What is the best WA choice?

slackercruster · 02-02-2012, 11:03 AM

I'm looking at Pentax:

10-17

15

12-24

Will the 10-17 be a good WA choice or does it distort things even at higher focal length settings?

The 15 seems very close to the standard kit zooms WA. Not gaining much for the money in shorter foal length.

What about the 12-24

Any other suggestions for a WA that is sharp, contrasty and produces high quality photos?

Thanks

lytrytyr · 02-02-2012, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by slackercruster

The 15 seems very close to the standard kit zooms WA. Not gaining much for the money in shorter foal length.

Quite apart from the dramatic IQ difference,
the difference between 15 and 18 mm is significant:
85 degree diagonal versus 75.

grainbelt · 02-02-2012, 11:13 AM

I really liked my Sigma 10-20. It had a lot of distortion at 10mm but at 12 it was completely usable. I had the old F4-5.6 version. Rarely used it, and sold it. Regret that, to some extent.

The 15 may be close to the kit zooms 18mm, but the difference in field of view between 15-18 is a lot more than 18-21. Also, the kit 18-55 is unusable for architecture until 21mm due to pronounced distortion.

I have heard that the DA 16-45 has very little distortion at wide angle, that may be an option.

**blackcloudbrew** · 02-02-2012, 11:13 AM

In this area of focal lenght, every mm makes big differences. What do you want to do with a lens in this area.?

SpecialK · 02-02-2012, 11:24 AM - **1 Like**

I wish I had gone to 10mm with the fisheye but I was just comparing what could be compared...

I can't imagine not having both 10-17 and the 12-24. The 15 was a later purchase with nice IQ, but not nearly as flexible. The 12-24 is one of my most used lenses.

slackercruster · 02-02-2012, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by blackcloudbrew

In this area of focal lenght, every mm makes big differences. What do you want to do with a lens in this area.?

Just for fun, nothing serious.

General photography. Nature, people, whatever.

slackercruster · 02-02-2012, 11:44 AM

[quote=SpecialK;1805221]I wish I had gone to 10mm with the fisheye but I was just comparing what could be compared...

I can't imagine not having both 10-17 and the 12-24. The 15 was a later purchase with nice IQ, but not nearly as flexible. The 12-24 is one of my most used lenses. [quote]

Thanks for the rundown and photos. Do you find the fisheye to be as sharp as the 12-24?

northcoastgreg · 02-02-2012, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by slackercruster

Will the 10-17 be a good WA choice or does it distort things even at higher focal length settings?

It distorts at all focal lengths, though not as badly at 17mm. Also keep in mind that the distortion is toward the corners around the middle of the frame even to the edges distortion is minimal. Hence, if you put the horizon in the middle of the frame, it will be straight. Anything toward the corners will distort, mildly at 17mm, intensely at 10mm.

The DA 10-17 is a bit of a wildcard lens. It's not really any sharper than the kit lens but, thanks to stunning color rendition, excellent contrast, and beauty of rendering, is capable of producing stunning photos. Fisheye lenses, because of their distortion, can be limited in their usefulness; but make a fisheye that zooms, and its usefulness goes up exponentially, since you can dial in just the right combination of distortion and FOV to create the image needed.

Originally posted by slackercruster

The 15 seems very close to the standard kit zooms WA. Not gaining much for the money in shorter foal length.

As others have mentioned, 15mm is not that close to 18mm. And you gain more with the DA 15 than just focal length over the kit lens: the DA 15 has much better IQ.

Originally posted by slackercruster

What is the best WA choice?

Depends on your needs. The "best" WAs are probably the DA 15, the DA 12-24, and the Sigma 8-16. They are also the most expensive options. The Tamron 10-24 and Sigma 10-20 (1st version) are less expensive but still quite good choices, comparable, if not quite matching, the more expensive alternatives.
The DA 10-17

Roob-N-Boots · 02-02-2012, 01:21 PM

Thanks SpecialK, having the 10-17 I always wondered what the difference would be at 17mm on my FE vs a wide angle lens.

SpecialK · 02-02-2012, 04:27 PM

Originally posted by slackercruster

Do you find the fisheye to be as sharp as the 12-24?

They are both excellent lenses. I'm only guessing that the 12-24 may be sharper, but it does not do fisheye, so it is a secondary consideration.

