[TroutHunterJohn]

Hi All - I have a K5IIs body and need help completing my perfect lens set. Since price is a consideration, I can't just buy anything and everything I want, so I need to plan this out carefully.


What kind of shooting do I do, you ask? Mostly family, vacations, lots of wildlife, and quality outdoor landscapes. Most of my shots live on my hard drive, but I share them via e-mail, and some of them get printed and hung on the wall -- nothing extreme.


I don't like having to change lenses very often while shooting, so I'm going for best quality Pentax zooms (although I somehow ended up with 2 primes).


My current fleet consist of:
DA*300m f4
DA*50-135 f2.8
DA* 16-50 f2.8
Limiteds - DA 21mm AL and DA 40 -- which I might consider selling to fund my new wide-angle since these focal lengths are covered by my 16-50 (and IQ seems relatively comparable.)


(Eventually, I also plan to buy the new tele-converter.)


So, now I just need to fill out the very short side of my lens coverage and need some sage advice. I often find myself wanting wider than 16mm when shooting landscapes with my 16-50. I am quite interested in the 12-40, but this overlaps somewhat with my 16-50. Will the extra 4mm difference between 16 and 12 be noticeable and useful? Is the 12-24 in the same class as the DA* in terms of quality/optics/sharpness?


Should I be looking at the 15 F4 prime instead? How about the 14mm 2.8? My goal is a very wide FL and top quality IQ.


Are there other options at the short/wise side I should be considering within or outside the Pentax line? I'm not interested in fish-eye distortion.


Thanks of all your help.

---

Last edited by TroutHunterJohn; 03-12-2014 at 09:19 PM.

[SyncGuy]

why not look at the Sigma 10-20 or even wider at the sigma 8-16?

That would match and complete your kit!

[filoxophy]

12-40? What am I missing here? 12-24? 20-40?

[TroutHunterJohn]

Sorry, I meant to say 12-24. Ill try and edit my post

[jatrax]

My zoom bag has:
12-24
16-50
60-250

There is a replacement 12-28ish on the road map if you want to wait.

[TroutHunterJohn]

My zoom bag has:
12-24
16-50
60-250

There is a replacement 12-28ish on the road map if you want to wait.

What can you tell me about the 12-24 in terms of quality and added width, beyond what you get with the 16-50?

[SpecialK]

What can you tell me about the 12-24 in terms of quality and added width...

Quality and added width :-) It is an excellent range.

[VoiceOfReason]

The Sigma 8-16 is sharp as can be, very well regarded, and fills in your short end perfectly. Also, you haven't seen wide until you've gone to 8.

The 8-16 is also the widest rectilinear lens you can get, so no worries about the fisheye look with it!

[ElJamoquio]

I like the 8-16mm.

I'd sell my 8-16mm before I'd sell the 15mm. The 15mm is easier to carry, doesn't have a flare problem, colors are great, starbursts are great, etc., etc.

[AquaDome]

My widest is the DA-15 Ltd, but I too want to see what's down there between 9 & 12. The Sigma 8-16 is on my short list, but maybe not quite fishy enough? That Samyang 8mm smells fishy for less $$.

[DSims]

DA10-17 Fisheye zoom is not to be overlooked, because you can control the distortion to where it's minimal. Nice colors - almost like the DA15.


I think you've built the right kit so far. Just as you had to go with a prime at the long end with the DA*300 (DA*60-250 and DA*200 are both shorter and can't quite measure up in IQ), you may need to consider a prime at the wide end as well. I'll say up front there's no perfect solution if you need to go wider than 15mm and remain rectilinear.


The DA*300 and DA*50-135 are perfect solutions (more or less). The DA*16-50 isn't perfect, but it's the best you can do and is still very good. You'll probably have to settle on very good at the wide end too. I doubt the upcoming Pentax ~12-28 (which is possibly the new Tokina?) will change this situation.

The DA15 and DA10-17 create the nicest images, IMO. But the DA15 is just barely ultra-wide (though it's enough for me most of the time) and not everyone's looking for the variable distortion of the DA10-17.


All of the Sigma/Tamron 10-2x lenses fall short if you expect IQ in line with your other lenses. The best zooms here are the Sigma 8-16 and the Tokina 11-16 (but unfortunately the later isn't even available in Pentax mount). The Sigma still shows some of the Sigma rendering (which I don't like), but not as much as some other Sigmas, and it's super sharp (as in impressively so).

That leaves the DA12-24, which is too expensive and too much compromise in IQ, especially when it doesn't even give you enough additional range over what you currently have, and has further compromised its IQ by redundantly covering 16-24mm for you again (which is why I wish the Tokina 11-16/2.8 were available in K-mount).


Remaining is the Samyang (/Rokinon/others) 16/2, 14/2.8, and (hopefully in less than about 6 weeks, if reports are correct) 10/2.8. I don't completely like the colors from the Samyang lenses, but the IQ is pretty good overall. The 10/2.8 is the one I'm most interested in - probably the one you should consider too.


So, since you look for top IQ like I do, I'd say:

DA15 (the best choice if it's wide enough - DA*16-50 is a little weak wider than 20 or 18mm)
Sigma 8-16 (great from 10-16mm, and completes your range well)
Samyang 10/2.8 (if it's as good as their current lenses - and it probably will be)


DA10-17 in conjunction with DA15 completely did the trick for me - at least until I had to do some tight architectural interior shots with minimal distortion (that was when I added the Sigma 8-16). You can actually go quite wide on landscapes with the DA10-17 without making it look weird if you're willing to put the horizon right in the middle of the frame. PENTAX : Select a PENTAX interchangeable lens camera or a lens model

[Yos]

I am still very happy with my Tamron 10-24mm. See no reason to try out the Sigma 8-16mm.
If I had the money I would try out the DA 15mm to complement my prime lens kit but I would not sell my Tamron since I really love it at 10mm.
So if I would be in your situation I would get a UWA zoom lens and maybe later go for a wide angle prime lens.
My 2 cents.

[TroutHunterJohn]

Thanks for the many helpful comments, already. This forum is a wealth of info, without attitude. Very helpful.


I'm curious why there isn't more support for the DA 14 2.8. I know it is large, and the IQ reviews are fairly good, yet people seem to really prefer the 15mm limited. Is that because of the smaller size of the 15 or does the 14 have a poor reputation.


Based on the advice so far, I'm going to take a close look at the Sigma 8-16, keep the DA 12-24 on my short list, and maybe give the DA15 another look.


I would like to hear more from those of you shoot high-quality wide-angle landscapes. This is the only wide angle lens I plan to buy, so I'm willing to save for the best IQ,


Thanks again.

[TER-OR]

I have the 10-17 which is a great little lens. I've rented the 8-16 which is a great performer, it produced some of my favorite images and is one I'd like to buy at some point. It's very different from the 10-17, a true fisheye.

I think the 8-16 is great for landscape, it has a wonderful view.

[Canada_Rockies]

My zoom bag has:
12-24
16-50
60-250

There is a replacement 12-28ish on the road map if you want to wait.

My zoom bag has
12-24
16-50
55-300 (wish I had the 60-250, but $$$)

The 12-24 is nothing short of amazing. There's a set I took in March 2008 with it on my Flickr site that will give you an idea of its strengths and failings (flare at times).

The 16-50 is the lens when I want to just wander around.

The DA-L 55-300 is driving me nuts. The lack of quick shift is giving me blisters on my focusing hand. It's an OK lens, for sure, but the DA* 60-250 ...