[normhead]

Here's the issue with the 12-24s. My kit lens and my 18-135 cover it's range in zoom, and I already have the 21 in prime. Neither of them have the stellar CA numbers the 15 or 8-16. The 15 has F5.6 and F8 both of which have "you can't take this picture better with any lens you can buy" appeal, for two different types of images. That's just rare. The 8-16 would actually extend my range beyond 10 as well as provide a nice compliment to the two zooms that start at 18.

The Tammy 10-24, Sigma 10-20 and 12-24 and Pentax 12-24 are all kind of overlap lenses for me. I'm assuming that if I ever want to cover the range around 25 , one of that host of lenses that cover 16-50 will do sInce my current zooms cover that range.There are some very good lenses in that range. How many lenses can you use that cover 18-24?

My theory has always been, cover as much as you can with your zooms, so you have a shot at everything. Then fill in with as many primes as you can carry.

With the 10-17 which we love by the way, but which isn't a landscape lens, the 18-135 and 60-250, we've pretty much got that covered, for zooms.

You could add a better zoom to cover 10-60, but you'd have to convince me it would make one of my older zooms unnecessary. At this point I'm happy to add primes, especially light primes, because at some point, I'm going to be carrying all this stuff. I love lenses that are the best at something. The Sigma 8-16 has the numbers to be a great lens. Reviewers are saying things about it you don't see written very often. It's caught my attention to the point that even if I don't buy it this time around, it's probably going on the list. Especially if I can find one to test and I like it. Because, it extends my range, and for me that's what a zoom should do, extend your range. I could even leave my 10-17 home. I may have to look through a Canon or NIkon to check it out. (So far none of the venders I've written to have one in a Pentax mount) if I can see it at all, but hey, I can do that... really, how much can it hurt?

Anyway, that's the way I think, I'm sure someone else thinks different, and might even tell us about it.

[stormtech]

Thanks for sharing your research with us all here - I am kind of on the edge of buying a WA lens myself and am following along here with great interest!

[normhead]

You're welcome stormtech.. although I find the opinions expressed more interesting than my research. The testing people don't take the average of 5 lenses, throw out the top and bottom etc. so you can't tell entirely what you're going to get. But, that being said, you have to think, if someone got a really good copy for testing, you could be just as lucky. So, you don't know what the numbers mean, they just point you the right way. One place told me they have the Pentax lenses so I should be able to see the 14, 15 and 12-24 from Pentax, as well as the Sigma 8-16 on a Nikon or Canon and probably the 10-20 as well. I won't be able to make a final decision until that happens. Really, if I end up really liking one of them, the research I've done won't matter. I just think I like to have a clue going into testing. Despite Adam saying it's weaker than the others...the Tamron 10-24 is still the dark horse. I noticed that in his tests, the Tamron image is lighter than the other images. For some reason it's not correctly exposed. And there are some awesome Tamron images on the site. And it would save me a load of money. My Tamorn 90 is the cheapest feeling lens I own, but it take awesome pictures. You just don't know anything until you hold them in your hand, and snap a few pictures.

[stormtech]

You just don't know anything until you hold them in your hand, and snap a few pictures.

Exactly - and exactly why I absorb as much as I can here on the forum since there is no way for me to see/feel/shoot any equipment near where I live.

[jimr-pdx]

My theory has always been, cover as much as you can with your zooms, so you have a shot at everything. Then fill in with as many primes as you can carry.
With the 10-17 which we love by the way, but which isn't a landscape lens, the 18-135 and 60-250, we've pretty much got that covered, for zooms.

I agree with your logic; my only change is to leave the ultrawide shots for the Sigma 15 to cover alone.

I have two kits that break out three ways: AF, MF and mixed primes. AF covers 18-300mm with two fine zooms and that's easily 90% of what I shoot. The 15 fisheye covers one extreme end so I'm up to 99%; I don't do wildlife so the 300+ area is not worth spending $everal hundred to fill or compromising with a 500mm mirror lens (though the one percent calls to me at times, like for the recent annular eclipse and Venus transit). In fact if the roadmap 18-200ish is WR that would do 85% of my shots, if it were up to snuff. I don't doubt that I'd love a 10-20 or somesuch, but the fisheye is wide enough, and brighter, and lighter - and with under 10% of my shots being ultrawide¹ it's not worth bending the bank for.

