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

Swift1 · 01-23-2014, 04:00 PM

Originally posted by ChristianRock

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)?

The Sigma 24 is a good choice. AF or MF?

I owned a Sigma 17-35 in Minolta mount for a little while. I bought it new in 2007. I was just beginning then and I didn't know much. I ended up selling mine to finance my 18-35, mostly because I didn't want 2 systems and I wanted and ultra-wide in K-mount. I would have loved to get the same lens in K mount, but at the time they were very difficult to find, and selling for $250+
I really liked the Sigma 17-35 and still kinda want a K mount version. I don't know that it is a whole lot better (optically) than the Pentax 18-35, but the extra stop of speed would come in handy. The Sigma is nearly 2X larger though

6BQ5 · 01-23-2014, 09:34 PM

I'll throw the Promaster Spectrum 7 18-35mm zoom. It's a full frame lens zoom lens if that sounds interesting to you. The lens is noticeably sharper than the kit 18-55mm lens. This lens was sold under many different brands. Look around and you may be able to score one for under $100.

azerak · 01-24-2014, 12:55 AM

Originally posted by ChristianRock

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)?

I used to have the Sigma 17-35mm and I am not sure if it was my copy, but it was quite soft. Not something that I really want to use for a landscape shot so I sold it

yusuf · 01-24-2014, 02:12 AM

Have you considered cheap M24-35/3.5. Pretty good lens imo.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/237496-pent...n-crop-ff.html

ChristianRock · 01-24-2014, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by Swift1

The Sigma 24 is a good choice. AF or MF?

Probably the Superwide II, manual focus. Unless I can find the AF for a very reasonable price, but they seem to be well over 200 dollars. I don't think AF will be necessary for my intended use. I don't seem to miss many shots with my manual 28mm 2.8 due to focus error.

Originally posted by 6BQ5

I'll throw the Promaster Spectrum 7 18-35mm zoom. It's a full frame lens zoom lens if that sounds interesting to you. The lens is noticeably sharper than the kit 18-55mm lens. This lens was sold under many different brands. Look around and you may be able to score one for under $100.

Thanks for that recommendation, I had not heard of this one.
I only found a 19-35mm 3.5-4.5, I think that's the one you mean. I found it under Promaster and also Soligor (I'm assuming they're the same, pictures look similar). There's also a Vivitar Series 1 19-35 but that might be a different lens, also looks very good.
The Promaster is actually a pretty good lens, it seems! To my eyes it looks quite a bit better than the FA J 18-35. I might have to keep my eyes open for that one. It seems cheap, too! Made by Cosina, apparently?

Originally posted by yusuf

Have you considered cheap M24-35/3.5. Pretty good lens imo.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/237496-pent...n-crop-ff.html

Thanks for that link.
At 3.5, I like the Sigma quite a bit better, honestly. Looking at that bush that looks a bit like a bamboo, and also at that metal thing against the wall, I can tell the Sigma looks quite a bit more "3D" than the 24-35. It doesn't seem like the Sigma's reputation is in vain

The 24-35 seems good but the Sigma just looks a bit better (to me).

But now I might actually start off with that 19-35! It seems better than the Pentax 24-35 (probably because that one says Pentax on it), has a more useful range and IQ seems superior as well. Probably still not quite as good as the Sigma Ultrawide, but for 1/2 the cost or less, it might be a good start.

ChristianRock · 02-05-2014, 08:48 AM

Originally posted by Swift1

The Sigma 24 is a good choice. AF or MF?

