Budget Wide Angle (20 or 24mm) for APS-C and film

ChristianRock · 01-18-2014, 09:13 PM

I hadn't heard about the Tokina… so I'm looking up some information on it to see how I like it. I've already seen some great images taken with it on flickr. The reviews are a bit conflicting, but most people seem to like it ok.

Dave - thanks for that comparison chart. I know it's just newspapers but it helps to see that the Sigma at F4 doesn't really lose to the 16-45 in sharpness.

Right now I'm thinking about getting the Sigma, and later on getting the 16-45, which would be a good addition regardless, and probably a perfect lens to use outside. But the Sigma, even though a prime, would probably be useful in more situations to me, being a stop faster and good wide open if I need that. I was afraid that the Sigma or the Pentax-K would lose noticeably to the 16-45 in IQ but I think they might be a bit closer than I thought. I would probably be just as happy with the Pentax-K but the Sigma just has so much going on for it.

azerak · 01-19-2014, 05:25 AM

I was in the same position as you few months ago. I made my readings and now a proud owner of a Sigma AF 24mm 2.8 super wide. I use it for my K5 and occasionally on my Pz1-p for that wide shot. Now I only use this 24mm and my DA 50mm 1.8 for most of my shots. My other lenses are safe in the drybox.

ChristianRock · 01-20-2014, 10:12 AM

azerak - I see the other lenses you have, from your flickr page, so it's a huge testimony to the Sigma that you use it as one of your two main lenses

Or did you sell the Sigma 35 1.4 Art and the DA 15?

The DA 50 1.8, by the way, is also in my list to get this year. I love the M 50 1.7 to bits, and having an AF version with upgraded rounded blades and DA coating is a dream come true

Boris_Akunin · 01-20-2014, 01:36 PM - **1 Like**

Here's another vote for the Sigma or the Kiron. The Sigma is probably easier to get in P/KA, the A-version Kiron is rather rare.

I found another two comparisons that might interest you:

Vivitar 24mm f/2 (Komine) -VS- Vivitar 24mm f/2 (Kiron) / Sigma 24mm f/2.8 (Super wide 2) / SMC Pentax 24mm f/2.8 / Pentax FA*24 f/2:
24mm prime comparison

Vivitar 24mm f/2 (Kiron) -VS- Minolta MD W.Rokkor 24mm f/2.8:
articles - Minolta MD W.Rokkor 24mm 1:2.8 against Kiron 24mm 1:2.0
(The Minolta 24 is the earlier design with 9 lenses in 7 groups, that's the one that Leica licenced for the Elmarit-R 24mm f/2.8)

I've had both the Sigma (P/KA version) and the Kiron (P/K) version, I'd prefer the Kiron but I mostly used it on film (stop-down metering is a pain...).
I've posted a comparison with of the Kiron and a Vivitar Series 1 28/1.9 (Komine) over here (full-res images and 100% crops) and there are a couple of film-shots with the Kiron in my gallery (only shitty 1.5MP scans).

regards
Jan

ChristianRock · 01-20-2014, 03:15 PM

Thank you Jan, that is very helpful!

I had seen that 24mm prime comparison and it's what steered me towards my 2 options. I saw that the Kiron was just as good as the Sigma and the Pentax, but there's so many reports of problems with it, I thought I'd best avoid it, as it doesn't seem better than the others (except the Komine which didn't perform well). I was also surprised at how similar the Pentax and the Sigma rendered in the tests.

**Lowell Goudge** · 01-20-2014, 11:47 PM

If you are looking for a budget 20mm forget it. Even legacy ultra wides cost a lot. 24mm is the price break point. BUT what film camera are you using. You can get the FA-J 18-35 at a reasonable price. It was the last film kit lens, and was also shipped with then*istD

azerak · 01-21-2014, 01:03 AM

Originally posted by ChristianRock

azerak - I see the other lenses you have, from your flickr page, so it's a huge testimony to the Sigma that you use it as one of your two main lenses

Or did you sell the Sigma 35 1.4 Art and the DA 15?

The DA 50 1.8, by the way, is also in my list to get this year. I love the M 50 1.7 to bits, and having an AF version with upgraded rounded blades and DA coating is a dream come true

I still have my Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art and the DA 15mm. It is just that both of them are for very specific use so they are not exactly my to go lens. My Sigma 24mm 2.8 and DA 50mm 1.8 on the other hand, are my to go lens that I can use for almost any kind of shots.

