Pentax 12-24 or 20-40 (choice down to two)

Joojoo2010 · 02-21-2015, 11:25 AM

hmmm as I think this even more 20-40mm start to look bettter and better for those uses. I could live just fine with 20mm only for landscapes, small size and weight, very qood IQ, WR. hmmm If I only have money

edit.but why 55mm filter size instead of 52mm...

Last edited by Joojoo2010; 02-21-2015 at 11:32 AM.

DeadJohn · 02-21-2015, 11:31 AM

I think your choice comes down to focal lengths more than anything else - a technically great lens with a focal length that doesn't suit your style is no good. The 12-24 is IMO better for landscapes because you can zoom from very wide to normal. It also covers usable lengths for street photography assuming you want surrounding elements in your compositions. The 20-40 is arguably a less flexible focal length, but it offers WR and a compact size.

Biro · 02-21-2015, 11:32 AM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by EstimatedEyes

I've got both the 12-24 and the 20-40 and both are great lenses. Which you choose depends on what you want to shoot. The 12-24 is a lot larger, especially with the lens hood, but I frequently find I want the extra reach for both landscapes and cityscapes beyond what the 20-40 offers. The perspective shift doesn't bug me because that's what you get when you go superwide. Have to be careful with the use of polarizers on that (or any superwide) because its prone to banding, but have not had major problems with CA or purple fringing.

I also have the 15 LTD which is a nice small package to give me that extra wide, and that plus the 20-40 is a great little kit for all the wide-to-normal needs I might encounter. But I still can't bring myself to part with the 12-24 because I really love that lens, and it gives me the flexibility to use it as a walkaround lens and not just a special purpose lens like the 15. OTOH, the 20-40 did convince me to sell off my DA21 Ltd, which I loved, because the images I got from the 20-40 were just as good and it wasn't much bigger and the flexibility of the zoom was worth it. Its a great, sharp walkaround lens, compact, and much better imho than the 16-50 in terms of size, usefulness and quality.

Bottom line is pick either and you will be happy. If you are torn, the 20-40 is probably a better general purpose lens, and if that's what you're after I'd take that over the 12-24. If you really like to shoot wide and play at that end of the range most often, go for the 12-24 and you won't be disappointed. Good luck!

I also own the 12-24 and the 20-40, as well as the 15 and 21 Limiteds. I agree with everything written above. For me, the 12-24 and 20-40 are different tools for different jobs. The 12-24 is a true ultra-wide angle lens with all that implies. The 20-40 is kind of a flexible normal lens and an excellent all-rounder.

The 20-40 has become my go-to, general-use lens with WR. The 12-24 is what I tend to use for cityscapes and many interior shots. I don't tend to use the wide end of the 12-24 for landscapes - it tends to push the subject matter away. I tend to go no wider than 16mm for landscapes, if that much. But if you find you really want the 12-24, don't worry about sharpness. It's fine.

The price of the 20-40mm has come way down lately. I'd suggest going for that lens and if you still want an ultra-wide angle lens after that, check out the Sigma 10-20 - the less-expensive f/4-5.6 model, not the more expensive f/3.5 model. I've seen a lot of fabulous shots taken with that lens - and it's a lot less money than the Pentax 12-24.

**ak_kiwi** · 02-21-2015, 12:30 PM

Just to throw something else into the mix - how about the Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC Macro HSM ? IMHO it is a versatile walk around lens that has good IQ and profiles are available in Lightroom. Remember to price in the USB lens dock in order to get the absolute best out of this lens.

**bpv_UW** · 02-21-2015, 01:03 PM

When you shoot landscapes, how wide do you want/need to go? I'm a wide shooter, personally, and sometimes even find the Da 15 longer than I'd like for landscapes (though mostly it's great). I've owned the 12-24 and found it quite sharp (better than Da 15 in corners, too), and the FL range is awesome for 'scapes (IMO). YMMV. Downsides are size/weight and inferior flare resistance (by a lot) to the Da 15. Not sure how it compares to the 20-40 IQ-wise, but I think deciding between these two will largely be about your shooting style - IQ will be great on both.

Regarding digging into your pack for lens changes, I agree that would be a pain in the a**. If that is the only thing holding you back from primes, though, why not consider one of these: Clik Elite chest pack? (they make various sizes) I have one, and have had clips sewn onto my hiking pack so I can attach the chest pack directly, then my camera (and usually 3 primes) are readily accessible. If you go the prime route, I'd suggest 15/31, but there are lots of combos that would work.

-Brandon

**Wingincamera** · 02-21-2015, 01:56 PM

I have the 20-40mm, along with the 15 & 35mm macro, and the 18-135mm. The 18-138 was used the most, but now the 20-40mm stays on the camera unless I have a need for one of the others. On the long end the 20-40 is only f4.0, but I usually shoot with smaller f stops anyway. The only problem I have with the 20-40 is focus, usually it nails the focus, but other times with the same target it misses. I find myself stopping to check the focus after a shot more often.
I do like it being a WR lens.

