BATTLE OF THE ULTRA WIDES IN THE WORKS! 10-17 vs 8 vs 8-16 vs 10

Heie · 02-13-2016, 06:05 AM - **2 Likes**

EDIT: I know it's been a long time coming, but I promised you it would be worth it

NOW LIVE:

Ultra Wide Angle 4-Lens Showdown

In the spirit of transparency and expectation management, just wanted to announce that a new review has gotten the green light (although don't hold your breath - the final publication is going to be a while because of how much there is involved in this review). It's one that Adam and I have talked about for quite some time, and now it's really happening

That, and for all of you who have no intention of upgrading to the K-1 full frame, we also wanted to reaffirm that PF's commitment remains to everything Pentax and Ricoh - including APS-C.

The intent behind this review was to compare once and for all the 4 widest lenses currently available for K mount (for the APS-C sized sensor)*. Two from the Rectilinear side (one prime, one zoom), and two from the Fisheye side (one prime, one zoom).

For those with extensive UWA experience, anything specific you'd like to see attention brought to? Right now I have my sights set on flare, field of view (indoors and out), starbursts, close focus and bokeh, and astrophotography (this one will be tricky - I live in a pretty heavily light polluted area, and that doesn't negate how we seem to have had some perpetual cloud cover at night).

Name: IMGP8321.jpg
Views: 1717
Size: 313.8 KB

Name: IMGP8321.jpg
Views: 1717
Size: 313.8 KB

So if you could only choose one, which would you select?

-Heie

*Yes, there is the Sigma 4.5mm Fisheye, however it's so incredibly niche as a circular fisheye (the other two are diagonal) that it didn't warrant inclusion.

Last edited by Heie; 06-23-2016 at 06:33 AM.

**ramseybuckeye** · 02-13-2016, 06:28 AM

I have the Rokinon 8, and also the Tamron 10-24 which still seems available.

kh1234567890 · 02-13-2016, 06:38 AM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by Heie

For those with extensive UWA experience, anything specific you'd like to see attention brought to? Right now I have my sights set on flare, field of view (indoors and out), starbursts, close focus and bokeh, and astrophotography (this one will be tricky - I live in a pretty heavily light polluted area, and that doesn't negate how we seem to have had some perpetual cloud cover at night).

Colour fringing (CA, purple etc) especially at frame edges and corners. Take some shots that include fine bare tree branches against blue sky. It would also be interesting to see the FE shots defished to compare with the rectilinears. And post uncropped FoV comparisons (cityscape with plenty of straight lines and horizon at the centre would be nice, for example).

Time Traveller · 02-13-2016, 06:40 AM

Originally posted by Heie

For those with extensive UWA experience, anything specific you'd like to see attention brought to?

To what extent is there an issue with field curvature, also known as “curvature of field”?
This is a common optical problem that causes a flat object to appear sharp only in a certain parts of the frame (the SMC DA 15 Limited is only sharp in the middle of the frame), instead of being uniformly sharp across the frame.
This is due to the curved nature of optical elements, which project the image in a curved manner, rather than flat. As all digital camera sensors are flat, they cannot capture the entire image in perfect focus.
Thanks!

I have the SMC DA 10-17mm - Excellent!

Last edited by Time Traveller; 02-13-2016 at 08:16 AM.

**dadipentak** · 02-13-2016, 06:41 AM

Originally posted by Heie

So if you could only choose one, which would you select?

I did choose only one--the Sigma. Interested to see how it fares.

kh1234567890 · 02-13-2016, 06:44 AM

Actually, including the DA15 in the review might not be a bad idea.

**Papa Lazarou** · 02-13-2016, 06:48 AM

I too have the Sigma. Haven't really used it much yet.
Taking it to London next weekend for some long exposure night shots along the Thames.
May take the da 15mm along to compare.

**robgski** · 02-13-2016, 07:27 AM

I look forward to reading this review.

