[rrstuff]

I am also looking at the DA15 12-24 10-17 or Sigma 10-20(not sure which version is better)...I want as much detail as possible, if its possible on APS-C..as also looking into FF & UWA..say A7r with??
have no chance to try any so must trust reviews..many say the 12-24 is as good as the 15...is that so?
is there something that UWA on FF can give soft corners??

Probably the best UWA lens there is at the moment is a Nikon 14-24mm. People also value a tokina 11-16mm a lot (it's a lot cheaper) as well as the Zuiko 7-14mm.

[johnyates]

many say the 12-24 is as good as the 15...is that so

I'd say it's better.

[interested_observer]

Probably the best UWA lens there is at the moment is a Nikon 14-24mm. People also value a tokina 11-16mm a lot (it's a lot cheaper) as well as the Zuiko 7-14mm.

All of these lenses are wonderful but would requires a different body.

• Nikon 14-24mm - you would need to switch bodies and the Nikon is a $2,000 lens and is substantially larger and heavier than anything that has been listed in the thread so far.
• Tokina 11-16mm - this lens is based on Tokina's 12-24 lens, which is the same lens as the DA 12-24 as Pentax and Tokina partnered together for a series of lenses. The lens is only available in a Canon, Nikon and Sony mount for an APS-C sensor.
• Zuiko 7-14mm - You would need to switch to a 4:3 body, and since its a smaller sensor, you would loose part of lens' width.

[Shanti]

All of these lenses are wonderful but would requires a different body.

• Nikon 14-24mm - you would need to switch bodies and the Nikon is a $2,000 lens and is substantially larger and heavier than anything that has been listed in the thread so far.
• Tokina 11-16mm - this lens is based on Tokina's 12-24 lens, which is the same lens as the DA 12-24 as Pentax and Tokina partnered together for a series of lenses. The lens is only available in a Canon, Nikon and Sony mount for an APS-C sensor.
• Zuiko 7-14mm - You would need to switch to a 4:3 body, and since its a smaller sensor, you would loose part of lens' width.

mmm have old 4/3 body but switched to K5II as E7 never came,but still 43 is small sensor & hard to go back after the K5II spoiled me
so the best choice is the12-24 & hope it can be used on FF whenever one comes from Pentax,or adapted to the A7R..AF no issue for landscapes..but I wonder if it will vignette?

when I see the details of pics like these Carol M. Highsmith ( # 27 under landscapes) I wonder what can get me close to that? as as a 645DF+ 80MP back is a bit pricey

[northcoastgreg]

many say the 12-24 is as good as the 15

In terms of practical output, you're not going to see that much difference between these two lenses. But the DA 15 is better: it has better flare control, better microcontrast, better, more richer color rendition.

[rrstuff]

mmm have old 4/3 body but switched to K5II as E7 never came,but still 43 is small sensor & hard to go back after the K5II spoiled me
so the best choice is the12-24 & hope it can be used on FF whenever one comes from Pentax,or adapted to the A7R..AF no issue for landscapes..but I wonder if it will vignette?

when I see the details of pics like these Carol M. Highsmith ( # 27 under landscapes) I wonder what can get me close to that? as as a 645DF+ 80MP back is a bit pricey

I know it's a silly question, but do you use a stable tripod, remote trigger and a working aperture? Sometimes longer exposures can also get you sharper images. Finally, how you process will matter a lot - unsharp masking can deliver a lot of punch, which looks like sharpness. Downsizing the image can make you loose perceived sharpness as well. I can't load your link, but if it is online, then resolution cannot be that high, therefore you wouldn't need as sharp lens.

[Shanti]

I know it's a silly question, but do you use a stable tripod, remote trigger and a working aperture? Sometimes longer exposures can also get you sharper images. Finally, how you process will matter a lot - unsharp masking can deliver a lot of punch, which looks like sharpness. Downsizing the image can make you loose perceived sharpness as well. I can't load your link, but if it is online, then resolution cannot be that high, therefore you wouldn't need as sharp lens.

try the link again,works fine for me on Firefox..I know its online but if I compare similar shots it seems much sharper,esp. the tree details in the background
tripod,remote of course and F8 or so..but problem is don't have a Pentax UWA yet ,only the kit lens, and my Oly WA is with a low resolution camera (E1) so therefore I ask alot to find which UWA would be best
I use US mask,clarity,but maybe missing some good PP techniques

[Cambo]

Hi,

I am thinking of buying one wide-angle lens for landscape photography. I will be buying used, so all 6 available for now should be a fair game financially (ie 10-20, 10-24, 12-14 DA, 15 ltd, 14 DA, 14 rokinon). I am doing large landscapes with 16-45mm at the moment.

I am tempted by the primes, 15 ltd because of the general look of the images and by DA 14 because of the F2.8 aperture, which will be useful for capturing the night skies.

I am seeing luke-warm reviews of DA 14 for some reason, but I am wondering if it's optical quality really a limiting factor in real life?

The second question is, what kind of photographs I wouldn't be able to take because of lack of the 10-13mm range as compared to 15mm and 14mm focal lengths? I understand the perspective will be a bit different, but is it something really limiting in real world use?

definitely DON'T buy one, all your images will be totally unusable, like these pieces of scrap below...