If you can afford it, what I did once when I use to use Canon was order both lens. I wanted a 100mm macro and couldn't decide between the Canon L or the Sigma 105mm, so I ordered both from B&H. After trying both of them for a week I returned the one and kept the other. It did cost me shipping charges to return it, but I got what I wanted.

jeverettfine · 02-21-2015, 04:39 PM

How about the 18-135? It's WR as well.

mee · 02-21-2015, 09:14 PM

Originally posted by Wingincamera

If you can afford it, what I did once when I use to use Canon was order both lens. I wanted a 100mm macro and couldn't decide between the Canon L or the Sigma 105mm, so I ordered both from B&H. After trying both of them for a week I returned the one and kept the other. It did cost me shipping charges to return it, but I got what I wanted.

But isn't the seller now on the hook for a used item? Why not use a rental service instead?

SpecialK · 02-21-2015, 09:21 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by mee

But isn't the seller now on the hook for a used item?

Yeah - I'd charge a restocking fee for that sh!t - no lie.

lytrytyr · 02-21-2015, 10:03 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Joojoo2010

but why 55mm filter size instead of 52mm..

The DA 20-40 design evolved from the FA 20-35, which had a 58mm filter thread.
They could only shrink it down so much.

rburgoss · 02-21-2015, 11:34 PM

Originally posted by lytrytyr

The DA 20-40 design evolved from the FA 20-35, which had a 58mm filter thread.
They could only shrink it down so much.

I always thought the 12-24 was the direct descendant on the 20-35 (full frame), since its focal length is almost a direct equivalent from ff to aps-c.

lytrytyr · 02-22-2015, 08:31 AM

Originally posted by rburgoss

I always thought the 12-24 was the direct descendant on the 20-35 (full frame), since its focal length is almost a direct equivalent from ff to aps-c.

Equivalent, maybe (for users who like to think in those terms).
But when it comes to actual optics, the focal length is the focal length.
The refractive properties of the glass in a lens don't change magically
when the lens is mounted in front of a smaller sensor!

**Canada_Rockies** · 02-22-2015, 08:51 AM

There is a series of shots of Elk River on my Flickr site. You can see the good and the bad on the 12-24. One I posted has a purple blur from flare. Most are, IMHO, very, very good indeed. My most sold snap is in that series. It's the one with the snowy rock in the foreground. I don't find the distortion much of a problem with the lens. It's less than I thought it would be with such a wide lens.

Check out the 12-24 before dismissing it. That series was very shortly after I received it, and I was trying to find out where it failed, and where it didn't. It didn't fail my expectations very often. My lightest do almost all kit is the 12-24 and the 55-300.

rburgoss · 02-22-2015, 08:55 AM

Originally posted by lytrytyr

Equivalent, maybe (for users who like to think in those terms).
But when it comes to actual optics, the focal length is the focal length.
The refractive properties of the glass in a lens don't change magically
when the lens is mounted in front of a smaller sensor!

Perhaps I got misunderstood here. When I said that my belief is that the 12-24 is a direct descendant of the FA 20-35, is not based on lens contruction or optical formula. It is based on the fact that whoever used the 20-35 with film, will have very similar angles of coverage and zoom range with the 12-24 on digital (aps-c crop).

For example, I would say the same about the DA 10-17 as being the direct descendant of the F 17-28. I really don't care if the optical formula is similar or its costruction is similar. I am just saying that whoever used the F 17-28 with film, will have about the same "experience" and usability with the DA 10-17 on a digital (crop) body.

lytrytyr · 02-22-2015, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by rburgoss

Perhaps I got misunderstood here. When I said that my belief is that the 12-24 is a direct descendant of the FA 20-35, is not based on lens contruction or optical formula. It is based on the fact that whoever used the 20-35 with film, will have very similar angles of coverage and zoom range with the 12-24 on digital (aps-c crop).

Understood. In the same vein,
I think of the DA 14/2.8 as the APS-C "equivalent" of the FA 20/2.8.

My comment about the optical design of the DA 20-40
following from the optical design of the FA 20-35
was in response to OP's question about the choice of filter size.