I rented the 10-17mm several times, and I found it to be a great lens, and a great deal at teh currnet price of $305. Since I already have a Takumar 17mm, I was mostly using the 10-17mm on the 10mm fisheye end. Having figured out what gap I really wanted to fill, when a used fisheye 8mm Rokinon came up for sale on PF, I was very interested, and after reading the reviews and viewing many pictures, I wasn't hesitant to buy it. I have had it for about a week now, and I definitely got my money's worth, very sharp, easy to use.

**Hattifnatt** · 02-13-2016, 07:28 AM

Originally posted by Papa Lazarou

I too have the Sigma. Haven't really used it much yet.
Taking it to London next weekend for some long exposure night shots along the Thames.
May take the da 15mm along to compare.

Ha. I will be in London next weekend also

robthebloke · 02-13-2016, 07:29 AM

Some info on how well the k-3 exposes with those lenses. I've got the 8-16, and the metering is way off when I use it...

Penumbra · 02-13-2016, 07:34 AM

Good luck with the review, i am looking forward to it!

Also, bringing to your attention this study by fellow forum member interested_observer that could provide ideas and insight towards your research:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/235102-uwa-...omparison.html

Btw, why not include the 12-24 from Pentax into this?

MPrince · 02-13-2016, 07:35 AM

I recently acquired the 10-17, just waiting for springtime temperatures to really put it through its paces in the great outdoors, but I'm very pleased by and impressed with the lens so far.

**Papa Lazarou** · 02-13-2016, 07:41 AM

Originally posted by Hattifnatt

Ha. I will be in London next weekend also

I shall keep.an eye out for a fellow Pentaxian. Always do.

Runegutt123 · 02-13-2016, 07:41 AM

Originally posted by Heie

In the spirit of transparency and expectation management, just wanted to announce that a new review has gotten the green light (although don't hold your breath - the final publication is going to be a while because of how much there is involved in this review). It's one that Adam and I have talked about for quite some time, and now it's really happening

That, and for all of you who have no intention of upgrading to the K-1 full frame, we also wanted to reaffirm that PF's commitment remains to everything Pentax and Ricoh - including APS-C.

The intent behind this review was to compare once and for all the 4 widest lenses currently available for K mount (for the APS-C sized sensor)*. Two from the Rectilinear side (one prime, one zoom), and two from the Fisheye side (one prime, one zoom).

For those with extensive UWA experience, anything specific you'd like to see attention brought to? Right now I have my sights set on flare, field of view (indoors and out), starbursts, close focus and bokeh, and astrophotography (this one will be tricky - I live in a pretty heavily light polluted area, and that doesn't negate how we seem to have had some perpetual cloud cover at night).

Attachment 298561

So if you could only choose one, which would you select?

-Heie

*Yes, there is the Sigma 4.5mm Fisheye, however it's so incredibly niche as a circular fisheye (the other two are diagonal) that it didn't warrant inclusion.

I have tried the Pentax 10-17, didnt like it
I have also tried the Sigma 8-16, which I find nice, but not fast enough for Aurora Borealis
I use the Sigma 10mm f/2,8 fisheye. I jus love it. Sharp, fast, and resistant against flair.
Please take a look: Sigma 10mm F2.8 EX DC HSM Fisheye Lens Reviews - Sigma Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

Rnovo · 02-13-2016, 07:46 AM

Used for 360 panoramas the DA* 10-17mm fish-eye is bad for capturing ugly looking flares as explained in my post here:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/262118-da-1...ml#post2816247
This problem seems to exist and is common only in the corners where this lens is - as with many others - not completely usable. I get away with it because of the stitching done in PTGuy.

Interesting to find out how how other lens fare in this case.