ChristianRock · 01-21-2014, 08:36 AM

Originally posted by Lowell Goudge

If you are looking for a budget 20mm forget it.

Yeah that's what I am finding out... though the Vivitar 19mm 3.8 is a lens I did consider, and it is within the price range I would be willing to pay... but ultimately I didn't think it's what I wanted.

Quote:

Even legacy ultra wides cost a lot. 24mm is the price break point.

Yeah, I think I'm perfectly fine with 24mm, it would be the ideal range for me. 28mm isn't bad, there's just times I wish I had some extra width. But I don't want to go that much wider, either.

Quote:

BUT what film camera are you using.

That was in the original post that started this thread... ZX-M.

Quote:

You can get the FA-J 18-35 at a reasonable price. It was the last film kit lens, and was also shipped with then*istD

I hadn't considered that one, but I just did a bit of looking into it, and other than being full frame, it seems inferior in resolution, rendering and colors to the 18-55mm AL II that I already have. My goal is to step up in quality from that.

Originally posted by azerak

I still have my Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art and the DA 15mm. It is just that both of them are for very specific use so they are not exactly my to go lens. My Sigma 24mm 2.8 and DA 50mm 1.8 on the other hand, are my to go lens that I can use for almost any kind of shots.

Like I said azerak, that is a huge testimony to how good this Sigma Superwide is. If you are used to the DA 15 and the Sigma 35 1.4, which are great lenses by all accounts, you would not settle for something in the 24mm range that you thought was noticeably inferior to those lenses, at least for its intended purpose.

Yesterday I found a flickr account from a guy who used the 24mm Superwide on an old Canon APS-C camera and got some breathtaking results. So my mind is pretty much made up - Sigma it is for me

Then later on, after I fill in some other needs in my system, I'll get the 16-45, as I'm sure it will be very useful as well.

**Lowell Goudge** · 01-21-2014, 11:39 AM

One other point to consider is that I always found 24mm not quite wide enough when I shot film, and when I bought digital, it came with the 18-35 so I shot ultra wide with my film body, and normal to tele with digital.

It was only when I got my sigma 10-20 that I stopped shooting film regularly. (Note the original 10-20 covers 13mm FF)

Since then, I have picked up the Zenitar 16mm FEnand the samyang 14/2.8 which has some barrel distortion but is fixable and a nice lens. Both lenses are actually good quality for the price

ChristianRock · 01-21-2014, 12:07 PM

Well everyone's different. I know I don't need anything wider than 20 because when I pick up my 18-55, I never use it under 24mm. Who know though, that might change in a few years.

Having said that, I just saw the Tokina 17mm 3.5 in the Marketplace... and looking at pictures taken with it on film, all I can say is wow, I really like that lens! Not what I need right now, so it goes in my "would be nice" to have list, for the future. But I can see why some people like to have fun with these wider lenses.

**Lowell Goudge** · 01-21-2014, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by ChristianRock

Well everyone's different. I know I don't need anything wider than 20 because when I pick up my 18-55, I never use it under 24mm. Who know though, that might change in a few years.

Having said that, I just saw the Tokina 17mm 3.5 in the Marketplace... and looking at pictures taken with it on film, all I can say is wow, I really like that lens! Not what I need right now, so it goes in my "would be nice" to have list, for the future. But I can see why some people like to have fun with these wider lenses.

I reached my conclusion when travelling in Europe. Combine narrow streets with a long focal length and a large cathedral and it leaves you wanting something, well, ......a lot shorter

Considering 24mm on film is like 16mm on digital you can understand why I suggested looking at wider lenses. I use a 10mm sigma on my DSLR

**miltona580** · 01-21-2014, 03:24 PM

I got the Pentax A 24mm f/2.8 for my cheap wide lens. It goes for around $200. It does have typical Pentax colors, but its not that sharp. I replaced it with the FA* 24, which is stupidly expensive for what it is, but its definitely sharper in the center and seems to have better contrast too.

Swift1 · 01-22-2014, 09:28 PM

I have the FAJ 18-35mm and other than being slow (f/4-5.6) I'd say it's a very usable lens.
At 18mm the corners can be soft but that is to be expected on a $150 ultrawide.
I recently had a gallery showing with 2 film images taken with this lens in the show. They were 12x18 B&W prints, scanned from 35mm Agfa APX 100 and IMO they looked really good. They were both shot with my MZ-L, one was at 18mm, one was 35mm.

