[lancer3397]

considering a wide angle zoom to pad out my lens stable.

From what I can tell, the only stuff worth considering boils down to

Pentax 12-24
Sigma 10-20
Tamron 10-24

From what I've read, all have their faults. The Pentax and Tamron pin sharp in the middle but fall off at the edges. The Sigma more consistently sharp across the whole image but not as sharp as the pentax or tamron. all have their own individual quirks regards distortion and CA.

I'm wanting to do street roaming, wide landscape, architectural shots.

[Kerrowdown]

As it's all fairly wide stuff you requiring to do, have you considered a prime instead of a zoom, as generally the IQ is usually better.

[lancer3397]

believe, I considered it, but the pocket won't stretch to having both the DA15 and the DA21. I have the DA21 and find I'm not wide enough in some situations as I would like. Great lens but I need the flexibility a little bit of zoom gives me.

getting a 10 or 12 gives me wide when I want it, but can still zoom for the other shots I want.

[interested_observer]

Afternoon,

Well, I do landscapes, cityscapes and architecture. I have had the DA 12-24 for 4 years now and am very happy. It is sharpest at 18mm and falls off some to the 24 mm end (they all do). The DA 16-45 is sharper at 24mm than the 12-24 (which stands to reason). Does it make a difference and do I worry about it. To me, not really. I have an image (from the 12-24 @ 24) that I printed at 20" x 30" and it blows everyone away that sees it (and it was handheld very late afternoon, early evening, right at sunset - with a lot of detail at the bottom corners). Is a prime better? Yes.

I choose the 12-24 because - not being as wide as the others, the distortion was a bit better controlled. In use does that matter? It depends on the shot, the subject matter, the framing and the perspective. I also liked Pentax's color, rendering and character.

The bottom line is - it really isn't going to matter that much. What ever your choice - some shots accentuate its strengths, while other shots will highlight its weakness. I have seen shots from all of them and there are outstanding shots from all of them. There are also shots from each, that if you look close enough you can find something to complain about. As far as color, rendering and character, I also have a Sigma 8-16 and its color, rendering and character are fantastic too.

Bottom line - go with what you can afford and everything will turn out alright. Another poster here on the Forum has the Tamron 10-24 and he was very happy with it - Rico.

My normal AF kit on my K20D are the DA10-17 fisheye (FE) zoom, Tamron 10-24 ultrawide (UWA) zoom, and DA18-250 superzoom. The FE and UWA complement each other; they don't overlap. ...<snip>

An ultrawide is a totally different tool than a fisheye. Not all ultrawides are equal. About 18 months ago I had the budget to buy any of the leading UWAs: DA12-24, Tamron 10-24, or either Sigma 10-20. I chose the Tamron because of its very useful focal range, its lower price and longer warranty, and known QC problems with the Sigmas. I recommend the Tamron.

It appears that Rico lost all of his likes for some reason?

[slip]

I can't say to much about the other lenses, but I love my Sigma 10-20mm and they are dirt cheap right now due to a lot on the market. My signature photo was taken at 10mm

Good luck with your decision

Cheers

Randy

[mike.hiran]

another one to consider is the sigma 8-16. it's very good. I also have the 12-24 and I've always found it to be excellent even in the corners. if you click my flickr link in my sig, I have both these lenses featured prominently in that set. if you want to use a graduated neutral density filter, the sigma makes it difficult....

[calsan]

I find the 10-20 very good for interiors and is consistently sharp across the frame. You can see incredible detail at 10mm, if my camera (k-7) were higher resolution, I have no doubt it would just keep getting better. (When shot on a tripod!!) Overall, I have no complaints except for the size isn't good for travel, plus it looks huge and expensive so you may attract unwanted attention. I've had a lot of "wow, what kind of lens is that?", when shooting with the 10-20, so it's not inconspicuous like the 15 limited (which actually costs more). You may also prefer constant aperture if you intend to use a range of focal lengths, in which case there's only the 12-24. The DA15 limited is much better working against the light and I use it much more outdoors and for casual street shooting where 10mm can also actually be too wide.

If it's not urgent, you may wish to wait a little bit longer, because there is a "DA wide zoom" shown on the k mount road map for 2013 (or later), so it could be soon (fingers crossed) that there's another option from Pentax.

[Yos]

I got the Tamron 10-24 and in my case I it was the price that was the ultimate factor. Could not afford the Sigma 8-16mm.
But I am super happy with my lens and right now I don't see a need to get another SWA lens.
In the end only you can decide. Maybe you are lucky to find any of the lenses here on the Marketplace.
Good luck
Yos

[yusuf]

Sigma 10-20mm is pretty good and sharp across the frame. I have no experience with Pentax 12-24 or Tamron but you will anyway stopdown to f8 or f11 for landscape and I, doubt you will see much different in sharpness in that case.