[derelict]

Okay, I am finalizing my lens collection. I currently am happy with what I have but have a gap I want to fill. Currently have a Rokinon 14/2.8, DA35/2.4, A50/1.7, and a Tamron 28-75/2.8 lotsofletters. On my list is a Tamron 70-200/2.8 lotsofletters and a zoom to fill the gap between the 35 and the 14. Either a zoom OR a 21 Limited. The 70-200 is for the times I hit car races and the eventual sports event. The lower gap is the one I want to fill sooner rather than later as most of the stuff I shoot is in shorter focal lengths. I tend to prefer shorter lengths when walking around town on vacations and at shows.

The 14 gets used mostly in tight car show situations and landscapes. The 35 makes a good walk around but there are times when I wish for something in between, like a 10-20 or a 21. Both are very well liked lenses and well reviewed. One being zoom is highly convenient while the 21 would be a great prime but involve me having to switch lenses (not a big deal but could be the difference between getting a shot and not).

Things I take photos of:
Indoors with my daughter, walk arounds and hikes, and lots of car shows/ museums.

I am currently using a K7. I love it but am looking for the right 5IIs to pop up.

What are the pros and cons of the 21 and the 10-20? Looking through the gallery, both create fantastic photos.

[Blacknight659]

Since you already have a nice wide lense (14mm) I would go with the 21mm. If you think you need a zoom at this range rather than a prime, go with the zoom 10-20. I think you will probably be much happier with the 21 considering you already like to shoot with primes.

[TrailRunner]

Okay, I am finalizing my lens collection. I currently am happy with what I have but have a gap I want to fill. Currently have a Rokinon 14/2.8, DA35/2.4, A50/1.7, and a Tamron 28-75/2.8 lotsofletters. On my list is a Tamron 70-200/2.8 lotsofletters and a zoom to fill the gap between the 35 and the 14. Either a zoom OR a 21 Limited. The 70-200 is for the times I hit car races and the eventual sports event. The lower gap is the one I want to fill sooner rather than later as most of the stuff I shoot is in shorter focal lengths. I tend to prefer shorter lengths when walking around town on vacations and at shows.

The 14 gets used mostly in tight car show situations and landscapes. The 35 makes a good walk around but there are times when I wish for something in between, like a 10-20 or a 21. Both are very well liked lenses and well reviewed. One being zoom is highly convenient while the 21 would be a great prime but involve me having to switch lenses (not a big deal but could be the difference between getting a shot and not).

Things I take photos of:
Indoors with my daughter, walk arounds and hikes, and lots of car shows/ museums.

I am currently using a K7. I love it but am looking for the right 5IIs to pop up.

What are the pros and cons of the 21 and the 10-20? Looking through the gallery, both create fantastic photos.

I have the 10-20 and the HD DA 21. Used to have the SMC 21, but the flare issues on hikes prompted me to sell it. The HD DA seems more controlled in this way, as it's supposed to. The first couple of pictures I took with the HD DA rendered rather amazing colors. Looking at the LCD screen, I couldn't believe how well the colors looked. That's a big plus. Other big plus is that it's so compact. Really nice for hiking in that way - easier to fit into any old bag. The 10 20 is pretty big and heavy comparitively speaking. I've taken some of my favorite photos with it. The colors aren't quite as impressive pre post process, but end up being awesome in the end. The two lenses really fit different needs. Sometimes it's awesome haveing the wider range. The 21 doesn't give you that. I like both and would recommend starting with one and saving for the other - glad I did :-) Many 10 20 pics of mine are on Flickr. Haven't had a chance to upload HD DA 21 pics yet https://www.flickr.com/photos/28805392@N02/

[Sagitta]

I don't have the 21 ltd, but I do have the 10-20 f/3.5, so my quick list of pros and cons for that would be:

Pros: quiet, fast, decent IQ, usually in focus simply due to the fact that its an UWA


Cons: This is a big, heavy lens. Don't expect to be able to easily use filters of any sort on it, and if you want quality ones, expect to pay $$$ for them as they're 80mm (or s it 82? Its 80-something...) I think the 10-20 3.5-4.5 (or whatever the range is) is a size smaller and is like 77mm.

That said, the 10-20 is probably one of my few "Never Sell" lenses. The range is incredibly handy to have, and its consistently kicked out some of my favorite shots. I actually tend to use my 10-20 at the longer end more often than not (one reason I went for the constant 3.5 as opposed to the cheaper version), and I'm very, very happy with what I get from it.