Here are some of my film and digital shot from the lens.
Flickr Search: smcpentaxfaj1835mm

ChristianRock · 01-23-2014, 11:12 AM

Those images do look very good. But you can make any lens look good, Colton

You even make the 18-55 look fantastic. And your flickr account gave me serious DA 21 LBA.

I'm going to get the Sigma 24mm 2.8 ii first, then later the Tokina 17mm 3.5. I'm seriously impressed with that lens, especially on film.

Edit: I saw some reviews of the Sigma 17-35 2.8-4 saying it's very sharp, others say it's not that great. Is it as sharp as a prime, though? How about in comparison with the 16-45? (I know the SIgma is FF, but just wanted to have an idea)?

**nater** · 01-23-2014, 03:08 PM

Originally posted by ChristianRock

I saw some reviews of the Sigma 17-35 2.8-4 saying it's very sharp, others say it's not that great. Is it as sharp as a prime, though? How about in comparison with the 16-45? (I know the SIgma is FF, but just wanted to have an idea)?

I had a used copy of Sigma 17-35 f/2.8-4 EX DG (77mm filter later version) a few years ago but there may have been something wrong with my copy, because when I compared it to a Tokina 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5 AF lens I got in an auction lot on ebay the Tokina clearly had better resolution and well controlled coma, astigmatism, and chromatic aberration at every comparable focal length and f-stop. (Other Sigma lenses I own are great). I sold that Sigma, and I recently picked up the new Samyang f/2 ED AS UMC (manual focus APS-C lens) on the used market to round things out.

01-23-2014, 11:12 AM	#29
ChristianRock Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: People's Republic of America Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,910 Original Poster	Those images do look very good. But you can make any lens look good, Colton You even make the 18-55 look fantastic. And your flickr account gave me serious DA 21 LBA. I'm going to get the Sigma 24mm 2.8 ii first, then later the Tokina 17mm 3.5. I'm seriously impressed with that lens, especially on film. Edit: I saw some reviews of the Sigma 17-35 2.8-4 saying it's very sharp, others say it's not that great. Is it as sharp as a prime, though? How about in comparison with the 16-45? (I know the SIgma is FF, but just wanted to have an idea)? Last edited by ChristianRock; 01-23-2014 at 12:46 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
0.5x wide angel attachment? or C-mount wide angle?	MegaPower	Pentax Q	58	10-19-2020 03:58 PM
K5 and the Sigma 10-20 wide angle	Jim Radcliffe	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	12	08-11-2013 02:59 AM
APS format and wide angle lenses	calsan	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	8	04-24-2012 03:24 AM
For Sale - Sold: Tokina AT-X 235AF PRO 20-35mm/2.8 for Nikon FF and APS-C (Worldwide)	pspentax	Sold Items	3	09-06-2010 03:53 PM
Budget wide angle lens for K100D?	FckShoes	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	19	06-27-2008 06:45 PM

01-18-2014, 09:13 PM	#16
ChristianRock Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: People's Republic of America Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,910 Original Poster	I hadn't heard about the Tokina… so I'm looking up some information on it to see how I like it. I've already seen some great images taken with it on flickr. The reviews are a bit conflicting, but most people seem to like it ok. Dave - thanks for that comparison chart. I know it's just newspapers but it helps to see that the Sigma at F4 doesn't really lose to the 16-45 in sharpness. Right now I'm thinking about getting the Sigma, and later on getting the 16-45, which would be a good addition regardless, and probably a perfect lens to use outside. But the Sigma, even though a prime, would probably be useful in more situations to me, being a stop faster and good wide open if I need that. I was afraid that the Sigma or the Pentax-K would lose noticeably to the 16-45 in IQ but I think they might be a bit closer than I thought. I would probably be just as happy with the Pentax-K but the Sigma just has so much going on for it.

01-19-2014, 05:25 AM	#17
azerak Senior Member Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 207	I was in the same position as you few months ago. I made my readings and now a proud owner of a Sigma AF 24mm 2.8 super wide. I use it for my K5 and occasionally on my Pz1-p for that wide shot. Now I only use this 24mm and my DA 50mm 1.8 for most of my shots. My other lenses are safe in the drybox.

