I have the Pentax 12-24 but want wider...

The Kurly One · 07-29-2011, 04:17 PM

Which lens is going to give me "Comparable" IQ, but give me more range? Sigma 8-16? Sigma 10-20? or just f it and get the Pentax 10-17 fisheye and use the lens correction in LR3? What are your suggestions? I can get the Pentax for less than $500 brand new... or I have to hunt for the others... lmk your opinions!

RioRico · 07-29-2011, 04:27 PM

The DA10-17 is great but defishing will reduce IQ -- you'll want to downsample defished images to keep good resolution. It's the lens that drove me to Pentax -- I use it, but as a fisheye. Be aware that fisheyes, and rectilinear ultrawides, are vastly different kettles of fish.

Many people love the two versions of the Sigma 10-20. I have also read many reports of users returning 2-3-4 copies before getting a good one, and I've talked to pros who despise Sigma's QC. I can't comment on the Sigma 8-16. I have and love the Tamron 10-24; some report problems but mine is just fine.

Whatever you buy, make sure the seller has a lenient return policy.

**Lowell Goudge** · 07-29-2011, 04:37 PM

Aside from loss of IQ de-fishing will result in an image with a narrower FOV than the 12-24

I have the sigma 10-20 version 1 and an 8 mm fisheye. The additional 2mm of the 10-20 over the 12-24 is important to me. 60% of all my shots with this lens are at 10mm

twitch · 07-29-2011, 05:22 PM

Every review I've read of the 8-16 praises it. The only downside is the inability to use filters. IQ is first rate though.

The Kurly One · 07-29-2011, 06:36 PM

Crap, you know whats going to happen?

I'm going to buy the 10-17mm, and not be able to get rid of the 12-24 so I can keep the linear wide angle.... but I don't know if I want all that lovely fishiness yet...

northcoastgreg · 07-29-2011, 06:41 PM

If you're looking for something wider than the DA 12-24 and prefer rectilinear distortion to circular distortion, the obvious choice is the Sigma 8-16. When I want to go wider than the DA 12-24 I either stitch together multiple shots or use the DA 10-17 and try to conceal the circular distortion as best I can (which, of course, is not always possible).

**interested_observer** · 07-29-2011, 07:30 PM

You can also stitch with the 12-24 either in landscape or portrait mode....

**barondla** · 07-29-2011, 07:54 PM

I have owned the Pentax 10-17 FE for a few years. Love it. Alternate between it and the Pentax 16-45. Beginning of the year bought the Pentax 12-24. Use it much more than I thought. It is a sharper lens than my FE. Even the 12-24 is lacking in fov, vs the Pentax A15 on LX 35mm. I miss that extra fov on digital, so I ordered the sigma 8-16. couldn't see buying the 10-20 and then wishing for wider. Now if it would only arrive.

good luck with your choice
barondla

Soap · 07-30-2011, 05:43 AM

Originally posted by twitch

Every review I've read of the 8-16 praises it. The only downside is the inability to use filters. IQ is first rate though.

But what about the lens profile which isn't usable in LR3 <10?

ChatMechant · 07-30-2011, 09:10 AM

I was actually thinking of going the other way- going from a sigma 10-20 3.5 to a pentax 12-24. the pentax seems to have less distortion at the edges.

civiletti · 07-30-2011, 09:25 AM

The Sigma 8-16 is one of my favorite lenses. The IQ still surprises me. If I need an ND filter- about the only kind I'd use on an ultrawide - I hold a large gel in front of the hood.

Pentaxor · 07-30-2011, 10:45 AM

if you want significantly wider, the Sigma 8-16 is the way to go. no point on considering the 10-20 nor the fisheye.

RioRico · 07-30-2011, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by Pentaxor

if you want significantly wider, the Sigma 8-16 is the way to go. no point on considering the 10-20 nor the fisheye.

The Sigma's maximum AOV is about 115 degrees. The DA10-17's is about 180 degrees. These are totally different fish. Also, while the Sigma has good optics, they're in a questionable package: Sigma 8-16mm

Pentaxor · 07-30-2011, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by RioRico

The Sigma's maximum AOV is about 115 degrees. The DA10-17's is about 180 degrees. These are totally different fish. Also, while the Sigma has good optics, they're in a questionable package: Sigma 8-16mm

that is 180 degrees before the defish and salvagable corners before distortion correction, not to mention corner IQ as well. if the OP wants to utilize fish-eye as is, then that would be fine. but since the OP consider some corrections, it may take a lot of effort on doing such, not to mention losing some as well.

The Kurly One · 07-30-2011, 03:16 PM

I just dont think I would use the Fisheye very often. But it does look like a lot of to use!

