Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-25-2012, 11:54 PM   #16
Veteran Member
Venturi's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Tulsa, OK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,639
I mostly use the DA 12~24, but also the Tamron 28~75. I always use a tripod, even in bright sun. For lighting I take a pair of AlienBee B800s, an AF540FGZ, Cybersync remotes, 2 60" umbrellas and 11" reflectors for the 'Bees.

09-26-2012, 12:44 AM   #17
New Member




Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 4
Hi there.

I had experience with old and new Sigma 10-20, Sigma 8-16, Tamron 10-24 and Pentax 12-24. If I had to buy Sigma I would buy the old 10 20. My Sigma 10-20 3.5 was such c**p. It was so soft, that I almost donated it. In addition, you need 82 filters. From those and a few other experiences I will no longer buy Sigma, I swear. 8-16 is on my opinion too wide for real estate photography, because of all of this distortion. Copy of Tamron which I had in my hands was soft on corners, but if you close it for a few stops it is pretty good.

For the end I let my love -
. Although it is made from ​​plastic it is solid. For me, the 12 mm is widest angle, when there is not everything stretched. The lens is incredibly sharp from 12 to 24 at f4. The only thing where Sigma outperforms it is CA wide open, but close it to 5.6, and the problem is gone.
09-26-2012, 01:28 AM   #18
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Southern California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,181
The considerations others have pointed out probably override this, but I will say that with the DA15 you can shoot all day at f/4.5 and get very high quality. I can't imagine the Tamron or Sigma zooms doing this. I may be looking for higher quality than you need - it depends on exactly how the images will be used. I have the DA15. The only one of these Sigma/Tamron zooms that interests me is the 8-16.

However, starting from scratch, the already mentioned DA12-24 or Tokina 11-16 on a Nikon body would interest me for this application. So would my DA15 plus the upcoming Samyang 10mm.
09-26-2012, 01:42 AM   #19
Pentaxian
RobA_Oz's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,332
QuoteOriginally posted by pixivixio Quote
Hi there.

I had experience with old and new Sigma 10-20, Sigma 8-16, Tamron 10-24 and Pentax 12-24. If I had to buy Sigma I would buy the old 10 20. My Sigma 10-20 3.5 was such c**p. It was so soft, that I almost donated it. In addition, you need 82 filters. From those and a few other experiences I will no longer buy Sigma, I swear. 8-16 is on my opinion too wide for real estate photography, because of all of this distortion. Copy of Tamron which I had in my hands was soft on corners, but if you close it for a few stops it is pretty good.

For the end I let my love - DA 12-24. Although it is made from ​​plastic it is solid. For me, the 12 mm is widest angle, when there is not everything stretched. The lens is incredibly sharp from 12 to 24 at f4. The only thing where Sigma outperforms it is CA wide open, but close it to 5.6, and the problem is gone.
Completely different story to my experience with the 10-20/3.5. Perhaps the QC isn't what I took it to be, because mine is very sharp across the image, and the colours are great. Rather than dismissing the whole brand, perhaps you should have taken it back to whoever you bought it from. Have a look here for some other views: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/lens-clubs/84539-sigma-10-20mm-club.html

09-26-2012, 05:39 AM   #20
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,107
My 2 cents... I have had the DA 12-24 for years and just recently acquired the 8-16. For interior work, I think the 8-16 is too wide, too much distortion. I do like the 12-24 much better as it controls the distortion a bit better (since it is not as wide). Others swear by their 10-20s and 10-24s for interiors. The results look fine to me, however at times I do see more distortion than what I personally like.

It comes down to what you want, and what you think will work for you the best - and of course cost.


Last edited by interested_observer; 09-27-2012 at 04:53 AM.
09-26-2012, 07:59 AM   #21
Veteran Member
Buschmaster's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 806
Original Poster
I think that 10-20mm club thread has pretty much sold me on that lens. Wow!
10-06-2012, 09:38 PM   #22
Veteran Member
Buschmaster's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 806
Original Poster
Sorry to bump my thread here, but there are some new thoughts going through my head tonight...

From what I have been reading, I feel likeI could do RE photography with a tripod and some HDR tweaking rather than a flash and get just as good (or perhaps better) photos as a result. The downside is that it would take a bit more time, but that's something I'd be willing to deal with while I am getting started...

But there was a local art crawl through the town today and I was noticing that a lot of the photos for sale were around the same quality that I consider many of my photos to be... In particular, I was in a photo studio that had a number of different photos from weddings, senior photos, etc., and I feel like I could replicate, or even out-produce, many of those photographs. My better half was saying the same thing to me after we had left these exhibits.

Anyway, so the thought is... If I could get a cheaper wide angle lens (Even MF if need be) along with a better tripod, I may be able to start making money slowly with RE photography, build up my outfit and then perhaps do some more aggressive photography.

What are everyone's thoughts on this? I know Samyang has been tossed around and that is MF and very wide angle, but just as expensive as the Sigma 10-20 in many cases, and that lens produces fantastic results.

