[Zealex]

Hello,

I'm in search of a UWA and have been contemplating the 10-20mm. It seems to be inexpensive compared to other UWA's but still delivers a great image. I'm interested in using a UWA to shoot sunsets, landscapes, and cityscapes. Ideally I want the 8-16, but it's rare and expensive and perhaps the 10-20 would be a good substitute? It hovers at around half the price, while still delivering great IQ.

Just wondering if anyone had this lens and has/tried other lenses like the 8-16, 12-24, etc and could offer a word of wisdom?

Thank you for reading.

Cheers,
Zealex

[VoiceOfReason]

I have the 8-16 and it is very nice. Sharp too. I used to have the Tamron 10-24 and I liked it. It will even work on FF/Film from 12 or 13 mm and on.

[interested_observer]

The forum has a review of these. You really can't go wrong. I do have both the Sigma 8-16 and the Pentax 12-24 - long story, but I like and use both of them.

• Ultra-Wide Zoom Review and Comparison - Review News

There is also another UWA review here on the forum, but I can't find it right now.

There is an alternative to a UWA lens and that is stitching with a longer focal length. 21, 24, 28, 30, 31, 35 all have substantially less distortion and are sharper (simply because they shoot a tighter angle of view - hence each pixel represents a smaller amount of area and thus appears sharper). You can use Microsoft ICE (its a free download).

To your question - yes, the 10-20 in terms of focal length is a good substitute. I believe that Sigma has two 10-20 (and that is what the review I can't find covers). It will certainly have less distortion. The 8-16 is great when you need everything in a single shot, plus its colors are outstanding. Actually color rendering is outstanding attribute of all UWA/WA lenses.

Hope that helps....

[DDoram]

I have the Sigma 8-16 and the Pentax 12-24. Both are great lenses and I am still getting used to the 8-16 so haven't got to know it that well yet. The 12-24 is useful since you can used ND filters easily.

Dale

[mikeSF]

Zealex,
i used my Sigma 10-20 extensively for landscapes before switching to the 645D rig last year. FWIW, I found it to be a solid performer stopped down for landscapes. But since you mentioned you shoot sunrises, I will say that whenever I was framing the sun in my photo, I much preferred to switch to my DA15 because the 10-20 is quite prone to flaring. just FYI. good luck

[Adam]

If you do decide on the Sigma 10-20, there's a great deal on it right now: you can get it for $350.

Sigma 10mm-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC AF Zoom Lens for Pentax, USA #201109 201109

See above then use coupon code 1SGMAJUL99 at checkout for an additional $49 off.

[Zealex]

Uh oh, flare! haha, the sigma 8-16 as those beautiful pointed star lights, haha. Thanks for the replies guys!

The 10-20 doesn't really break the bank, but I'm actually considering a possible fisheye lens. The rokinon is 8mm, and cheap! I've never played with fisheye but it seems really fun but yet difficult, but couldn't I defish it in PP? So I can have a fisheye whenever and then defish it when I need too. My understanding is that the sigma 8-16 has some distortion at 8mm that requires some correction in PP anyways.

[Kozlok]

If you are considering a fisheye, give serious thought to the DA10-17, It's very fishy at 10, and not very fishy at all at 17. It seems to me that at 17, it really behaves more like a 12mm rectilinear lens with a little more distortion than average. If this lens had a 7 bladed aperture and WR, it would be the perfect lens.

Uh oh, flare! haha, the sigma 8-16 as those beautiful pointed star lights, haha. Thanks for the replies guys!

The 10-20 doesn't really break the bank, but I'm actually considering a possible fisheye lens. The rokinon is 8mm, and cheap! I've never played with fisheye but it seems really fun but yet difficult, but couldn't I defish it in PP? So I can have a fisheye whenever and then defish it when I need too. My understanding is that the sigma 8-16 has some distortion at 8mm that requires some correction in PP anyways.

[interested_observer]

.... but I'm actually considering a possible fisheye lens. The rokinon is 8mm, and cheap! I've never played with fisheye but it seems really fun but yet difficult, but couldn't I defish it in PP? So I can have a fisheye whenever and then defish it when I need too. My understanding is that the sigma 8-16 has some distortion at 8mm that requires some correction in PP anyways.

Here is a thread that I put up a while ago that compares the 10-17 fisheye to the 8-16 and the 12-24. The fisheye can be thought of as any fisheye, while the 12-24 as a straw-man for the 10-20. There is also a section addressing defishing....

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

[Zealex]

If you are considering a fisheye, give serious thought to the DA10-17, It's very fishy at 10, and not very fishy at all at 17. It seems to me that at 17, it really behaves more like a 12mm rectilinear lens with a little more distortion than average. If this lens had a 7 bladed aperture and WR, it would be the perfect lens.

I'm not sure how I could use a fisheye, that's some distortion that I don't know how to use to my advantage...maybe I need to be more creative.

[Kozlok]

I'm not sure how I could use a fisheye, that's some distortion that I don't know how to use to my advantage...maybe I need to be more creative.

You use it like this:

[lmd91343]

I am very happy with the Pentax 15/4 DA and the Pentax 10-17 DA. I almost always carry both.

There are two problems however. I have many pictures of my toes with the 10-17 near the wide end when held in portrait mode. The second problem is a bit more insidious. With the FOV being so wide, it is not uncommon for the sun to reflect off of the sensor, to the iris, then back to the sensor showing the iris. Under some circumstances it is hard avoid, but you must learn where to look for it.

[Zealex]

Here is a thread that I put up a while ago that compares the 10-17 fisheye to the 8-16 and the 12-24. The fisheye can be thought of as any fisheye, while the 12-24 as a straw-man for the 10-20. There is also a section addressing defishing....

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

Bit of an informative read, though I'm really tired and will have to reread that. The fisheye isn't actually that bad, and I don't like that roof stretching in the 8-16mm. 8mm seems like a crazy beast.

---------- Post added 07-26-14 at 11:29 PM ----------

You use it like this:

nice shots. I've been googling fisheye images and for some reason, I actually like the distortion such as in your images. It seems it can turn an ordinary landscape into something much more interesting! Perhaps it's because I'm so use to seeing regular flat landscape photos?

---------- Post added 07-26-14 at 11:30 PM ----------

I am very happy with the Pentax 15/4 DA and the Pentax 10-17 DA. I almost always carry both.

There are two problems however. I have many pictures of my toes with the 10-17 near the wide end when held in portrait mode. The second problem is a bit more insidious. With the FOV being so wide, it is not uncommon for the sun to reflect off of the sensor, to the iris, then back to the sensor showing the iris. Under some circumstances it is hard avoid, but you must learn where to look for it.

Interesting, wasn't aware of the sun reflection issue. Nice infrared shot

---------- Post added 07-26-14 at 11:32 PM ----------

I'm starting to think maybe it would make more sense to get the 10-17FE and 15mm LTD...Or perhaps the Samyang 8mm and the 15mm LTD? decisions decisions.

I feel a fisheye would offer better results with landscapes than cityscapes.