02-13-2016, 06:05 AM - 2 Likes	#1
Heie Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 968	BATTLE OF THE ULTRA WIDES IN THE WORKS! 10-17 vs 8 vs 8-16 vs 10 EDIT: I know it's been a long time coming, but I promised you it would be worth it NOW LIVE: Ultra Wide Angle 4-Lens Showdown In the spirit of transparency and expectation management, just wanted to announce that a new review has gotten the green light (although don't hold your breath - the final publication is going to be a while because of how much there is involved in this review). It's one that Adam and I have talked about for quite some time, and now it's really happening That, and for all of you who have no intention of upgrading to the K-1 full frame, we also wanted to reaffirm that PF's commitment remains to everything Pentax and Ricoh - including APS-C. The intent behind this review was to compare once and for all the 4 widest lenses currently available for K mount (for the APS-C sized sensor). Two from the Rectilinear side (one prime, one zoom), and two from the Fisheye side (one prime, one zoom). For those with extensive UWA experience, anything specific you'd like to see attention brought to? Right now I have my sights set on flare, field of view (indoors and out), starbursts, close focus and bokeh, and astrophotography (this one will be tricky - I live in a pretty heavily light polluted area, and that doesn't negate how we seem to have had some perpetual cloud cover at night). So if you could only choose one, which would you select? -Heie Yes, there is the Sigma 4.5mm Fisheye, however it's so incredibly niche as a circular fisheye (the other two are diagonal) that it didn't warrant inclusion. Last edited by Heie; 06-23-2016 at 06:33 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
$10 vs $1000 or Takumar SMC 55mm F1.8 vs Sony Zeiss FE 55mm F1.8	kindakaa	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	107	04-03-2016 02:59 AM
Would it be worth getting the Pentax 10-17 if you have the Sigma 8-16?	VoiceOfReason	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	23	12-17-2015 06:11 PM
Tamron 70-200 F2.8 vs Sigma 70-200 F2.8 EX DG HSM II - Battle of the older telephotos	JinDesu	Pentax Lens Articles	45	11-03-2014 06:30 AM
Focal Length of 10-17 Fisheye; vs an 8-16mm	ohyouloveme	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	11	04-08-2012 09:24 PM
Ultra wides: Sigma 10-20 or 8-16?	Balog	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	5	05-05-2011 03:15 AM

02-13-2016, 06:28 AM	#2
ramseybuckeye Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Hampstead, NC Photos: Gallery Posts: 17,288	I have the Rokinon 8, and also the Tamron 10-24 which still seems available.

02-13-2016, 06:38 AM - 2 Likes	#3
kh1234567890 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Manchester, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,653	Originally posted by Heie For those with extensive UWA experience, anything specific you'd like to see attention brought to? Right now I have my sights set on flare, field of view (indoors and out), starbursts, close focus and bokeh, and astrophotography (this one will be tricky - I live in a pretty heavily light polluted area, and that doesn't negate how we seem to have had some perpetual cloud cover at night). Colour fringing (CA, purple etc) especially at frame edges and corners. Take some shots that include fine bare tree branches against blue sky. It would also be interesting to see the FE shots defished to compare with the rectilinears. And post uncropped FoV comparisons (cityscape with plenty of straight lines and horizon at the centre would be nice, for example).

02-13-2016, 06:40 AM	#4
Time Traveller Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: Copenhagen, Denmark Photos: Albums Posts: 105	Originally posted by Heie For those with extensive UWA experience, anything specific you'd like to see attention brought to? To what extent is there an issue with field curvature, also known as “curvature of field”? This is a common optical problem that causes a flat object to appear sharp only in a certain parts of the frame (the SMC DA 15 Limited is only sharp in the middle of the frame), instead of being uniformly sharp across the frame. This is due to the curved nature of optical elements, which project the image in a curved manner, rather than flat. As all digital camera sensors are flat, they cannot capture the entire image in perfect focus. Thanks! I have the SMC DA 10-17mm - Excellent! Last edited by Time Traveller; 02-13-2016 at 08:16 AM.

02-13-2016, 06:41 AM	#5
dadipentak Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Baltimore, Maryland Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,590	Originally posted by Heie So if you could only choose one, which would you select? I did choose only one--the Sigma. Interested to see how it fares.

02-13-2016, 06:44 AM	#6
kh1234567890 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Manchester, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,653	Actually, including the DA15 in the review might not be a bad idea.

02-13-2016, 06:48 AM	#7
Papa Lazarou Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: Bletchley, Buckinghamshire, UK Posts: 340	I too have the Sigma. Haven't really used it much yet. Taking it to London next weekend for some long exposure night shots along the Thames. May take the da 15mm along to compare.

