[RGold]

This lens, Pentax DA 12-24mm f/4 ED AL, is almost $900. Does it worth this price? It use to be about $700. I have the Pentax DA 10-17 but I don't like the fish eye distortion, considering to buy this lens...

[ElJamoquio]

I'd buy the Sigma 8-16 instead... and I did.

Of course you'd give up the F/4 and the 17-24.

For me the 8-11 was well worth it though.

[Adam]

This lens, Pentax DA 12-24mm f/4 ED AL, is almost $900. Does it worth this price? It use to be about $700. I have the Pentax DA 10-17 but I don't like the fish eye distortion, considering to buy this lens...

On black friday you'll be able to get this lens for less (i.e. in a week). I think it's worth getting other the other lenses.

[Barry Pearson]

This lens, Pentax DA 12-24mm f/4 ED AL, is almost $900. Does it worth this price? It use to be about $700. I have the Pentax DA 10-17 but I don't like the fish eye distortion, considering to buy this lens...

I've had this lens for over 4 years. If I could only keep 2 of my lenses, or had to choose just 2 lenses for a round the world trip, this would be the 2nd of them. (The DA* 60-250mm f/4 would be the 1st of them).

It isn't perfect. I would prefer a weather-sealed version. I would prefer an SDM version. (And there is some distortion at the wide end, which is fixed automatically by the Adobe lens profile used by Photoshop/ACR and Lightroom). But I get sharp results from it, (very sharp when stopped down a little), and I find the range of focal lengths to be good for interiors and urban and natural landscapes.

It would be worth having a look at the 43 user reviews on this site.

(Obviously I can't judge whether the price is OK for someone else. It was for me).

ps: I too have the DA Fisheye 10-17mm. That is a totally different sort of lens, and certainly not an adequate substitute for the 12-24mm.

[interested_observer]

Good Morning,

I acquired the lens about 4 years ago for $700 kicking and screaming all the way. Prior to that Pentax use to have $100 off "sales", and I missed the last one. I would buy it again, but would not be too happy with the price. I also have the 8-16 and the 10-17. All three would appear to be pretty close - and to some degree that is true, but in the ways that they are similar, they are also very different lenses (purchased for very different reasons). I did a comparison across all three in a thread a while back....

• https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/235102-uwa-...omparison.html

I do like the lens very much - one of my favorite and most used lenses. For its focal length the distortion is well controlled. The 8-16 can be too wide (a personal opinion). There are times where the 10-17 even though it is even wider, when applied correctly - the bend is well hidden and you get a very natural looking image. After having said that - you do have to work at it, natural landscapes with out a lot of straight lines works the best. Also, there have been shots that it should have worked well, and there was just no way I could get what I wanted.

I have shot a lot of sunsets with it and had virtually no CA. A couple of weeks ago, I was in a very dimly lite antique car museum, with an extremely harsh light coming through windows back-lighting everything and I had CA in just about every shot. Its very easily solved in Lightroom by the way.

With Black Friday a week from tomorrow, I have no idea as to what it might actually go for, but that is the day that Pentax usually "adjusts" their prices.

[nomadkng]

I've had the Sigma 10-20 and Sigma 12-24 and I've found that because of the distortions I've never liked the wide end of either lens except for "special effects" type photographs. Both lenses are much less expensive than the Pentax lens for the same (better?) IQ.

So my response would be 1- The price is silly, 2- Wait for the DA20-40, get an FA20-35 or even a Sigma 20-40

These lenses are all pro quality IQ for close to half the 12-24 price. My other recommendation is that for those really wide shots with no distortion, stitch together a pano if PP. 2 horizontal, or better yet 4-5 vertical shots of a scene stitched together will give you far superior wide angle panoramas by maintaining a more normal visual perspective without distortion.

So in my opinion, the Pentax 12-24 is overpriced, underperforming and a dead end in the lens evolutionary tree.

[ElJamoquio]

It's certainly tough to stomach the Tokina 12-24 selling for $400.

[RGold]

Thanks for taking the time to reply. User reviews for the Pentax 12-14 are very positive. The Pentax 10-17 lens that I own, is sharp and can be fun but I don't like the distortion. I tend to buy the Sigma 10-20. It's about $429 now, almost half price comparing to Pentax.

[vonBaloney]

Distortion can be gotten rid of in post from your 10-17mm, or from any other lens...

[stevebrot]

The Pentax 10-17 lens that I own, is sharp and can be fun but I don't like the distortion.

You mean the Fisheye part? Sort of comes with the territory.


Steve

[nomadkng]

Distortion can be gotten rid of in post from your 10-17mm, or from any other lens...

some distortion can be removed in PP, but it's not perfect and the edges tend to suffer in every attempt I've made to remove it.
It also requires cropping the image which further "degrades" image quality by reducing usable pixels.

Just because something can be "fixed" in PP doesn't mean it's a non-factor in lens choice.
Lots of things can be fixed in PP, but the image suffers to some degree.

I think intrinsic lens distortion is still a very important aspect of lens choice and should not be dismissed because "it can be removed in PP"

[narual]

Don't you lose a lot of the image defishing? At that point, does it really qualify as wide angle anymore? I've never done it (only fisheye I have is on my GoPro), so I'm not really sure how much you lose.

[northcoastgreg]

This lens, Pentax DA 12-24mm f/4 ED AL, is almost $900. [Is] it worth this price?

Depends on your budget and needs. The DA 12-24 may have a bit more microcontrast and slightly better rendering and color rendition than some of the non Pentax alternatives. Some may prefer the DA 12-24 for color landscapes. How important is that little extra pop that you get with improved rendering characteristics? You'll pay more for it in any case.

[vonBaloney]

I think intrinsic lens distortion is still a very important aspect of lens choice and should not be dismissed because "it can be removed in PP"

Nor should a lens be dismissed because it "has distortion". Many do because they basically don't do any post. But with the automatic application of a distortion-correction profile if you want it (fairly mild for most lenses), it isn't even something you have to think about if you don't care to. Like the Samyang 14mm/2.8 -- it has what I would consider unacceptable distortion "out of the box". But it is nicely corrected with the proper profile, and you get great results that way.

But in the case of a fisheye lens, of course it has distortion -- that is part of the reason you buy it. So I'm wondering if that is even what he is talking about.

[RGold]

There are cases like landscape where I don't mind fisheye distortion but in other cases where the are people in the picture it makes them look bad. Tried post lens correction in Lighroom but I didn't like the outcome. For this reason I'm looking for ultra wide rectangle lens that has low distortion.