07-29-2011, 04:17 PM	#1
The Kurly One Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 233	I have the Pentax 12-24 but want wider... Which lens is going to give me "Comparable" IQ, but give me more range? Sigma 8-16? Sigma 10-20? or just f it and get the Pentax 10-17 fisheye and use the lens correction in LR3? What are your suggestions? I can get the Pentax for less than $500 brand new... or I have to hunt for the others... lmk your opinions!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Going wider (DA14, DA15, DA21)	ntx	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	27	08-19-2011 04:15 AM
looking for recommendations for something wider then the 50mm 1.7.	boosted03gti	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	4	06-04-2010 12:34 PM
So, which is wider? And does it matter?	azcavalier	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	10	10-17-2007 01:27 PM
why does Pentax lens get longer when going wider	WMBP	Pentax DSLR Discussion	11	09-07-2007 10:43 PM
Best quality lens wider than 28mm	regken	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	07-17-2007 06:54 AM

07-29-2011, 04:27 PM	#2
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	The DA10-17 is great but defishing will reduce IQ -- you'll want to downsample defished images to keep good resolution. It's the lens that drove me to Pentax -- I use it, but as a fisheye. Be aware that fisheyes, and rectilinear ultrawides, are vastly different kettles of fish. Many people love the two versions of the Sigma 10-20. I have also read many reports of users returning 2-3-4 copies before getting a good one, and I've talked to pros who despise Sigma's QC. I can't comment on the Sigma 8-16. I have and love the Tamron 10-24; some report problems but mine is just fine. Whatever you buy, make sure the seller has a lenient return policy.

07-29-2011, 04:37 PM	#3
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,891	Aside from loss of IQ de-fishing will result in an image with a narrower FOV than the 12-24 I have the sigma 10-20 version 1 and an 8 mm fisheye. The additional 2mm of the 10-20 over the 12-24 is important to me. 60% of all my shots with this lens are at 10mm

07-29-2011, 05:22 PM	#4
twitch Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,571	Every review I've read of the 8-16 praises it. The only downside is the inability to use filters. IQ is first rate though.

07-29-2011, 06:36 PM	#5
The Kurly One Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 233 Original Poster	Crap, you know whats going to happen? I'm going to buy the 10-17mm, and not be able to get rid of the 12-24 so I can keep the linear wide angle.... but I don't know if I want all that lovely fishiness yet...

07-29-2011, 06:41 PM	#6
northcoastgreg Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Northern Michigan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,174	If you're looking for something wider than the DA 12-24 and prefer rectilinear distortion to circular distortion, the obvious choice is the Sigma 8-16. When I want to go wider than the DA 12-24 I either stitch together multiple shots or use the DA 10-17 and try to conceal the circular distortion as best I can (which, of course, is not always possible).

07-29-2011, 07:30 PM	#7
interested_observer Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,707	You can also stitch with the 12-24 either in landscape or portrait mode....

07-29-2011, 07:54 PM	#8
barondla Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: midwest, United States Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,714	I have owned the Pentax 10-17 FE for a few years. Love it. Alternate between it and the Pentax 16-45. Beginning of the year bought the Pentax 12-24. Use it much more than I thought. It is a sharper lens than my FE. Even the 12-24 is lacking in fov, vs the Pentax A15 on LX 35mm. I miss that extra fov on digital, so I ordered the sigma 8-16. couldn't see buying the 10-20 and then wishing for wider. Now if it would only arrive. good luck with your choice barondla

07-30-2011, 05:43 AM	#9
Soap Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Pijnacker Posts: 79	Originally posted by twitch Every review I've read of the 8-16 praises it. The only downside is the inability to use filters. IQ is first rate though. But what about the lens profile which isn't usable in LR3 <10?

07-30-2011, 09:10 AM	#10
ChatMechant Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Matsuyama Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,284	I was actually thinking of going the other way- going from a sigma 10-20 3.5 to a pentax 12-24. the pentax seems to have less distortion at the edges.

07-30-2011, 09:25 AM	#11
civiletti Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Oregon Photos: Albums Posts: 1,435	The Sigma 8-16 is one of my favorite lenses. The IQ still surprises me. If I need an ND filter- about the only kind I'd use on an ultrawide - I hold a large gel in front of the hood.

07-30-2011, 10:45 AM	#12
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	if you want significantly wider, the Sigma 8-16 is the way to go. no point on considering the 10-20 nor the fisheye.

07-30-2011, 11:26 AM	#13
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Originally posted by Pentaxor if you want significantly wider, the Sigma 8-16 is the way to go. no point on considering the 10-20 nor the fisheye. The Sigma's maximum AOV is about 115 degrees. The DA10-17's is about 180 degrees. These are totally different fish. Also, while the Sigma has good optics, they're in a questionable package: Sigma 8-16mm

07-30-2011, 01:36 PM	#14
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by RioRico The Sigma's maximum AOV is about 115 degrees. The DA10-17's is about 180 degrees. These are totally different fish. Also, while the Sigma has good optics, they're in a questionable package: Sigma 8-16mm that is 180 degrees before the defish and salvagable corners before distortion correction, not to mention corner IQ as well. if the OP wants to utilize fish-eye as is, then that would be fine. but since the OP consider some corrections, it may take a lot of effort on doing such, not to mention losing some as well.

07-30-2011, 03:16 PM	#15
The Kurly One Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 233 Original Poster	I just dont think I would use the Fisheye very often. But it does look like a lot of to use!