Marc Sabatella · 02-03-2012, 10:40 AM

See also the dozens of previous threads discussing the differences between these lenses. There is lots of good information and plenty of opinions expressed in those threads that likely won't be repeated here, because people have already said it several times before.

slackercruster · 02-03-2012, 06:26 PM

Forgot to ask...

On any of these Pentax WA we are discussing. Can filters be used on them?

RioRico · 02-03-2012, 11:30 PM

Originally posted by slackercruster

Forgot to ask...

On any of these Pentax WA we are discussing. Can filters be used on them?

On the DA10-17, no. On the others, see the lens review database.

northcoastgreg · 02-04-2012, 10:16 AM

Originally posted by slackercruster

Can filters be used on them?

Well, filters can be screwed on all the ultra wides except for the Sigma 8-16. That doesn't mean they won't vignette. You can, for example, screw a 58mm filter unto the built-in hood of the DA 10-17, but that will certain vignette throughout much of the range of the lens. "Slim" filters won't vignette on the DA 12-24, even at 12mm. I can't say what happens with the Sigma 10-20s or the Tamron. The DA 15 vignette with circular filters, but using square filters, such as the Cokin system, can be a challenge because of the built-in hood.

lytrytyr · 02-04-2012, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by slackercruster

On any of these Pentax WA we are discussing. Can filters be used on them?

The old SMC Takumar 20/4.5 (in M42 mount), for full frame,
had a 58mm filter ring on the lens.
But it came with a 58 to 77mm step-up ring,
so that 77mm filters could be mounted without vignetting
(at a 95 degree angle of view).
The same idea should work on modern lenses.

02-02-2012, 11:03 AM	#1
slackercruster Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: NE, USA Posts: 1,302	What is the best WA choice? I'm looking at Pentax: 10-17 15 12-24 Will the 10-17 be a good WA choice or does it distort things even at higher focal length settings? The 15 seems very close to the standard kit zooms WA. Not gaining much for the money in shorter foal length. What about the 12-24 Any other suggestions for a WA that is sharp, contrasty and produces high quality photos? Thanks

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The K-5.......the right choice for me!	RIDE	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	20	08-02-2011 09:22 PM
Which would be a better choice for the K-r: DA 35 2.4 or A 50 1.7?	Taobat	Pentax K-r	18	05-25-2011 10:25 PM
Misc The Choice	KarenH	Post Your Photos!	19	11-15-2010 02:08 PM
MF choice	icywarm	Pentax Medium Format	5	05-24-2010 08:00 AM
Help with the choice of a scanner	Rense	Pentax Medium Format	22	04-27-2010 10:55 AM

02-02-2012, 11:11 AM	#2
lytrytyr Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2011 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,310	Originally posted by slackercruster The 15 seems very close to the standard kit zooms WA. Not gaining much for the money in shorter foal length. Quite apart from the dramatic IQ difference, the difference between 15 and 18 mm is significant: 85 degree diagonal versus 75.

02-02-2012, 11:13 AM	#3
grainbelt Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Minneapolis Photos: Albums Posts: 587	I really liked my Sigma 10-20. It had a lot of distortion at 10mm but at 12 it was completely usable. I had the old F4-5.6 version. Rarely used it, and sold it. Regret that, to some extent. The 15 may be close to the kit zooms 18mm, but the difference in field of view between 15-18 is a lot more than 18-21. Also, the kit 18-55 is unusable for architecture until 21mm due to pronounced distortion. I have heard that the DA 16-45 has very little distortion at wide angle, that may be an option.

02-02-2012, 11:13 AM	#4
blackcloudbrew Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Cotati, California USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,460	In this area of focal lenght, every mm makes big differences. What do you want to do with a lens in this area.?

02-02-2012, 11:24 AM - 1 Like	#5
SpecialK Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: So California Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,480	I wish I had gone to 10mm with the fisheye but I was just comparing what could be compared... I can't imagine not having both 10-17 and the 12-24. The 15 was a later purchase with nice IQ, but not nearly as flexible. The 12-24 is one of my most used lenses.

02-02-2012, 11:41 AM	#6
slackercruster Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: NE, USA Posts: 1,302 Original Poster	Originally posted by blackcloudbrew In this area of focal lenght, every mm makes big differences. What do you want to do with a lens in this area.? Just for fun, nothing serious. General photography. Nature, people, whatever.

