[gerax]

Hi all

Can't decide between these two. I'm looking for a lens primarily for landscapes and streets, but also for occasional portraits.
I've been set on the 10-20 for some time as I'm currently using the 18-55 kit lens on my second camera (k-01) which would also be the main body for this lens.
But then I saw some shots done with the 17-50 by a fellow member here on the board and was impressed by the sharpness which looks better than on the 10-20. Plus it's faster at 2.8.

Considering my current 18-55 kit, am I going to get perceivable improvement in the width with the 17-50? Or should I stick to the 10-20 for dramatic wide panoramas?

Thanx

[veato]

It's a bit apples and oranges isn't it given the differing focal lengths.

For landscapes I would choose the 10-20 over the 17-50 but it wouldn't be useful for occasional portraits.

I do like the 17-50 though (before mine broke) and used it as my everyday lens. It's just not wide enough in my opinion for landscapes.

As you say 'occasional' portraits I would grab the 10-20 for landscapes and street and keep the 18-55 for the odd portrait.

[Edgar_in_Indy]

My copy of the 10-20mm was very sharp. A very fun lens, but a completely different beast from the 17-50mm. Since you already have the 16-85mm, I would probably go with the 10-20mm. Gotta have a wide angle!

[gerax]

I have a 18-55 (kit lens), but even though it's a low quality lens I have that focal range covered, that's why I'm leaning towards the 10-20...so sharpness with this lens is a moving target? I read reviews of users claiming not being super sharp.

[DeadJohn]

The 10-20 takes ultrawide photos that you cannot possibly do with your current 18-55. The 17-50 allows better versions of photos you can already take with the 18-55.

You mentioned streets and portraits. The 10-20 is often too wide for images of individual people (unless you get very close and like the perspective distortion effect).

[gerax]

That's what I thought...I'll probably get the 17-50 later on, when I'll feel I've covered all the focal lenghts I like to shoot with.

[Edgar_in_Indy]

My bad, I thought you had the 16-85mm, which is a quality lens. Since you only have the 18-55mm, it's kind of a tough call. Both the 10-20mm and the 17-50mm f/2.8 would be good moves.

So I think your plan of getting whichever excites you most right now is good, and then later on buy the other.

You might also add the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 to your list for consideration. It's very sharp and is not very expensive, and it can focus very close for semi-macro type shooting. The older 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 is also very well regarded, and can be had for around $200, or sometimes even less.

[Imp]

What do people think about the 10-20 vs. the Pentax 15 ltd? Obviously, not as wide, but paired with a Tamron 17-50 or kit lens, it offers far better quality and a slightly wider perspective. Or would you prefer to get the 10-20

[DeadJohn]

What do people think about the 10-20 vs. the Pentax 15 ltd? Obviously, not as wide, but paired with a Tamron 17-50 or kit lens, it offers far better quality and a slightly wider perspective. Or would you prefer to get the 10-20

I would get both the DA15 and an ultrawide zoom. The choice is deciding which one to get first.

The DA15 has amazing flare resistance. It's great for night photography in cities. Many wide zooms have problems dealing with dark streets + bright street lights. The DA15 can be shot directly into bright lights with minimal flare.

An ultrawide zoom, either the Sigma 10-20, Tamron 10-24, or Pentax 12-24, adds the versatility of zoom plus ability to go much wider than 15mm.

If you find it tough to decide between the DA15 and the zoom, just get whichever one has a good price first. Use it, and if you think the other one still has a place in your photography then start planning your next purchase. This is how LBA (Lens Buying Addiction) begins.

[Edgar_in_Indy]

I would get both the DA15 and an ultrawide zoom. The choice is deciding which one to get first.

The DA15 has amazing flare resistance. It's great for night photography in cities. Many wide zooms have problems dealing with dark streets + bright street lights. The DA15 can be shot directly into bright lights with minimal flare.

I now have an m43 camera (Panasonic GX7) in addition to my Pentax. Anybody have a sense of how the Olympus 12mm f2 compares to the Pentax DA 15? The Olympus is a bit more expensive, but I've heard good things about it.

[Lowell Goudge]

I think that there is a more fundamental question which has not been asked.

