I just guess
5. No, except perhaps for flare resistance which the DA15 has in spades.

1. +1 Most of my wide subjects are out of doors, and I am shooting slow on a tripod. Plenty fast enough. Usually try to shoot at from f/8 to f/16. "Fast enough" to throw backgrounds out of focus if that's what you want.
2. +1 Agreed. All of my best "wide" shots with the 12-24mm seem to land at about 15-16mm anyway. I actually bought it not for the wide side but for the 20-24mm range.
3. +1 Love the compactness. Recently found I could shoot nice environmental portraits with it. Love it for Architecture. Love it for landscapes.
4. ++++1 Dead on in all respects. The 15mm was where I was when I went back to hyperfocal and relearned it. If you really study and use it, you can forget about manual focus. It's not necessary, especially with wides.
5.+1 My 12-24 and DA15 in practice "feel" really quite similar in respect to IQ. Look at the reviews at Photozone for a purely objective idea of whether this applies. Add a hefty dose of purple fringe for the 12-24mm that does not show with the DA15mm. That adds a bit to the impression of the DA15mm as a "joy to use." The flare resistance on the DA15 is impressive. That adds to the joy factor as well.

woof!

[Docrwm]

15mm on APS-C is NOT ultra wide.

Unlike a long lens, every mm at the short end makes a big difference. Try mounting a 10-20mm lens on a camera and set it a 15mm before looking through the VF. Then pull back to 10mm. If you have no idea how much 5mm can make (at the short) the difference is enough for most peoples jaw to hit the floor. Now if you think that is wide, do the same thing with the 8-16mm lens. Pull back from 10mm to 8mm.

Anyone contemplating an ultra wide lens needs to know just how vast each mm is before choosing a lens.

I think this point can not be stressed enough. Folks can give you their opinion about which Wide-Prime is best and smallest and etc., etc. but if you haven't developed an eye at a certain focal length then picking one at random is a poor way to go IMHO. I just bought my DA35/2.4 because in looking at the data on my shooting with the 18-55 I found that 33-37 was a huge portion of my shots. SO, my advice is buy a wide-zoom and shoot a lot, then look at the data if you want something sharper, etc. and pick based on your own habits. Or, you may decide you like the flexibility of going from 10-24mm with the same lens.

[klh]

SO, my advice is buy a wide-zoom and shoot a lot, then look at the data if you want something sharper, etc. and pick based on your own habits.

Great advice. Interesting, I did something similar before I invested in a 70-200/2.8. I bought a cheap ($19) 135/2.8 and took it to my kids concerts and events to see if the 2.8 was worth it. Of course it was.

but if you haven't developed an eye at a certain focal length then picking one at random is a poor way to go IMHO.

I hardly picked at random. Since I didn't have an ultra-wide zoom to play with, I spent a fair bit of time imagining photos of what I was seeing and estimating the angle of view that I needed. Comparing to this table (which, if my math is right, is the angle of view on a K20D sensor), I decided that 15mm (76 degrees) would suffice in most situations.

Focal Angle of
Length View
(mm) (degrees)
10 99
12 89
14 80
15 76
18 66
20 61
24 52
28 45
35 37
50 26
85 16
135 10
200 7
300 4
400 3

[Docrwm]

Great advice. Interesting, I did something similar before I invested in a 70-200/2.8. I bought a cheap ($19) 135/2.8 and took it to my kids concerts and events to see if the 2.8 was worth it. Of course it was.




I hardly picked at random. Since I didn't have an ultra-wide zoom to play with, I spent a fair bit of time imagining photos of what I was seeing and estimating the angle of view that I needed. Comparing to this table (which, if my math is right, is the angle of view on a K20D sensor), I decided that 15mm (76 degrees) would suffice in most situations.

Focal Angle of
Length View
(mm) (degrees)
10 99
12 89
14 80
15 76
18 66
20 61
24 52
28 45
35 37
50 26
85 16
135 10
200 7
300 4
400 3

Cool. That's another way, always learning here, to do it. Hope you love the DA15 when it arrives.

[akanarya]

thanks for all about advices.

What do you think of UW for home family shots?

I need to couple a wide with my 28-75.
I want it to be more carriable (28-75 sticked on camera, but i need a wide to carry with it)
I am think about 15mm, 14mm is a little bigger.

[klh]

Cool. That's another way, always learning here, to do it. Hope you love the DA15 when it arrives.

I did get some strange looks as I walked around using my hands as a protractor!

[klh]

thanks for all about advices.

What do you think of UW for home family shots?

I need to couple a wide with my 28-75.
I want it to be more carriable (28-75 sticked on camera, but i need a wide to carry with it)
I am think about 15mm, 14mm is a little bigger.

Akanarya,

I don't know firsthand because I don't have my 15mm yet, but I understand that it is not ideal for portraits because of the distortion at the edges of the frame. Try shooting your family shots with your 18-55 set at 18mm and see how it looks.

[Docrwm]

I did get some strange looks as I walked around using my hands as a protractor!

I'll bet. Mine was fun as it forced me to learn more about the data associated with the shots from my K-x and how to use programs to access and analyze it.