02-13-2016, 07:27 AM	#8
robgski Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: Shenandoah Valley, Virginia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,793	I look forward to reading this review. I rented the 10-17mm several times, and I found it to be a great lens, and a great deal at teh currnet price of $305. Since I already have a Takumar 17mm, I was mostly using the 10-17mm on the 10mm fisheye end. Having figured out what gap I really wanted to fill, when a used fisheye 8mm Rokinon came up for sale on PF, I was very interested, and after reading the reviews and viewing many pictures, I wasn't hesitant to buy it. I have had it for about a week now, and I definitely got my money's worth, very sharp, easy to use.

02-13-2016, 07:28 AM	#9
Hattifnatt Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: Bucharest Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,625	Originally posted by Papa Lazarou I too have the Sigma. Haven't really used it much yet. Taking it to London next weekend for some long exposure night shots along the Thames. May take the da 15mm along to compare. Ha. I will be in London next weekend also

02-13-2016, 07:29 AM	#10
robthebloke Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: Sydney Photos: Albums Posts: 844	Some info on how well the k-3 exposes with those lenses. I've got the 8-16, and the metering is way off when I use it...

02-13-2016, 07:34 AM	#11
Penumbra Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Suceava, Romania Photos: Albums Posts: 139	Good luck with the review, i am looking forward to it! Also, bringing to your attention this study by fellow forum member interested_observer that could provide ideas and insight towards your research: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/235102-uwa-...omparison.html Btw, why not include the 12-24 from Pentax into this?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-13-2016, 07:35 AM	#12
MPrince Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: WV Posts: 1,495	I recently acquired the 10-17, just waiting for springtime temperatures to really put it through its paces in the great outdoors, but I'm very pleased by and impressed with the lens so far.

02-13-2016, 07:41 AM	#13
Papa Lazarou Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: Bletchley, Buckinghamshire, UK Posts: 340	Originally posted by Hattifnatt Ha. I will be in London next weekend also I shall keep.an eye out for a fellow Pentaxian. Always do.

02-13-2016, 07:41 AM	#14
Runegutt123 Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: LODINGEN, Northern Norway Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 275	Originally posted by Heie In the spirit of transparency and expectation management, just wanted to announce that a new review has gotten the green light (although don't hold your breath - the final publication is going to be a while because of how much there is involved in this review). It's one that Adam and I have talked about for quite some time, and now it's really happening That, and for all of you who have no intention of upgrading to the K-1 full frame, we also wanted to reaffirm that PF's commitment remains to everything Pentax and Ricoh - including APS-C. The intent behind this review was to compare once and for all the 4 widest lenses currently available for K mount (for the APS-C sized sensor). Two from the Rectilinear side (one prime, one zoom), and two from the Fisheye side (one prime, one zoom). For those with extensive UWA experience, anything specific you'd like to see attention brought to? Right now I have my sights set on flare, field of view (indoors and out), starbursts, close focus and bokeh, and astrophotography (this one will be tricky - I live in a pretty heavily light polluted area, and that doesn't negate how we seem to have had some perpetual cloud cover at night). Attachment 298561 So if you could only choose one, which would you select? -Heie Yes, there is the Sigma 4.5mm Fisheye, however it's so incredibly niche as a circular fisheye (the other two are diagonal) that it didn't warrant inclusion. I have tried the Pentax 10-17, didnt like it I have also tried the Sigma 8-16, which I find nice, but not fast enough for Aurora Borealis I use the Sigma 10mm f/2,8 fisheye. I jus love it. Sharp, fast, and resistant against flair. Please take a look: Sigma 10mm F2.8 EX DC HSM Fisheye Lens Reviews - Sigma Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

02-13-2016, 07:46 AM	#15
Rnovo Closed Account Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 415	Used for 360 panoramas the DA* 10-17mm fish-eye is bad for capturing ugly looking flares as explained in my post here: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/262118-da-1...ml#post2816247 This problem seems to exist and is common only in the corners where this lens is - as with many others - not completely usable. I get away with it because of the stitching done in PTGuy. Interesting to find out how how other lens fare in this case.