Absolute junk.....terrible lens...what were they thinking...the Nikon/Canon/Minolta/Sony/Samyang is WAY better...I threw mine out...Pentax is doomed, etc.



Actually, it's my FAVORITE lens!

Big, awkward, heavy, hard to use, FABULOUS! At f16, everything from about 6 inches to infinity is in focus. Top photo, an 8 second exposure at f16; bottom, f8 @ .3 seconds, both at iso 80 on the bloody-awful, absolute junk.....terrible camera...what were they thinking...the Nikon/Canon/Minolta/Sony/Samyang is WAY better...I threw mine out...Pentax is doomed, etc. K5.

Best camera I have ever owned or used.

Cheers,
Cameron

[Fat Albert]

definitely DON'T buy one, all your images will be totally unusable, like these pieces of scrap below...







Absolute junk.....terrible lens...what were they thinking...the Nikon/Canon/Minolta/Sony/Samyang is WAY better...I threw mine out...Pentax is doomed, etc.



Actually, it's my FAVORITE lens!

Big, awkward, heavy, hard to use, FABULOUS! At f16, everything from about 6 inches to infinity is in focus. Top photo, an 8 second exposure at f16; bottom, f8 @ .3 seconds, both at iso 80 on the bloody-awful, absolute junk.....terrible camera...what were they thinking...the Nikon/Canon/Minolta/Sony/Samyang is WAY better...I threw mine out...Pentax is doomed, etc. K5.

Best camera I have ever owned or used.

Cheers,
Cameron

Ehhhh...too symmetrical

[interested_observer]

mmm have old 4/3 body but switched to K5II as E7 never came,but still 43 is small sensor & hard to go back after the K5II spoiled me
so the best choice is the12-24 & hope it can be used on FF whenever one comes from Pentax,or adapted to the A7R..AF no issue for landscapes..but I wonder if it will vignette?

when I see the details of pics like these Carol M. Highsmith ( # 27 under landscapes) I wonder what can get me close to that? as as a 645DF+ 80MP back is a bit pricey

I don't believe that the Pentax 12-24 is full frame. I believe that the Sigma 12-24 f/4.5-5.6 is. Here are some links.... There are also other threads on what lenses will work on a full frame sensor without vignetting.

• https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/183420-curr...me-lenses.html

... and here is a very nice landscape collection of DA 12-24 images

• https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/36-sold-items/237743-sale-sold-price-lowe...-ed-al-if.html

[Shanti]

I don't believe that the Pentax 12-24 is full frame. I believe that the Sigma 12-24 f/4.5-5.6 is. Here are some links.... There are also other threads on what lenses will work on a full frame sensor without vignetting.

• https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/183420-curr...me-lenses.html

... and here is a very nice landscape collection of DA 12-24 images

• https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/36-sold-items/237743-sale-sold-price-lowe...-ed-al-if.html

OMG with landscape like that around..why!! would you sell this lens?? really good shots

[rrstuff]

try the link again,works fine for me on Firefox..I know its online but if I compare similar shots it seems much sharper,esp. the tree details in the background
tripod,remote of course and F8 or so..but problem is don't have a Pentax UWA yet ,only the kit lens, and my Oly WA is with a low resolution camera (E1) so therefore I ask alot to find which UWA would be best
I use US mask,clarity,but maybe missing some good PP techniques

I couldn't see it, I know it's my internet though. I am having trouble lately.

This image you posted (27) looks like a longer focal length, I would say a normal to short-tele. It is also heavily sharpened, you can see the jagged edges and a hint of halos on the rooftop. I think you can get this kind of results with any of the lenses you mentioned. At this resolution, it is more important to photoshop properly. The lens sharpness will be quite critical for larger prints though.

Let me give you an example from one of my shots:
500px / Equalized by Jerzy Szablowski

This was shot with a zuiko 14-45mm kit-lens. It looks pretty sharp on the screen, but when I printed it at 18x24, you could see soft edges. Not a problem for the internet though!

the way I do downsizing is I do bicubic (normal bicubic, not sharper or smoother) in photoshop, down to 900-960px. Then I do 0.3-0.4px radius, levels set to 1 or 2 and 50-70% sharpening. Usually this procedure does a pretty good job.

[rrstuff]

OMG with landscape like that around..why!! would you sell this lens?? really good shots

I agree. I spent lots of time watching landscape shots on the internet and I haven't seen stuff like this in a while. They are really good indeed.

[yasik]

definitely DON'T buy one, all your images will be totally unusable, like these pieces of scrap below...







Absolute junk.....terrible lens...what were they thinking...the Nikon/Canon/Minolta/Sony/Samyang is WAY better...I threw mine out...Pentax is doomed, etc.



Actually, it's my FAVORITE lens!

Big, awkward, heavy, hard to use, FABULOUS! At f16, everything from about 6 inches to infinity is in focus. Top photo, an 8 second exposure at f16; bottom, f8 @ .3 seconds, both at iso 80 on the bloody-awful, absolute junk.....terrible camera...what were they thinking...the Nikon/Canon/Minolta/Sony/Samyang is WAY better...I threw mine out...Pentax is doomed, etc. K5.

Best camera I have ever owned or used.

Cheers,
Cameron

Great shots! you should post more in DA 14 thread.

[raider]

I have both the da15 and da14. I much prefer the da14 as it kinda give the photo a dramatic effect. The da15 is more portable though. Both are good lenses.