02-21-2015, 11:32 AM - 2 Likes	#18
Biro Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 1,200	Originally posted by EstimatedEyes I've got both the 12-24 and the 20-40 and both are great lenses. Which you choose depends on what you want to shoot. The 12-24 is a lot larger, especially with the lens hood, but I frequently find I want the extra reach for both landscapes and cityscapes beyond what the 20-40 offers. The perspective shift doesn't bug me because that's what you get when you go superwide. Have to be careful with the use of polarizers on that (or any superwide) because its prone to banding, but have not had major problems with CA or purple fringing. I also have the 15 LTD which is a nice small package to give me that extra wide, and that plus the 20-40 is a great little kit for all the wide-to-normal needs I might encounter. But I still can't bring myself to part with the 12-24 because I really love that lens, and it gives me the flexibility to use it as a walkaround lens and not just a special purpose lens like the 15. OTOH, the 20-40 did convince me to sell off my DA21 Ltd, which I loved, because the images I got from the 20-40 were just as good and it wasn't much bigger and the flexibility of the zoom was worth it. Its a great, sharp walkaround lens, compact, and much better imho than the 16-50 in terms of size, usefulness and quality. Bottom line is pick either and you will be happy. If you are torn, the 20-40 is probably a better general purpose lens, and if that's what you're after I'd take that over the 12-24. If you really like to shoot wide and play at that end of the range most often, go for the 12-24 and you won't be disappointed. Good luck! I also own the 12-24 and the 20-40, as well as the 15 and 21 Limiteds. I agree with everything written above. For me, the 12-24 and 20-40 are different tools for different jobs. The 12-24 is a true ultra-wide angle lens with all that implies. The 20-40 is kind of a flexible normal lens and an excellent all-rounder. The 20-40 has become my go-to, general-use lens with WR. The 12-24 is what I tend to use for cityscapes and many interior shots. I don't tend to use the wide end of the 12-24 for landscapes - it tends to push the subject matter away. I tend to go no wider than 16mm for landscapes, if that much. But if you find you really want the 12-24, don't worry about sharpness. It's fine. The price of the 20-40mm has come way down lately. I'd suggest going for that lens and if you still want an ultra-wide angle lens after that, check out the Sigma 10-20 - the less-expensive f/4-5.6 model, not the more expensive f/3.5 model. I've seen a lot of fabulous shots taken with that lens - and it's a lot less money than the Pentax 12-24. Last edited by Biro; 02-21-2015 at 11:39 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Wanted - Acquired: DA 40 ltd and a DA 12-24 or Sigma 10-20	Jeff Bennett	Sold Items	5	03-22-2011 03:32 PM
What's the best of these 3 super-wides: Sigma 10-20, Pentax 14, or Pentax 12-24?	Grimlock	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	55	07-05-2009 09:01 PM
pentax10-17 or 12-24 or sigma10-20	Tammmzy	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	18	10-24-2008 07:23 AM
pentax 12-24 or sigma 10-20	revinhood	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	44	08-14-2008 10:11 AM

02-21-2015, 11:25 AM	#16
Joojoo2010 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2013 Posts: 306	hmmm as I think this even more 20-40mm start to look bettter and better for those uses. I could live just fine with 20mm only for landscapes, small size and weight, very qood IQ, WR. hmmm If I only have money edit.but why 55mm filter size instead of 52mm... Last edited by Joojoo2010; 02-21-2015 at 11:32 AM.

02-21-2015, 11:31 AM	#17
DeadJohn Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: New York Posts: 4,833	I think your choice comes down to focal lengths more than anything else - a technically great lens with a focal length that doesn't suit your style is no good. The 12-24 is IMO better for landscapes because you can zoom from very wide to normal. It also covers usable lengths for street photography assuming you want surrounding elements in your compositions. The 20-40 is arguably a less flexible focal length, but it offers WR and a compact size.

02-21-2015, 12:30 PM	#19
ak_kiwi Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Auckland, New Zealand. Posts: 328	Just to throw something else into the mix - how about the Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC Macro HSM ? IMHO it is a versatile walk around lens that has good IQ and profiles are available in Lightroom. Remember to price in the USB lens dock in order to get the absolute best out of this lens.

02-21-2015, 01:03 PM	#20
bpv_UW Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Rochester, MN Posts: 765	When you shoot landscapes, how wide do you want/need to go? I'm a wide shooter, personally, and sometimes even find the Da 15 longer than I'd like for landscapes (though mostly it's great). I've owned the 12-24 and found it quite sharp (better than Da 15 in corners, too), and the FL range is awesome for 'scapes (IMO). YMMV. Downsides are size/weight and inferior flare resistance (by a lot) to the Da 15. Not sure how it compares to the 20-40 IQ-wise, but I think deciding between these two will largely be about your shooting style - IQ will be great on both. Regarding digging into your pack for lens changes, I agree that would be a pain in the a**. If that is the only thing holding you back from primes, though, why not consider one of these: Clik Elite chest pack? (they make various sizes) I have one, and have had clips sewn onto my hiking pack so I can attach the chest pack directly, then my camera (and usually 3 primes) are readily accessible. If you go the prime route, I'd suggest 15/31, but there are lots of combos that would work. -Brandon

02-21-2015, 01:56 PM	#21
Wingincamera Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Pine Haven, Wyoming Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,182	I have the 20-40mm, along with the 15 & 35mm macro, and the 18-135mm. The 18-138 was used the most, but now the 20-40mm stays on the camera unless I have a need for one of the others. On the long end the 20-40 is only f4.0, but I usually shoot with smaller f stops anyway. The only problem I have with the 20-40 is focus, usually it nails the focus, but other times with the same target it misses. I find myself stopping to check the focus after a shot more often. I do like it being a WR lens. If you can afford it, what I did once when I use to use Canon was order both lens. I wanted a 100mm macro and couldn't decide between the Canon L or the Sigma 105mm, so I ordered both from B&H. After trying both of them for a week I returned the one and kept the other. It did cost me shipping charges to return it, but I got what I wanted.