Are you looking for improved IQ and speed for the existing focal length range, or are you looking to expand your current focal length range?

You comment you wanted the 10-20 for some time, but then changed your opinion due to some sharp images from the 17-50/2.8. So the first question you have is will the 17-50 satisfy the focal length range you need, when you decided on the 10-20.

For me, the 17-50 is not really any wider (at least significantly wider) than the 18-55 you have now, so if you really want wide, you are still going to be looking at the 10-20 or a similarly wide lens in the near future any way, so al that getting a 17-50 does is defer the purchase of the 10-20 potentially due to lack of funds.

If you now decide that you don't need the extra width, thenn you need to step back and think about what was pushing you into the 10-20 in the first place,

To me, it sounds like you don't really know what you want/need yet, but you want to buy a new toy. Ok now we have established this, either proclaim to the world you have LBA�� or step back for a brief moment and really think through your priorities

[IchabodCrane]

I'll offer a contrasting view. I have the Sigma 10-20/4-5.6 and it's a good, sharp lens... but I don't use it as often as I thought I would when I bought it. When I get below 15 mm focal length, I find I've entered into an arena where specialized composition is needed for the images to "make sense" when viewed. An interior of a cathedral is one example where it works (for me). Considering its very compact size, I wish I had the DA 15 ltd instead of the Sigma zoom.

On the other hand, I get very good wide angle shots with a 17-70 lens which you'll find to have less distortion than the 18-55 kit lens (important point, BTW).

[Edgar_in_Indy]

I'll offer a contrasting view. I have the Sigma 10-20/4-5.6 and it's a good, sharp lens... but I don't use it as often as I thought I would when I bought it. When I get below 15 mm focal length, I find I've entered into an arena where specialized composition is needed for the images to "make sense" when viewed. An interior of a cathedral is one example where it works (for me).

Yeah, a UWA lens requires a different approach to photography, and the learning curve surprised me when I first got one. But for a while, my Sigma 10-20mm was my main lens once I got used to it. So much fun! And once you have a really wide angle, there are certain situations where, when you don't have it, you will suffer because you'll imagine the cool shots you could've gotten.

[Lowell Goudge]

I'll offer a contrasting view. I have the Sigma 10-20/4-5.6 and it's a good, sharp lens... but I don't use it as often as I thought I would when I bought it. When I get below 15 mm focal length, I find I've entered into an arena where specialized composition is needed for the images to "make sense" when viewed. An interior of a cathedral is one example where it works (for me). Considering its very compact size, I wish I had the DA 15 ltd instead of the Sigma zoom.

On the other hand, I get very good wide angle shots with a 17-70 lens which you'll find to have less distortion than the 18-55 kit lens (important point, BTW).

Yeah, a UWA lens requires a different approach to photography, and the learning curve surprised me when I first got one. But for a while, my Sigma 10-20mm was my main lens once I got used to it. So much fun! And once you have a really wide angle, there are certain situations where, when you don't have it, you will suffer because you'll image the cool shots you could've gotten.

That's the whole point. I use the 10-20 a lot when travelling, especially in Europe, where among other things you tend to step inside a lot of really ornate and well decorated cathedrals, or find yourself trying to photograph a unique building rom the other side of a lane way that can barely pass a single car. There are a lot of places where you will need or want the wide FOV. Note I also have the samyang 14/2.8 and though I could get away with it in place of the 10-20. Learned pretty quick that wile it could do some of the shots, it just was not wide enough on a APS-C DSLR. Now 14mm on my PZ1 with film is a different story.

[gerax]

I admit I lust after many things considered "gadgets”, including guitars, effects pedals and recording gear (my n.1 passion and work) but I just want to have a good lens for my second body. I’ve been using the 18-55 on the k-01 but I clearly see its limits, so in the need to upgrade from that I was wondering whether to get a widere one or stay in the 18-55 focal range. As I already said above, being that I already have the 18-55 range covered even considering its quality I’d rather go for a wider lens, I just got impressed by the 17-50 image quality and sharpness, a feature that, according to the reviews on this very forum about the Sigma 10-20 was not its main forte.