I owned a Sigma 17-35 in Minolta mount for a little while. I bought it new in 2007. I was just beginning then and I didn't know much. I ended up selling mine to finance my 18-35, mostly because I didn't want 2 systems and I wanted and ultra-wide in K-mount. I would have loved to get the same lens in K mount, but at the time they were very difficult to find, and selling for $250+
I really liked the Sigma 17-35 and still kinda want a K mount version. I don't know that it is a whole lot better (optically) than the Pentax 18-35, but the extra stop of speed would come in handy. The Sigma is nearly 2X larger though

Hey Colton, I just saw that a Sigma 17-35 went recently for 88 dollars on Ebay

Apparently, nothing wrong with it, and it was being sold by a pro photographer. I saw two more that went for 129 and 165 dollars. KEH has an EX+ for 199 dollars. So it might be time for you to look for one

I've been looking into it, and into the Tamron, which is harder to come by but I seem to prefer Tamron colors, and the Tamron is super-sharp in the center at f2.8 according to photozone.de. These 17-35s seem to be selling for less than the DA 16-45, and they are full frame, so I'm definitely considering them.

As for me, the money I had set aside for the lens, from selling a music-related piece of equipment, is going towards bills this month, as we had some medical expenses that got us over budget. Bummer.

Maybe I'll at least be able to swing at least a Vivitar/Phoenix/Cosina 17-35 in the next month or two, as they seem decent and can be found for less than 100 dollars. A Sigma Superwide II MF went for less than 100 recently as well... but I'm afraid of the bidding wars on those if I bid on them at the last minute, as they are always sought after.

**marcusBMG** · 02-05-2014, 10:47 AM

patience and opportunism are key on ebay. Just picked up a pka sigma superwide for equiv $47 (wrong side of the pond for the OP...)

Doundounba · 02-05-2014, 11:28 AM

An other possible option in primes might be the Tamron Adaptall 24mm F/2.5? Thanks to LBA, I have one coming my way, which I intend to test against my (MF) Sigma Superwide II.

That being said, I'm very happy with the Sigma in terms of sharpness, colors and build. Its only weakness is the aperture ring, which is incredibly flimsy. I wouldn't use this lens in any situation where the aperture ring is needed regularly. Thankfully that's a pretty rare thing these days on a P/KA lens. (The only reason I found this out was that I tried to use it reversed onto a zoom for extreme macro - a use where it needed to be stopped down via the aperture ring.) If I saw an AF version not too far north of $200, I'd probably pick it up as fast as I could. But it seems I'm never fast enough when they do show up in the marketplace, which is rarely...

ChristianRock · 02-05-2014, 11:34 AM

I think we discussed the adaptall Tamrons - too expensive for me as I'd have to buy the adaptor as well. Also, I don't think it has the edge on the Sigma or even the Pentax-K...

But now it seems I'll have to wait a little while to buy my wide angle lens anyway... so the 18-55 will have to do for now, though it just doesn't make me want to go out and take pictures of landscapes...

Doundounba · 02-05-2014, 11:48 AM

It's true that the Adaptall P/KA adapters sometimes go for crazy money. I think one of my best lens buys was a Tamron Adaptall 70-210mm (158A), which isn't a super good lens but is very light and came with a P/KA adapter for $30. I also scored a second P/KA adapter on Ebay for under $50. If you can get an adapter at these prices, the total cost of the Tamron winds up about the same as that of the Sigma. For both lenses, though, the price you get depends on your skill, patience and luck as a bargain hunter.

Once I have both in my hands, I'll see how they compare...

ChristianRock · 02-07-2014, 02:41 PM

It seems like the Sigma is way better than the Tamron 24 2.5 adaptall, from the pictures and the reviews that I have seen.

I'm still not couting off a Pentax-K 24 2.8 either. Might not be exactly as sharp as the Sigma, but it is close and the SMC coating is nice

I'm also paying attention to the Tokina 24 2.8, I've been warming up to Tokinas lately... There's one on Ebay right now but it seems to be in such a bad shape.

Finally, it seems like the Cimko made 24s are pretty decent as well and can be very cheap. The Promaster badged one seems to show up on Ebay every now and then.

Regarding the Sigma - is there an optical difference between the Superwide and the Superwide II?

azerak · 02-07-2014, 06:05 PM

Some sample shots of the Sigma Superwide II 24mm 2.8 on film (Pz1-p) and digital (K5).

On film.

On digital.