02-21-2015, 04:39 PM	#22
jeverettfine Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Austin, Texas Photos: Albums Posts: 328	How about the 18-135? It's WR as well.

02-21-2015, 09:14 PM	#23
mee Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 7,403	Originally posted by Wingincamera If you can afford it, what I did once when I use to use Canon was order both lens. I wanted a 100mm macro and couldn't decide between the Canon L or the Sigma 105mm, so I ordered both from B&H. After trying both of them for a week I returned the one and kept the other. It did cost me shipping charges to return it, but I got what I wanted. But isn't the seller now on the hook for a used item? Why not use a rental service instead?

02-21-2015, 09:21 PM - 1 Like	#24
SpecialK Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: So California Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,480	Originally posted by mee But isn't the seller now on the hook for a used item? Yeah - I'd charge a restocking fee for that sh!t - no lie.

02-21-2015, 10:03 PM - 1 Like	#25
lytrytyr Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2011 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,310	Originally posted by Joojoo2010 but why 55mm filter size instead of 52mm.. The DA 20-40 design evolved from the FA 20-35, which had a 58mm filter thread. They could only shrink it down so much.

02-21-2015, 11:34 PM	#26
rburgoss Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: San Jose, Costa Rica Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 972	Originally posted by lytrytyr The DA 20-40 design evolved from the FA 20-35, which had a 58mm filter thread. They could only shrink it down so much. I always thought the 12-24 was the direct descendant on the 20-35 (full frame), since its focal length is almost a direct equivalent from ff to aps-c.

02-22-2015, 08:31 AM	#27
lytrytyr Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2011 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,310	Originally posted by rburgoss I always thought the 12-24 was the direct descendant on the 20-35 (full frame), since its focal length is almost a direct equivalent from ff to aps-c. Equivalent, maybe (for users who like to think in those terms). But when it comes to actual optics, the focal length is the focal length. The refractive properties of the glass in a lens don't change magically when the lens is mounted in front of a smaller sensor!

02-22-2015, 08:51 AM	#28
Canada_Rockies Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,385	There is a series of shots of Elk River on my Flickr site. You can see the good and the bad on the 12-24. One I posted has a purple blur from flare. Most are, IMHO, very, very good indeed. My most sold snap is in that series. It's the one with the snowy rock in the foreground. I don't find the distortion much of a problem with the lens. It's less than I thought it would be with such a wide lens. Check out the 12-24 before dismissing it. That series was very shortly after I received it, and I was trying to find out where it failed, and where it didn't. It didn't fail my expectations very often. My lightest do almost all kit is the 12-24 and the 55-300.

02-22-2015, 08:55 AM	#29
rburgoss Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: San Jose, Costa Rica Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 972	Originally posted by lytrytyr Equivalent, maybe (for users who like to think in those terms). But when it comes to actual optics, the focal length is the focal length. The refractive properties of the glass in a lens don't change magically when the lens is mounted in front of a smaller sensor! Perhaps I got misunderstood here. When I said that my belief is that the 12-24 is a direct descendant of the FA 20-35, is not based on lens contruction or optical formula. It is based on the fact that whoever used the 20-35 with film, will have very similar angles of coverage and zoom range with the 12-24 on digital (aps-c crop). For example, I would say the same about the DA 10-17 as being the direct descendant of the F 17-28. I really don't care if the optical formula is similar or its costruction is similar. I am just saying that whoever used the F 17-28 with film, will have about the same "experience" and usability with the DA 10-17 on a digital (crop) body.

02-22-2015, 09:49 AM	#30
lytrytyr Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2011 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,310	Originally posted by rburgoss Perhaps I got misunderstood here. When I said that my belief is that the 12-24 is a direct descendant of the FA 20-35, is not based on lens contruction or optical formula. It is based on the fact that whoever used the 20-35 with film, will have very similar angles of coverage and zoom range with the 12-24 on digital (aps-c crop). Understood. In the same vein, I think of the DA 14/2.8 as the APS-C "equivalent" of the FA 20/2.8. My comment about the optical design of the DA 20-40 following from the optical design of the FA 20-35 was in response to OP's question about the choice of filter size.