01-20-2014, 10:12 AM	#18
ChristianRock Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: People's Republic of America Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,910 Original Poster	azerak - I see the other lenses you have, from your flickr page, so it's a huge testimony to the Sigma that you use it as one of your two main lenses Or did you sell the Sigma 35 1.4 Art and the DA 15? The DA 50 1.8, by the way, is also in my list to get this year. I love the M 50 1.7 to bits, and having an AF version with upgraded rounded blades and DA coating is a dream come true

01-20-2014, 01:36 PM - 1 Like	#19
Boris_Akunin Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: Bremen, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 674	Here's another vote for the Sigma or the Kiron. The Sigma is probably easier to get in P/KA, the A-version Kiron is rather rare. I found another two comparisons that might interest you: Vivitar 24mm f/2 (Komine) -VS- Vivitar 24mm f/2 (Kiron) / Sigma 24mm f/2.8 (Super wide 2) / SMC Pentax 24mm f/2.8 / Pentax FA*24 f/2: 24mm prime comparison Vivitar 24mm f/2 (Kiron) -VS- Minolta MD W.Rokkor 24mm f/2.8: articles - Minolta MD W.Rokkor 24mm 1:2.8 against Kiron 24mm 1:2.0 (The Minolta 24 is the earlier design with 9 lenses in 7 groups, that's the one that Leica licenced for the Elmarit-R 24mm f/2.8) I've had both the Sigma (P/KA version) and the Kiron (P/K) version, I'd prefer the Kiron but I mostly used it on film (stop-down metering is a pain...). I've posted a comparison with of the Kiron and a Vivitar Series 1 28/1.9 (Komine) over here (full-res images and 100% crops) and there are a couple of film-shots with the Kiron in my gallery (only shitty 1.5MP scans). regards Jan

01-20-2014, 03:15 PM	#20
ChristianRock Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: People's Republic of America Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,910 Original Poster	Thank you Jan, that is very helpful! I had seen that 24mm prime comparison and it's what steered me towards my 2 options. I saw that the Kiron was just as good as the Sigma and the Pentax, but there's so many reports of problems with it, I thought I'd best avoid it, as it doesn't seem better than the others (except the Komine which didn't perform well). I was also surprised at how similar the Pentax and the Sigma rendered in the tests.

01-20-2014, 11:47 PM	#21
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,888	If you are looking for a budget 20mm forget it. Even legacy ultra wides cost a lot. 24mm is the price break point. BUT what film camera are you using. You can get the FA-J 18-35 at a reasonable price. It was the last film kit lens, and was also shipped with then*istD

01-21-2014, 01:03 AM	#22
azerak Senior Member Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 207	Originally posted by ChristianRock azerak - I see the other lenses you have, from your flickr page, so it's a huge testimony to the Sigma that you use it as one of your two main lenses Or did you sell the Sigma 35 1.4 Art and the DA 15? The DA 50 1.8, by the way, is also in my list to get this year. I love the M 50 1.7 to bits, and having an AF version with upgraded rounded blades and DA coating is a dream come true I still have my Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art and the DA 15mm. It is just that both of them are for very specific use so they are not exactly my to go lens. My Sigma 24mm 2.8 and DA 50mm 1.8 on the other hand, are my to go lens that I can use for almost any kind of shots.

01-21-2014, 08:36 AM	#23
ChristianRock Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: People's Republic of America Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,910 Original Poster	Originally posted by Lowell Goudge If you are looking for a budget 20mm forget it. Yeah that's what I am finding out... though the Vivitar 19mm 3.8 is a lens I did consider, and it is within the price range I would be willing to pay... but ultimately I didn't think it's what I wanted. Quote: Even legacy ultra wides cost a lot. 24mm is the price break point. Yeah, I think I'm perfectly fine with 24mm, it would be the ideal range for me. 28mm isn't bad, there's just times I wish I had some extra width. But I don't want to go that much wider, either. Quote: BUT what film camera are you using. That was in the original post that started this thread... ZX-M. Quote: You can get the FA-J 18-35 at a reasonable price. It was the last film kit lens, and was also shipped with then*istD I hadn't considered that one, but I just did a bit of looking into it, and other than being full frame, it seems inferior in resolution, rendering and colors to the 18-55mm AL II that I already have. My goal is to step up in quality from that. Originally posted by azerak I still have my Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art and the DA 15mm. It is just that both of them are for very specific use so they are not exactly my to go lens. My Sigma 24mm 2.8 and DA 50mm 1.8 on the other hand, are my to go lens that I can use for almost any kind of shots. Like I said azerak, that is a huge testimony to how good this Sigma Superwide is. If you are used to the DA 15 and the Sigma 35 1.4, which are great lenses by all accounts, you would not settle for something in the 24mm range that you thought was noticeably inferior to those lenses, at least for its intended purpose. Yesterday I found a flickr account from a guy who used the 24mm Superwide on an old Canon APS-C camera and got some breathtaking results. So my mind is pretty much made up - Sigma it is for me Then later on, after I fill in some other needs in my system, I'll get the 16-45, as I'm sure it will be very useful as well.