ChristianRock · 02-08-2014, 08:28 PM

Those are amazing shots of the Sigma, azerak. I'm pretty sure I'm going to get this lens down the road.

But for now, I ended up making a different decision…

I went for the Tokina 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5. KEH had an EX+ condition (they still have an EX) for just over 100 bucks. The 10% off sale made me do it…

This lens seems very well regarded as far as optics go, even if it's made of lots of plastic… it was called the "Plastic Fantastic" way before my beloved DA 35mm 2.4 existed… KEH even had an 81a filter (Nikon) and an ND0.9 (Tiffen) for cheap (both 77mm, and also discounted this weekend). So I'm very excited! This should take care of my wide angle needs on digital and film for now

Thanks to everyone who chimed in to help, hopefully this thread will help others in their search for wide angle lenses, and I'm sure this thread will make the Sigma 24 2.8 prices go up a little bit… hopefully not too much by the time I find one for myself

ChristianRock · 02-24-2014, 08:49 AM

So, to follow up, I'm pretty happy with my Tokina 19-35. This is the back of the building where I work...

Wide open at 3.5. I don't think I can complain for less than 100 bucks in EX+ condition

Love those Tokina blues, I can see why Tokina wide angle lenses (and the Pentax 12-24, a Tokina design) are well regarded. It renders blues in particular very well.

jjdgti · 02-24-2014, 09:32 AM

I have both adaptal 24mm 2.5 as well as the Sigma AF 24mm 2.8.

I am no longer able to use Manual lenses and in my opinion, the Tamron was a very good performer.
The Sigma AF is Excellent but prices are well north of $200

A Pentax A 24-50 may also be a posivility..

01-24-2014, 09:58 AM	#35
ChristianRock Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: People's Republic of America Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,910 Original Poster	Originally posted by Swift1 The Sigma 24 is a good choice. AF or MF? Probably the Superwide II, manual focus. Unless I can find the AF for a very reasonable price, but they seem to be well over 200 dollars. I don't think AF will be necessary for my intended use. I don't seem to miss many shots with my manual 28mm 2.8 due to focus error. Originally posted by 6BQ5 I'll throw the Promaster Spectrum 7 18-35mm zoom. It's a full frame lens zoom lens if that sounds interesting to you. The lens is noticeably sharper than the kit 18-55mm lens. This lens was sold under many different brands. Look around and you may be able to score one for under $100. Thanks for that recommendation, I had not heard of this one. I only found a 19-35mm 3.5-4.5, I think that's the one you mean. I found it under Promaster and also Soligor (I'm assuming they're the same, pictures look similar). There's also a Vivitar Series 1 19-35 but that might be a different lens, also looks very good. The Promaster is actually a pretty good lens, it seems! To my eyes it looks quite a bit better than the FA J 18-35. I might have to keep my eyes open for that one. It seems cheap, too! Made by Cosina, apparently? Originally posted by yusuf Have you considered cheap M24-35/3.5. Pretty good lens imo. https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/237496-pent...n-crop-ff.html Thanks for that link. At 3.5, I like the Sigma quite a bit better, honestly. Looking at that bush that looks a bit like a bamboo, and also at that metal thing against the wall, I can tell the Sigma looks quite a bit more "3D" than the 24-35. It doesn't seem like the Sigma's reputation is in vain The 24-35 seems good but the Sigma just looks a bit better (to me). But now I might actually start off with that 19-35! It seems better than the Pentax 24-35 (probably because that one says Pentax on it), has a more useful range and IQ seems superior as well. Probably still not quite as good as the Sigma Ultrawide, but for 1/2 the cost or less, it might be a good start. Last edited by ChristianRock; 01-24-2014 at 10:18 AM.