[derelict]

I am used to primes but the idea of having a shallow zoom appeals to me about as much as a nice, in between prime does. The advantages of not having to switch or move around to be able to get a shot are there. I can still get the shot with a 21 but it means moving around. Not a big deal but if it is something like a quick shot of something my daughter is doing, that might not be possible.

I have the 10-20 and the HD DA 21. Used to have the SMC 21, but the flare issues on hikes
prompted me to sell it./

Great photos with the 10-20 there. Makes it difficult to decide.

The samples in the 21 and 10-20 section are pretty similar.

[DonThomaso]

It seems that there are a few very common wide angle options out there for us Pentax users. I started out with a 10-20 f/3.5, but I found it to large for my taste so it was replaced with the DA15. Later on I purchased the DA21 as well (as the last of the DA Limiteds), and it is a nice focal length that has its own use besides the DA15. I use DA15 for landscapes, tight interiors (like the car shows you mentioned) etc, DA21 more for people at parties, general photography etc.

Since you already have the 14mm you may be covered for UWA, unless you need AF. I would go for the DA21 to add a small WA prime to your kit, for travelling light, casual street, general shooting.

[mikeSF]

in that range, i use the Sigma 10-20 (original version), the DA15 and the DA21 (non HD versions)
The DA limiteds are unbeatable in sharpness, color, and flare handling, and they make lovely 14-pt light stars. Nevertheless, the 10-20 goes into service when I am shooting wider than 15mm and is an excellent solution for the 10-14 range. In fact, i simply think of it as a 10-14 zoom and then will change out for the DA15 or DA21 when the FL dictates it.
In the end, there is no single combination that is "best", it all depends on your usual shooting style. I think if i were constantly straddling the 12-15mm FL, i would get tired of switching lenses all the time and simply rely on the zoom.

[nomadkng]

or you could get really creative, get the sigma 8-16, sell the 14 and buy the 21

[jamarley]

I have the same combo as mikeSF, but find I rarely use the Sigma due to the weight and bulk. I'll probably lug it around more as the weather improves. For now, my latest acquisition, DA21, hardly ever leaves my K3. The focal length sings to me like a siren song. In the few weeks I've had it I think I've trashed fewer pictures than any other lens I use.A real joy to use.

Jeff

[Wingincamera]

There is the 20-40mm F/2.8-4.0 HD DA Limited. I find that it stays on my camera the most now. For me that matches well with my DA 15mm, DA 35mm F2.8 limited macro, FA 50mm F2.8 macro, and DA 70mm F2.4 Limited. For sports I have the Tamron 70-200mm F2.8 and for night time manual focus I like my Bower 14mm f/2.8 I am thinking about selling the DA 35 because the 20-40 covers that range for me and I have the FA 50 for macro if needed.
When I got the DA 20-40 I was trying to decide between it and the 21mm limited and ended up with the 20-40 because still have 2.8 at 20mm if needed, but most of the time I am at F5.6 or smaller.

[rfaucher]

I would tend to favour the 21mm limited. I own one and it stays far more often on my camera than my zooms. The color rendering is quite special, but it is the small size, lightweight and snappy focus that make it a joy to use. Also 21mm is a great focal length for street photography.

[Tanzer]

I have the 15 Ltd, 21 Ltd, and Sigma 10-20. I use the 15 and 21 more than the 10-20 just because they are small and compact and have better IQ, in my experience.

But the 10-20 offers a lot of range. 10mm is very different from 20mm or even 15 mm, as far as perspective goes. It is nice to be able to take fairly mild wide angle shots at 20mm, then crank the zoom ring and you have true ultrawide, right at your fingertips.

[mikeSF]

it's settled. you must own them ALL.
- L.B. Adams

[AquaDome]

I wouldn't be without my Sigma 10-20 for landscape and architecture. For cars, I really like the DA15 Limited. The DA21 Limited doesn't get as much use as I had hoped it would.

[Nicolas06]

The lense with the best optical quality would be really the 21. Great flare resistance (more important for WA), great colors, great sharpness (event through filed curvature can be anoying).

The sigma 10-20 is a ok zoom, it get the job done but it is not impressive optically. It is decent. This is because this is difficult to have a great UWA. The price is good for what it offer I think.

The best zoom for optical quality seems to be the sigma8-16 followed by the DA12-24. But the first doesn't match your need for a focal length arround 20mm and the second is not exactly the same price. In term of range covered, this is maybe the most interresting as going up to 24mm help quite a lot on the occasion and 12mm is large enough for most situations.

What is good to me with the 21 is you can really go out with this lense alone, take great variety of subjects and have a small, unobtrusive lense. For the same/less weight/size as a 10-20 you can add the 35 and 50 you have and find yourself with a very light set of primes for general purpose shooting.