Thanks all!
10-06-2012, 10:06 PM   #23
Pentaxian
Sagitta's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Maine
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,939
QuoteOriginally posted by Buschmaster Quote
What are everyone's thoughts on this? I know Samyang has been tossed around and that is MF and very wide angle, but just as expensive as the Sigma 10-20 in many cases, and that lens produces fantastic results.

Thanks all!
The nice thing about wide angle shooting is unless you're deliberately shooting close, generally speaking you're going to nearly always be shooting at maximum focus distance anyway since the view is so wide. Once you get locked in to correct focus, you don't exactly need to refocus at all.

Its probably one of the few areas where autofocus is really not usually that necessary unless you're shooting something within arms reach or so.


Last edited by Sagitta; 10-07-2012 at 02:32 PM.
10-07-2012, 04:40 AM   #24
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,107
QuoteOriginally posted by Buschmaster Quote
.... Anyway, so the thought is... If I could get a cheaper wide angle lens (Even MF if need be) along with a better tripod, I may be able to start making money slowly with RE photography, build up my outfit and then perhaps do some more aggressive photography.

What are everyone's thoughts on this? I know Samyang has been tossed around and that is MF and very wide angle, but just as expensive as the Sigma 10-20 in many cases, and that lens produces fantastic results.
I have always been impressed with the gently used lenses found here in the marketplace. You still have to be careful, but that is a way to save money. Another thing that I did was to look for a used tripod on craigslist. It took a while. I was wanting an old heavier, larger tripod that I could just toss in my truck and not worry about condition. It supplements my travel one that I was using. Found a old Manfratto and it has worked out well. KEH also has used tripods available.

On the thought of a cheaper wide angle lens - even manual focusing, I really don't know if wide angle lenses are ever cheap. Down to 24mm I can see. Other than the kit lens at 18mm and the 16-45 which I think is going out of production (about $250 now), they are all pretty pricey. I have run across this web site a number of times, and it does have some good information....Anyway, just some thoughts...

10-07-2012, 08:25 AM   #25
Veteran Member
Buschmaster's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 806
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by interested_observer Quote
I have always been impressed with the gently used lenses found here in the marketplace. You still have to be careful, but that is a way to save money. Another thing that I did was to look for a used tripod on craigslist. It took a while. I was wanting an old heavier, larger tripod that I could just toss in my truck and not worry about condition. It supplements my travel one that I was using. Found a old Manfratto and it has worked out well. KEH also has used tripods available.

On the thought of a cheaper wide angle lens - even manual focusing, I really don't know if wide angle lenses are ever cheap. Down to 24mm I can see. Other than the kit lens at 18mm and the 16-45 which I think is going out of production (about $250 now), they are all pretty pricey. I have run across this web site a number of times, and it does have some good information....Anyway, just some thoughts...

Certainly a very helpful website! I've looked through it quite a bit, but the only lenses they list on their table are current ones, and still around $500 starting point.

I suppose wide angle is pretty expensive in general, but thought I'd at least ask!
10-07-2012, 09:17 AM   #26
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,107
There are quite a few ways of approaching this. I have been acquiring a set of WA lenses for the last (about ) 6+ years. I will add that it does come down to personal preference (my opinion). So here is what I have and my views....
  • DA 10-17 - @ 10mm FoV 180 degrees (~140 edge to edge horizontal). Its a fisheye. Wonderful colors, great rendering. Has the fisheye bend that you as the photographer can place - i.e. you can get a flat horizon.
  • Sigma 8-17 - @ 8mm FoV 117 degrees - great for some shots, but can be waaaaaaay too wide for others. I needed the extreme FoV angle for specific shots I was interested in. Sharp for its width.
  • DA 12-24 - @ 12mm FoV ~90 degrees - I really like this lens, it is a compromise, wide and it has distortions that I can easily live with, and generally do not see. Very sharp. I am either at 12 or 24
  • DA 16-45 - @ 16mm FoV ~73 degrees - I like this lens quit a bit (but the internal focus gear broke and I need to get it repaired). Very sharp, wonder lens. This lens at 24 is sharper than the 12-24 is at 24.
  • Zeiss 25/2.8 - @ 25mm FoV 51 degrees - The sharpness blows away the zooms. It has a close focus of 5 inches, and takes a 180 degree turn of the barrel to go from 5 to 12 inches, so for me its my macro lens too. Manual Lens
  • Contax Carl Zeiss 28/2.8 - @ 28 FoV 46 degrees - small, very small, sharp - very sharp, great colors and rendering. A poor man's 31 Ltd. Manual lens. I changed the mounts on the lens to a K mount.
  • FA 31 Limited - @ 31mm FoV - stellar! sharp, colorful, auto focus, auto aperture.
Yes, I have gone overboard, and it does not answer the basic question you asked. But based on this, what approach can you take on a budget.

