[qdoan]

I'm very tempted by the Sigma 20mm f/1.8 as my Sigma 10-20mm is an awful f/5.6 at 20mm.

ANy particular reason why you went the the Sigma 10-20 over the DA12-24?

[Gooshin]

ANy particular reason why you went the the Sigma 10-20 over the DA12-24?

i just want to throw my own reason as to why i will put an order for the 10-20 over the 22-24 next week.

the extra 2mm! (plus i have a DA21 for the 20-22 coverage)

the higher the focal length the harder it gets to distringuish between viewing angles, at 150mm and 152mm i would doubt anyone would notice

but when you're shooting indoors trying to get the widest angle possible, that extra 2mm will be invaluble

and since we're hampered by our crop factors as it is, i'm surprised pentax didnt build a 10 (or less) mm lens themselves.

[egordon99]

I went with the 10-20mm mainly for cost as $500 was about my upper limit when I went UWA lens shopping last Spring. And like Gooshin says, the 10-11mm range helps alot!

[NaClH2O]

I personally would suggest the Sigma 24 F1.8 and either the 77ltd or perhaps the K 135 F2.5 Do not know if the 77ltd would have enough reach for you, if not the 135 is a great low light tele. Alternately you can try to find a 85mm F1.8, but they are pretty darn rare, and command very high prices.

NaCl(I own the Sigma 24mm F1.8 and it is a good performer)H2O

[Lowell Goudge]

with respect to the OP and initial questions, if there is a thought of MF lenses, there are a lot of old fast lenses around, 85mm F1.8 etc, that are much faster than the f2.8 zooms he has.

I am looking to fill out my prime lens collection with older MF lenses, but that is just my liking, and the fact that in controlled situations I don';t have any issue with MF lenses and focusing, even wide open in the dark.

With respect to reasons to select the 10-20 ofer the 12-24, I would have to agree with everything stated. Indoors (also travelling) the extra width is important. Someone else asked me about the sigma and whether it was worth it, so I did a review of my photos using ExposurePlot. In the last year, 20% of all shots were taken with my 10-20 and 12% of all shots taken at 10mm. that says a lot. with 12mm I might have been a little disappointed.

[hinman]

Hrm.. Now I'm thinking about 2 packages... Each slight over the 1000 mark, but are similar cost wise. Here goes:

Package 1: FA 31 LTD and FA 77 LTD

Package 2: Sigma 20mm f1.8, FA 35 f2.0, and FA 77LTD

So many decisions! Darn LBA...

With your stated objective of low light, I will have more inclination to go with package #2 above for the price and usefulness to have a Sigma 20mm f/1.8 for the low light that you look for. and to save cost, I wonder if you can swap the 77ltd with 70.

With a lot of discussion on prime lens, I end up having a plan along the line for limited lens in 21/43/70 as a trio and the trio will use 43 mm f/1.9 limited to cover the usage of FA 35 f/2.0 and FA 50 f/1.4. When you think about it, the cost of 43mm f/1.9 is roughly 35 and 50 combined. And there are various discussions that find the 43mm f/1.9 doing excellent job to cover the use of FA 35 f/2.0 and FA 50 f/1.4. Just another thought. I personally love my FA 50 f/1.4 and it will be hard for me to depart from the lens for low light shooting and portraits indoor. And I am more likely to have primes in the thinking in terms of focal length. I chose 70 over 77 mainly for cost saving.

21/35/50/70 or
21/43/70 or
20/35/77 (as in your package #2 with Sigma 20)

I actually do have a question for you, how you like your DA 10-17 and do you find it without fisheye effect at 17 as I see a great of photos without fisheye effects at longer end of the zoom and the pictures are great from that lens but I will think the Sigma 10-20 or DA 12-24 focal length are of more usual range that get used more often. Your comments on comparing DA 12-24 and DA 10-17 will help me greatly as I need to decide with order of liking at the moment for

1. Sigma 10-20
2. Pentax 10-17
3. Pentax 12-24 (the cost put this on 3rd choice)

You get great companions in LBA and you are never alone.

Thanks,
Hin

[SpecialK]

Sigma 30mm 1.4?

[Gooshin]

Sigma 30mm 1.4?

aperrantly a specialized lens, with super sharp center and noticably soft corners.

[qdoan]

I actually do have a question for you, how you like your DA 10-17 and do you find it without fisheye effect at 17 as I see a great of photos without fisheye effects at longer end of the zoom and the pictures are great from that lens but I will think the Sigma 10-20 or DA 12-24 focal length are of more usual range that get used more often. Your comments on comparing DA 12-24 and DA 10-17 will help me greatly as I need to decide with order of liking at the moment for

1. Sigma 10-20
2. Pentax 10-17
3. Pentax 12-24 (the cost put this on 3rd choice)

I do like my fisheye, and the effects are very minimal at 15-17mm end of the lens. However, recently, I find myself using the 12-24 much much more of the wide of end of things. I just don't like having to remove the fisheye effect if I don't have to.

I consider the FE more of a specialty lens and use only when I'm going for something more artsy or if I simply don't have enough room to work with the 12-24, and then post process after. If you'd like... I can take some shots at 12mm, 15mm and 17mm on both lenses and put them up for you to see

[Lowell Goudge]

although a little off topic froim the low light discussion, we have moved into a ultra wide discussion. if we are to consider all possibilities don't forget the sigma 12-24 full frame zoom

It reportidly has better IQ than the 10-20 in a recient magazine I read.

[Gooshin]

although a little off topic froim the low light discussion, we have moved into a ultra wide discussion. if we are to consider all possibilities don't forget the sigma 12-24 full frame zoom

It reportidly has better IQ than the 10-20 in a recient magazine I read.

but the 2mm... LOL

would any of our Toronto stores have it for testing?

[qdoan]

but the 2mm... LOL

That's pretty much when I switch to mr Fish-Eye

[SpecialK]

If you'd like... I can take some shots at 12mm, 15mm and 17mm on both lenses and put them up for you to see

I've posted a side-by-side comparison over the common focal lengths in at least three threads...in just this past week

[Lowell Goudge]

but the 2mm... LOL

would any of our Toronto stores have it for testing?

SHows on Henry's website.

it is quite a bit more than the 10-20 at $850

it also weighs a pound and a half

[Fototim]

A radical suggestion:
How about upping the ISO? In other words look at a K20D.

It will most likely give you 1,5-2EV. Better SR is another handy bonus in low light photo.

Why? Because thats the only way you can awoid then paper thin DOF in low light.

I do know, that the Limited lenses are tempting. But, this might be a better solution, all things concidered.

Tim