My prime kit has wide gaps between 15, 28 and 50² - but that forces me to think more about the shots & keeps the bag lighter so that's OK by me. I have a K-5, so SR and great ISO range means ultrafast glass has little appeal for me, for reasons of price and bulk. I owned a Sears/Rikenon 50/1.4 and struggled to achieve focus without live view; the Sigma 50/2.8 macro took its spot and I'm ecstatic to finally be done shopping in the 40-70mm range My 70-150 zoom has provided me with prime-ish IQ and tops out my mfocus kit. I had the SMC-M 200mm but let it go for lack of use, so when I need range it's time to pull the DA55-300 out and let technology reign. I once loved the Vivitar 28-105 but the kit is solid enough now that it's getting very little use - I still think it's my "video lens" but not shooting video makes that reasoning a little shaky..

¹ This logic all falls apart if I actually buy an ultrawide zoom, as suddenly 25% of my shots are taken below 20mm.. for now I'm willing to overlook that tiny flaw
² OK I still have the SMC-M 135/3.5, that certainly counts - but the 70-150 regularly steals its spot. That zoom even made the Tamron 90 expendable, once the 50 slot was properly filled!

[selar]

I ended up choosing the DA 15mm Ltd based on size and the rabid fan club here. Frankly I don't see that it's as wonderful as the fans. Mostly I like it because it's small compared to other choices like 12-24, 16-45 or 14mm. I often carry the 15mm, but I don't mount it all that often. If 16 or 18mm is not wide enough, 15 won't likely be either.

Good points that are the reason I sold my DA15 and got the Sigma 8-16

[Mareket]

Originally posted by audiobomber*
I ended up choosing the DA 15mm Ltd based on size and the rabid fan club here. Frankly I don't see that it's as wonderful as the fans. Mostly I like it because it's small compared to other choices like 12-24, 16-45 or 14mm. I often carry the 15mm, but I don't mount it all that often. If 16 or 18mm is not wide enough, 15 won't likely be either.
Good points that are the reason I sold my DA15 and got the Sigma 8-16

Basically the same conclusion I got to. And same, I hoped to get the 8-16 as a replacement one day! Great minds think alike huh?

[GDRoth]

Does someone own both a Sigma 8-16 and 40mm LTD? I'd like to see a pic of them side by side.....

[audiobomber]

My prime kit has wide gaps between 15, 28 and 50²

That Sigma 15mm fisheye is a whole lot wider than a DA 15mm Ltd.

[selar]

Does someone own both a Sigma 8-16 and 40mm LTD?

Isn't this a thread about DA15, where did DA40 crop up from?

[GDRoth]

Isn't this a thread about DA15, where did DA40 crop up from?

Sorry; I have a 15mm LTD and a 40mm LTD and got them mixed up in my mind............

I meant to ask if anyone has a 15mm and the Sigma 8-16 if they could post a pic of them side by side....

[Glen]

I bought my DA 15 just before the prices went up, although I see they are back down now. I have found it to be my favourite lens. It is small, it is quite sharp although sharper lenses are out there. It's not extremely wide so unless you really need extreme as in 12 to 14, I would say it is just right! What I don't like is that I ordered a B & W UV filter for general protection but now I can't really put the lens hood out. I have to choose between the lens hood and the protective filter.

I won't be selling the DA 15 any time soon. I might sell my FA 43, and will sell my 18-135 if and when someone comes out with something better but I'll not part with my DA 15. Below is what I mean about the DA 15 being just right as far as wide goes. It will nicely fit a little car in the whole image.



However if you need to, you can even fit a whole bus in the image!



However when you really want that wide angle distortion for effect, the DA 15 doesn't let you down.


Is this distortion or does one of these men not drive this car?

[normhead]

The Sigma doesn't really match the 15 ltd. at 5.6 or 8 according to photozone. That's the thing that bothers me most about the Sigma. Solid numbers, but not spectacular numbers. The 15 has the best CA numbers as well. The 8-16 is better for barrel distortion but both are good. And the 15 ltd is aspherical, it's not a fisheye, so comparing it to a fisheye is apples and oranges. My 10-17 fisheye is all the fisheye a normal person could want.

So, I'm curious... people seem to think the 15 lacks sharpness. What do people think is better? We're obviously not going by what photo zone says.. so what are we going by?

[stormtech]

In case not everyone has seen it, Adam has just done a very nice in-depth review of the 15ltd:

Pentax-DA 15mm F4 Limited Review - Introduction - PentaxForums.com

[selar]

I found that the DA5 had to be stopped down to atleast f8 to get reasonable corners, if you are carrying a 16-50 might as well stop that down instead at 16mm o get very nearly the same shot.