02-05-2014, 11:28 AM	#38
Doundounba Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Montréal QC Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,351	An other possible option in primes might be the Tamron Adaptall 24mm F/2.5? Thanks to LBA, I have one coming my way, which I intend to test against my (MF) Sigma Superwide II. That being said, I'm very happy with the Sigma in terms of sharpness, colors and build. Its only weakness is the aperture ring, which is incredibly flimsy. I wouldn't use this lens in any situation where the aperture ring is needed regularly. Thankfully that's a pretty rare thing these days on a P/KA lens. (The only reason I found this out was that I tried to use it reversed onto a zoom for extreme macro - a use where it needed to be stopped down via the aperture ring.) If I saw an AF version not too far north of $200, I'd probably pick it up as fast as I could. But it seems I'm never fast enough when they do show up in the marketplace, which is rarely... Last edited by Doundounba; 02-05-2014 at 11:35 AM. Reason: typo

02-05-2014, 11:48 AM	#40
Doundounba Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Montréal QC Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,351	It's true that the Adaptall P/KA adapters sometimes go for crazy money. I think one of my best lens buys was a Tamron Adaptall 70-210mm (158A), which isn't a super good lens but is very light and came with a P/KA adapter for $30. I also scored a second P/KA adapter on Ebay for under $50. If you can get an adapter at these prices, the total cost of the Tamron winds up about the same as that of the Sigma. For both lenses, though, the price you get depends on your skill, patience and luck as a bargain hunter. Once I have both in my hands, I'll see how they compare... Last edited by Doundounba; 02-05-2014 at 11:49 AM. Reason: typos

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

01-23-2014, 04:00 PM	#31
Swift1 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Oregon Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,079	Originally posted by ChristianRock 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)? The Sigma 24 is a good choice. AF or MF? I owned a Sigma 17-35 in Minolta mount for a little while. I bought it new in 2007. I was just beginning then and I didn't know much. I ended up selling mine to finance my 18-35, mostly because I didn't want 2 systems and I wanted and ultra-wide in K-mount. I would have loved to get the same lens in K mount, but at the time they were very difficult to find, and selling for $250+ I really liked the Sigma 17-35 and still kinda want a K mount version. I don't know that it is a whole lot better (optically) than the Pentax 18-35, but the extra stop of speed would come in handy. The Sigma is nearly 2X larger though

01-23-2014, 09:34 PM	#32
6BQ5 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: Nevada, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,348	I'll throw the Promaster Spectrum 7 18-35mm zoom. It's a full frame lens zoom lens if that sounds interesting to you. The lens is noticeably sharper than the kit 18-55mm lens. This lens was sold under many different brands. Look around and you may be able to score one for under $100.

01-24-2014, 12:55 AM	#33
azerak Senior Member Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 207	Originally posted by ChristianRock 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)? I used to have the Sigma 17-35mm and I am not sure if it was my copy, but it was quite soft. Not something that I really want to use for a landscape shot so I sold it

01-24-2014, 02:12 AM	#34
yusuf Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Palo Alto, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,497	Have you considered cheap M24-35/3.5. Pretty good lens imo. https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/237496-pent...n-crop-ff.html

02-05-2014, 08:48 AM	#36
ChristianRock Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: People's Republic of America Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,910 Original Poster	Originally posted by Swift1 The Sigma 24 is a good choice. AF or MF? I owned a Sigma 17-35 in Minolta mount for a little while. I bought it new in 2007. I was just beginning then and I didn't know much. I ended up selling mine to finance my 18-35, mostly because I didn't want 2 systems and I wanted and ultra-wide in K-mount. I would have loved to get the same lens in K mount, but at the time they were very difficult to find, and selling for $250+ I really liked the Sigma 17-35 and still kinda want a K mount version. I don't know that it is a whole lot better (optically) than the Pentax 18-35, but the extra stop of speed would come in handy. The Sigma is nearly 2X larger though Hey Colton, I just saw that a Sigma 17-35 went recently for 88 dollars on Ebay Apparently, nothing wrong with it, and it was being sold by a pro photographer. I saw two more that went for 129 and 165 dollars. KEH has an EX+ for 199 dollars. So it might be time for you to look for one I've been looking into it, and into the Tamron, which is harder to come by but I seem to prefer Tamron colors, and the Tamron is super-sharp in the center at f2.8 according to photozone.de. These 17-35s seem to be selling for less than the DA 16-45, and they are full frame, so I'm definitely considering them. As for me, the money I had set aside for the lens, from selling a music-related piece of equipment, is going towards bills this month, as we had some medical expenses that got us over budget. Bummer. Maybe I'll at least be able to swing at least a Vivitar/Phoenix/Cosina 17-35 in the next month or two, as they seem decent and can be found for less than 100 dollars. A Sigma Superwide II MF went for less than 100 recently as well... but I'm afraid of the bidding wars on those if I bid on them at the last minute, as they are always sought after.