02-02-2012, 11:44 AM	#7
slackercruster Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: NE, USA Posts: 1,302 Original Poster	[quote=SpecialK;1805221]I wish I had gone to 10mm with the fisheye but I was just comparing what could be compared... I can't imagine not having both 10-17 and the 12-24. The 15 was a later purchase with nice IQ, but not nearly as flexible. The 12-24 is one of my most used lenses. [quote] Thanks for the rundown and photos. Do you find the fisheye to be as sharp as the 12-24?

02-02-2012, 11:58 AM	#8
northcoastgreg Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Northern Michigan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,173	Originally posted by slackercruster Will the 10-17 be a good WA choice or does it distort things even at higher focal length settings? It distorts at all focal lengths, though not as badly at 17mm. Also keep in mind that the distortion is toward the corners around the middle of the frame even to the edges distortion is minimal. Hence, if you put the horizon in the middle of the frame, it will be straight. Anything toward the corners will distort, mildly at 17mm, intensely at 10mm. The DA 10-17 is a bit of a wildcard lens. It's not really any sharper than the kit lens but, thanks to stunning color rendition, excellent contrast, and beauty of rendering, is capable of producing stunning photos. Fisheye lenses, because of their distortion, can be limited in their usefulness; but make a fisheye that zooms, and its usefulness goes up exponentially, since you can dial in just the right combination of distortion and FOV to create the image needed. Originally posted by slackercruster The 15 seems very close to the standard kit zooms WA. Not gaining much for the money in shorter foal length. As others have mentioned, 15mm is not that close to 18mm. And you gain more with the DA 15 than just focal length over the kit lens: the DA 15 has much better IQ. Originally posted by slackercruster What is the best WA choice? Depends on your needs. The "best" WAs are probably the DA 15, the DA 12-24, and the Sigma 8-16. They are also the most expensive options. The Tamron 10-24 and Sigma 10-20 (1st version) are less expensive but still quite good choices, comparable, if not quite matching, the more expensive alternatives. The DA 10-17

02-02-2012, 01:21 PM	#9
Roob-N-Boots Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Palm Springs CA Posts: 393	Thanks SpecialK, having the 10-17 I always wondered what the difference would be at 17mm on my FE vs a wide angle lens.

02-02-2012, 04:27 PM	#10
SpecialK Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: So California Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,480	Originally posted by slackercruster Do you find the fisheye to be as sharp as the 12-24? They are both excellent lenses. I'm only guessing that the 12-24 may be sharper, but it does not do fisheye, so it is a secondary consideration.

02-03-2012, 10:40 AM	#11
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	See also the dozens of previous threads discussing the differences between these lenses. There is lots of good information and plenty of opinions expressed in those threads that likely won't be repeated here, because people have already said it several times before.

02-03-2012, 06:26 PM	#12
slackercruster Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: NE, USA Posts: 1,302 Original Poster	Forgot to ask... On any of these Pentax WA we are discussing. Can filters be used on them?

02-03-2012, 11:30 PM	#13
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Originally posted by slackercruster Forgot to ask... On any of these Pentax WA we are discussing. Can filters be used on them? On the DA10-17, no. On the others, see the lens review database.

02-04-2012, 10:16 AM	#14
northcoastgreg Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Northern Michigan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,173	Originally posted by slackercruster Can filters be used on them? Well, filters can be screwed on all the ultra wides except for the Sigma 8-16. That doesn't mean they won't vignette. You can, for example, screw a 58mm filter unto the built-in hood of the DA 10-17, but that will certain vignette throughout much of the range of the lens. "Slim" filters won't vignette on the DA 12-24, even at 12mm. I can't say what happens with the Sigma 10-20s or the Tamron. The DA 15 vignette with circular filters, but using square filters, such as the Cokin system, can be a challenge because of the built-in hood.

02-04-2012, 10:23 AM	#15
lytrytyr Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2011 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,310	Originally posted by slackercruster On any of these Pentax WA we are discussing. Can filters be used on them? The old SMC Takumar 20/4.5 (in M42 mount), for full frame, had a 58mm filter ring on the lens. But it came with a 58 to 77mm step-up ring, so that 77mm filters could be mounted without vignetting (at a 95 degree angle of view). The same idea should work on modern lenses.