01-21-2014, 11:39 AM	#24
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,888	One other point to consider is that I always found 24mm not quite wide enough when I shot film, and when I bought digital, it came with the 18-35 so I shot ultra wide with my film body, and normal to tele with digital. It was only when I got my sigma 10-20 that I stopped shooting film regularly. (Note the original 10-20 covers 13mm FF) Since then, I have picked up the Zenitar 16mm FEnand the samyang 14/2.8 which has some barrel distortion but is fixable and a nice lens. Both lenses are actually good quality for the price

01-21-2014, 12:07 PM	#25
ChristianRock Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: People's Republic of America Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,910 Original Poster	Well everyone's different. I know I don't need anything wider than 20 because when I pick up my 18-55, I never use it under 24mm. Who know though, that might change in a few years. Having said that, I just saw the Tokina 17mm 3.5 in the Marketplace... and looking at pictures taken with it on film, all I can say is wow, I really like that lens! Not what I need right now, so it goes in my "would be nice" to have list, for the future. But I can see why some people like to have fun with these wider lenses.

01-21-2014, 12:44 PM	#26
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,888	Originally posted by ChristianRock Well everyone's different. I know I don't need anything wider than 20 because when I pick up my 18-55, I never use it under 24mm. Who know though, that might change in a few years. Having said that, I just saw the Tokina 17mm 3.5 in the Marketplace... and looking at pictures taken with it on film, all I can say is wow, I really like that lens! Not what I need right now, so it goes in my "would be nice" to have list, for the future. But I can see why some people like to have fun with these wider lenses. I reached my conclusion when travelling in Europe. Combine narrow streets with a long focal length and a large cathedral and it leaves you wanting something, well, ......a lot shorter Considering 24mm on film is like 16mm on digital you can understand why I suggested looking at wider lenses. I use a 10mm sigma on my DSLR

01-21-2014, 03:24 PM	#27
miltona580 Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Oklahoma Posts: 309	I got the Pentax A 24mm f/2.8 for my cheap wide lens. It goes for around $200. It does have typical Pentax colors, but its not that sharp. I replaced it with the FA* 24, which is stupidly expensive for what it is, but its definitely sharper in the center and seems to have better contrast too.

01-22-2014, 09:28 PM	#28
Swift1 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Oregon Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,079	I have the FAJ 18-35mm and other than being slow (f/4-5.6) I'd say it's a very usable lens. At 18mm the corners can be soft but that is to be expected on a $150 ultrawide. I recently had a gallery showing with 2 film images taken with this lens in the show. They were 12x18 B&W prints, scanned from 35mm Agfa APX 100 and IMO they looked really good. They were both shot with my MZ-L, one was at 18mm, one was 35mm. Here are some of my film and digital shot from the lens. Flickr Search: smcpentaxfaj1835mm

01-23-2014, 03:08 PM	#30
nater Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: New England Photos: Albums Posts: 706	Originally posted by ChristianRock I saw some reviews of the Sigma 17-35 2.8-4 saying it's very sharp, others say it's not that great. Is it as sharp as a prime, though? How about in comparison with the 16-45? (I know the SIgma is FF, but just wanted to have an idea)? I had a used copy of Sigma 17-35 f/2.8-4 EX DG (77mm filter later version) a few years ago but there may have been something wrong with my copy, because when I compared it to a Tokina 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5 AF lens I got in an auction lot on ebay the Tokina clearly had better resolution and well controlled coma, astigmatism, and chromatic aberration at every comparable focal length and f-stop. (Other Sigma lenses I own are great). I sold that Sigma, and I recently picked up the new Samyang f/2 ED AS UMC (manual focus APS-C lens) on the used market to round things out.