The problem is that there is really no real budget wide angle lens available. The old lenses 18mm on film was wide (equivalent of 12mm in ASP-c), so there is really no old supply of abundant glass to use. WA is a complex optical problem that takes fine optical glass, and very good engineering to get a good product. One approach is to stitch with a narrower lens. The DA 16-45 is around $250 now and is wonderful. Very stitchable (in fact, they all are) - you can use Microsoft ICE to stitch for free (just google and down load it).

The other aspect in this is that your sensor is a fixed size for every lens you put in front of it. For the wider lenses, the pixels need to represent more area for each successively wider angle lens. Given equal optics, the wider lenses are going to be inherently "less sharp", in that they need to show a greater amount of viewing area (think of painting a picture with a big fat paint brush versus a tiny pin point paint brush). Plus, the edges and corners need to be pulled in. That is why, personally - I think that the 12-24 is a wonderful compromise. Sufficiently wide, but not to the extent that its noticeable. I have seen shots from the 10-20's (Sigma and Tamron) that are extremely good too. So, it comes down to a personal decision with your checkbook. On the telephoto end, there is abundant old glass and the cropped sensor works in your favor. On this end of the focal length spectrum, the cropped sensor works against you, and there is no real supply of old glass available - since it was not made.

You can watch the marketplace (or KEH) for a Tamron 10-20 or 10-24, as that appears to be the best bang for the dollar, and folks like it very much.

Lenses that I have not touched on that are available are - from memory (and I am missing - don't have all of them)....
  • Tokina 17mm
  • DA 14 mm
  • DA 15 mm
  • The new Samyang 10mm
  • Ronkin Samyang 14 mm
I would go through the lens database looking to see what there is potentially available...


Last edited by interested_observer; 10-07-2012 at 09:24 AM.
10-07-2012, 10:25 AM   #27
Veteran Member
Buschmaster's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 806
Original Poster
Thanks for all the helpful advice! I'm not sure if it makes sense to stitch pics together, since I have no real experience in that, and if I'm spending the money for the 16-45, I may as well spend a few more bucks and grab a 12-24 or 10-20, or 10-24. That's my personal thought, anyway.
10-08-2012, 10:55 AM   #28
Veteran Member
msatlas's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 309
If you want the least distortion of all the ultra-wide zooms, the Sigma 12-24 actually performs best in this area.

Otherwise the Sigma 10-20/4-5.6 is probably the best bang for your buck. There were a few on the marketplace here recently going for at or a bit under $400.

There's not much out there for old manual focus lenses that will be ultra-wide on APS-C. They were all designed for 35mm film which is a larger format than APS-C. Stuff that was ultra-wide on 35mm gets turned into more standard wide angle on the smaller APS-C frame.
10-08-2012, 12:38 PM   #29
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,828
FWIW, aside from thinking about and investing in glass, I'd also think a bit about software. No matter the lens, using ultra-wides in particular can mean a lot of geometric distortion, vignetting, edge softness and all the other things mentioned by folks here. Lots of things can start to look quite weird using UWA's to shoot building interiors and exteriors.

Lightroom and DxO Optics Pro in particular would be worth a look to see what they can do to help out here, as well as perhaps other tools like ptlens. In my experience, there is nothing quite like DxO Optics Pro for fixing up stuff like barrel or pincushion distortion very efficiently, as well as edge softness (for supported lens and body combinations). And in those situations where distortion can't be automatically fixed by the software, DxO can do some dramatic manual distortion adjustments too. Plus it has some useful HDR presets.
10-08-2012, 12:58 PM   #30
Veteran Member
Docrwm's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Somewhere in the Southern US
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,275
QuoteOriginally posted by rawr Quote
FWIW, aside from thinking about and investing in glass, I'd also think a bit about software. No matter the lens, using ultra-wides in particular can mean a lot of geometric distortion, vignetting, edge softness and all the other things mentioned by folks here. Lots of things can start to look quite weird using UWA's to shoot building interiors and exteriors.

Lightroom and DxO Optics Pro in particular would be worth a look to see what they can do to help out here, as well as perhaps other tools like ptlens. In my experience, there is nothing quite like DxO Optics Pro for fixing up stuff like barrel or pincushion distortion very efficiently, as well as edge softness (for supported lens and body combinations). And in those situations where distortion can't be automatically fixed by the software, DxO can do some dramatic manual distortion adjustments too. Plus it has some useful HDR presets.

How would you rate it in comparison to LR3? Dramatic, marginal, etc. improvement?
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
bit, estate, k-5, k-mount, lenses, ltd, pentax lens, slr lens, tamron
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Lens for real estate photography Workingdog Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 25 03-07-2012 07:49 AM
real estate photography help? Unregistered User Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 32 09-11-2011 01:19 PM
Misc Real-estate Photography Unregistered User Photo Critique 13 02-25-2011 10:29 PM
Has anyone done real estate photography before? jennverr Photographic Technique 19 02-02-2011 07:17 AM
What is the best ultra wide lens for real estate photography? HermanLee Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 17 11-07-2010 11:54 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:30 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top