[mmrempen]

Hello!

I've read a bunch of threads on the topic of wides already, but every thread is tailored to the OP's specific needs, so I figure it couldn't hurt to start one with mine.

I've just bought the K-5, and am using my old trusty Tam 28-75, which is great, but I was disappointed - after coming from film - at how much the wide end of that lens was cropped by the APC sensor. So I'd like to invest in a proper wide.

I'd like a prime, or fixed, because the Tammy is already a zoom, and it's pretty hefty. I want something small and portable. Not fisheye or distorted, and autofocus if possible, though I'd consider a manual as well. I'd also like something fairly wide that will compensate for the APC's cropping, but not so wide it's ridiculous.

Obviously all arrows pointed to the DA-15, which is brilliant - I played with it a bit in the shop - and I'm saving for it. But I can't help wondering if I'm needlessly buying up. There MUST, I thought, exist a cheap alternative that fits the bill. After all, for a telephoto, I'm still shooting on an old screw-in Makinon 80-200 with a mount adapter, which is currently going on ebay for $20 (hah!).

Can it be done?

As a side question, I've noticed on all the wide threads that folks are mentioning f-stop as related to how sharp the lens is. I'll research it a bit myself, but how does the stop affect sharpness exactly?

Thanks!

[kenafein]

There is no cheap and compact alternative. Cheap wide angles for APS-C don't exist, because they didn't really make them in film days. There is a 17mm Tokina that you can get for about $100 if you can find it. You could get the Samyang/Bower/Rokinon/Vivitar/Bell and Howell/Falcon 14mm/2.8, but being 2.8 it's not a small lens. It is less than 3/5 the price of a DA15mm, but it's also manual focus (not a big deal).

[jeverettfine]

Another alternative is the Vivitar 19 f/3.8. They are selling for around $100 right now. Not as wide, but it would give you back that 28mm field of view you had with film and is a pretty good lens.

[Quicksand]

A DA 18-55mm WR won't get you as wide an FOV as the DA 15 Ltd, of course, but it is an inexpensive autofocus wide-ish lens that's weather resistant. The DA L 18-55 is even less expensive, if you don't want the WR.

It will bring you A LOT more width than the Tamron at 28mm.

I know it's not a prime, but it meets most of your other requirements.

[SpecialK]

The 12-24, although a zoom, is significantly wider than the DA 15 and longer than the DA21, with excellent IQ and little distortion. Not cheap, though. It's a really handy focal length. The hood makes it seem bigger than it is, which is slightly larger than the kit 18-55.

[Ubuntu_user]

Well, what about the Samyang 14mm f/2.8. I know it's MF, but it's definitely "cheaper."

[falconeye]

I've noticed on all the wide threads that folks are mentioning f-stop as related to how sharp the lens is. I'll research it a bit myself, but how does the stop affect sharpness exactly?

photozone.de did a test I trust and is in line with my observations.

In the center, the lens is sharp at all f-stops, sharpest between f/4 and f/5.6. However, edge sharpness significantly suffers wide open and is best at f/8 where it is said to be good (I still find corners at f/8 only satisfactory though). One should not shoot the DA15 at f/4 if important detail is in the corners.

But this is normal for a rectilinear lens where focal length is so much smaller than registration distance. Nevertheless, the DA12-24 has slightly better corner performance below f/8.

---

Last edited by falconeye; 09-20-2011 at 04:20 PM.

[boriscleto]

There is also the Zenitar 16mm fisheye. It's only slightly fishy on aps-c. ~$200.

ZENITAR 16mm F2,8 FishEye Lens Reviews - Miscellaneous Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

[blackcloudbrew]

I have had good luck with both the Tokina 19-39 f3.5-4.5 (so called plastic fantastic). It's a film lens and I got my copy for about $40. There is also the FAJ 18-35 f4-5.6. These tend to go for a bit more but are also film lenses and have reasonable image quality. I've got one for sale too. I've used mine less than the Tokina (which I really like by the way), but it's another way to go.

[hcc]

While most camera body values drop rapidly, a "good lens is worth every penny" and its value does not drop. (In fact the value of pentax lenses has increased over the past fe years.) In other words, the price of a lens is often (although not always) linked with its quality, everything else beng equal. Going for a cheaper alternative means often going for lower IQ...

Off course a MF lens will be cheaper than a AF lens and there are great MF lenses around. There are also grat non-Pentax lenses but the better ones are not always cheaper...

Food for thought...

[jimr-pdx]

What, no love (yet) for the 16mm f/4 attached to the DA16-45? That's close enough for me, although some day it won't be.

[JinDesu]

The 12-24, although a zoom, is significantly wider than the DA 15 and longer than the DA21, with excellent IQ and little distortion. Not cheap, though. It's a really handy focal length. The hood makes it seem bigger than it is, which is slightly larger than the kit 18-55.

The 12-24, having praise saying it's equal or almost equal to the 15mm, is a great lens.

It's also more expensive than the 15mmm, if I am correct.

[Nick Siebers]

What, no love (yet) for the 16mm f/4 attached to the DA16-45? That's close enough for me, although some day it won't be.

That was my thought, too.

[paperbag846]

16-45 is the cheap wide option, and its pretty good, too.

[Shamwow]

The Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8 might suit your needs.

This is a great lens with a large aperture.
It has a very close minimum focusing distance.

While expensive new, I often see this lens selling used for way less than it should.

The only drawback is its size. It is a huge piece of glass.