02-05-2014, 10:47 AM	#37
marcusBMG Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: North Wales Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,869	patience and opportunism are key on ebay. Just picked up a pka sigma superwide for equiv $47 (wrong side of the pond for the OP...)

02-05-2014, 11:34 AM	#39
ChristianRock Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: People's Republic of America Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,910 Original Poster	I think we discussed the adaptall Tamrons - too expensive for me as I'd have to buy the adaptor as well. Also, I don't think it has the edge on the Sigma or even the Pentax-K... But now it seems I'll have to wait a little while to buy my wide angle lens anyway... so the 18-55 will have to do for now, though it just doesn't make me want to go out and take pictures of landscapes...

02-07-2014, 02:41 PM	#41
ChristianRock Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: People's Republic of America Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,910 Original Poster	It seems like the Sigma is way better than the Tamron 24 2.5 adaptall, from the pictures and the reviews that I have seen. I'm still not couting off a Pentax-K 24 2.8 either. Might not be exactly as sharp as the Sigma, but it is close and the SMC coating is nice I'm also paying attention to the Tokina 24 2.8, I've been warming up to Tokinas lately... There's one on Ebay right now but it seems to be in such a bad shape. Finally, it seems like the Cimko made 24s are pretty decent as well and can be very cheap. The Promaster badged one seems to show up on Ebay every now and then. Regarding the Sigma - is there an optical difference between the Superwide and the Superwide II?

02-07-2014, 06:05 PM	#42
azerak Senior Member Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 207	Some sample shots of the Sigma Superwide II 24mm 2.8 on film (Pz1-p) and digital (K5). On film. On digital.

02-08-2014, 08:28 PM	#43
ChristianRock Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: People's Republic of America Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,910 Original Poster	Those are amazing shots of the Sigma, azerak. I'm pretty sure I'm going to get this lens down the road. But for now, I ended up making a different decision… I went for the Tokina 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5. KEH had an EX+ condition (they still have an EX) for just over 100 bucks. The 10% off sale made me do it… This lens seems very well regarded as far as optics go, even if it's made of lots of plastic… it was called the "Plastic Fantastic" way before my beloved DA 35mm 2.4 existed… KEH even had an 81a filter (Nikon) and an ND0.9 (Tiffen) for cheap (both 77mm, and also discounted this weekend). So I'm very excited! This should take care of my wide angle needs on digital and film for now Thanks to everyone who chimed in to help, hopefully this thread will help others in their search for wide angle lenses, and I'm sure this thread will make the Sigma 24 2.8 prices go up a little bit… hopefully not too much by the time I find one for myself

02-24-2014, 08:49 AM	#44
ChristianRock Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: People's Republic of America Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,910 Original Poster	So, to follow up, I'm pretty happy with my Tokina 19-35. This is the back of the building where I work... Wide open at 3.5. I don't think I can complain for less than 100 bucks in EX+ condition Love those Tokina blues, I can see why Tokina wide angle lenses (and the Pentax 12-24, a Tokina design) are well regarded. It renders blues in particular very well.

02-24-2014, 09:32 AM	#45
jjdgti Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: NJ Posts: 1,824	I have both adaptal 24mm 2.5 as well as the Sigma AF 24mm 2.8. I am no longer able to use Manual lenses and in my opinion, the Tamron was a very good performer. The Sigma AF is Excellent but prices are well north of $200 A Pentax A 24-50 may also be a posivility..