Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-23-2018, 07:51 PM - 2 Likes   #1
New Member




Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 5
Advice on wide angle lens

Hello everybody,

I have a K30 camera that I bought around 2013 to do macro photography in grad school. I bought the 100mm f/2.8 WR D FA smc macro lens for this purpose and in addition to it, I have 2 cheap DAL kit lenses (all plastic) that came with the camera (an 18-55 and a 50-200). Now that I am done with school, the sunny weather is coming back, and I have some time on my hands to go shooting around, I am looking to get a new wide angle lens. I am interested mostly in shooting natural landscapes and architecture shots, maybe some street photography too but not as much as the previous 2.

I have found some lenses online that I am interested in and I was wondering if someone could share their opinion/experience with using a Pentax 20-40mm/F2.8, or something of similar focal length as compared to a Pentax 12-24/F4. I have found some other third party lenses similar to that last Pentax such as Sigma 10-20mm/F3.5 or a Tamron 10-24/F3.5-4.5. I have compared them on the DXOmark site so I think I am good as far as reviewing the technical specs; I just wanted someone to chime in regarding the focal length and level of zoom to tell me what they like or what they think would be most useful: something in the 10-20mm range or 20-40mm? I also feel like I need to have some degree of zoom, so I am not interested in prime lenses.

This is my first post in the forum! Thanks for the help!

04-23-2018, 08:25 PM   #2
Veteran Member
SSGGeezer's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Indiana, U.S.
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,845
The DA 20-40 is definitely a lens to get. If you like your kit lens down at 18mm you will probably like it a lot. The 10-20 is a great deal wider and has its own challenges. I own the 20-40 but not the 10-20 so you will need more posters for better information. I have the DA 15 and that is quite wide even on APSC.

The 20-40 is quite good at landscapes though even though you already have that focal length covered. Go out and see what you get with the kit lenses and try that 100 as a walk about telephoto, since its little brother, the DFA 50 is brilliant as an all around shooter.
04-23-2018, 09:00 PM - 3 Likes   #3
Des
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Des's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Victoria Australia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,404
Welcome to PF!

I've got both the DA 12-24 f4 and the DA 20-40 f2.8-4 Ltd. (I've only had the 20-40 for about 6 months so my comments are more impressionistic than my comments about the 12-24, which I've had for about 4 years.) They are both very good lenses in their own ways. In their common range, 20-24mm, I'd say I prefer the 20-40. It's probably a tad sharper in the edges than the 12-24 at typical landscape apertures like f8, has less distortion, and is more flare resistant (thanks to the HD coatings). The extra stop of speed with the 20-40 at its wide end is useful for some types of shots, and it is quite sharp enough in the centre wide open. Both lenses produce very good colours, but the rendering with the 20-40 can be really beautiful. The 20-40 has obvious physical advantages too: much smaller size, lighter weight, WR, excellent build quality, and it takes a smaller filter (55mm, for which I use 58mm or 62mm filters with a step up ring). I think the 20-40 is more prime-like overall - I actually got mine as an alternative to a 21mm prime as much as anything. The 20-40 has a fair bit of field curvature, so if you want edge-to-edge sharpness you really need to stop down. Both can exhibit purple fringing, but the 12-24 is worse. The supplied hood with the 20-40 looks great but does little IMO; I use an aftermarket one instead.

But this doesn't really tell the whole story. For one thing, 20mm is not really wide. When I'm really thinking wide angle, I will use the 12-24 (the fact that it goes to 24mm is a bonus). If you have never used wider than the 18mm of the kit lens, ultrawide can be a revelation. You need to attend carefully to composition, but it can be very dramatic and rewarding when it comes off. I tend to take more shots in the 12-20 range than say 20-40. I have a DA 35mm f2.4 which produces very sharp images, but it's about my least-used lens. Even with the DA 18-135, I tend to use it either at its widest or above 40mm. I'm sure none of this is typical - I suspect most people are the opposite. If your preferences are like mine, you will see it in the patterns of use of your existing lenses.

Here are links to my Flickr albums for each lens, so you can see the comparison for yourself. There are more for the 12-24, of course, but it might give you an idea of the different kinds of shots I tend to take with each lens.
Pentax DA 12-24mm f4 images
Pentax DA 20-40mm f2.8-4 images

One other point I'd make about your decision is that it's worth thinking about the kit you'd like as a whole. In particular, if you get a good 16-xx zoom (like the DA 16-85, for example) you might find that you wouldn't use an ultrawide zoom so much - if you crave wider, one of the ultrawide primes might complement the kit better (even though at present you aren't looking for a prime). On the other hand, if you went for say a DFA 28-105 as your walkaround lens (perhaps with a view to getting a full-frame body at some stage), a 10-20 or 12-24 zoom might be the perfect companion.

I'd also suggest that you have a look at what @Northcoastgreg has written about landscape lenses: Reviews | The Northcoast Photographer. Not only is he an outstanding photographer, but he has some very helpful tips and reviews of various Pentax APS-C lens options.

Last edited by Des; 04-24-2018 at 12:17 AM.
04-23-2018, 09:14 PM   #4
Forum Member




Join Date: Jun 2011
Photos: Albums
Posts: 98
Photos in the 20-40mm range will give you a fairly normal angle of view on APS-C. Things won't look flattened, and they won't look too bent/stretched. It is wide enough for both landscape and architecture and your photos will be about the subject, not how "cool" you can make it look with a trick lens. I don't own the 20-40, but I do have a 35 and it is a very practical length.

I also have a 12-24. If you're in a really tight space, and you want to get as much in the shot as you possibly can, you can't get much better. On the long end, 24mm looks aaaalmost normal - as long as you are backed off from your subject enough. But over-all, I think of it more like an effects lens. For scenery, you can use it to create dramatic curves (like a gentle fisheye). For foreground subjects, it distorts and emphasizes. The front of the subject will be huge and bulbous and the background will fall away dramatically. Very fun for playing with perspective. Not as practical as 20-40 though.

04-23-2018, 09:20 PM - 1 Like   #5
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York
Posts: 4,833
QuoteOriginally posted by clickity_click Quote
... I am interested mostly in shooting natural landscapes and architecture shots, maybe some street photography too but not as much as the previous 2 ...
For architecture, I think you'll want the ability to go very wide, because crowded cities often don't allow enough distance between you and an interesting building. Practice with your 18-55 zoom. Is 18mm wide enough? If not, the 20-40 will be a bad architecture lens for you.

The Tamron 10-24 you mentioned worked well for me. Bright lights can cause flare, but that's an issue with most ultra wide zooms. 10-24 is a very versatile zoom range.

(The DA 15 Limited is superb at handling flare but you said you want zoom flexibility. The 15-30 does well with flare, but more expensive and excessively large; no need to pay the "full frame" tax when using an APS-C K-30.)
04-23-2018, 10:32 PM - 1 Like   #6
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Calgary Alberta Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 224
QuoteOriginally posted by clickity_click Quote
I am interested mostly in shooting natural landscapes and architecture shots, maybe some street photography too but not as much as the previous 2.
Ultra wide lenses (wider than about 15 or 16 mm) are REALLY wide. I have the Sigma 8-16. I find it is not that useful for landscape work, which surprised me. I find it works well for “close quarters” work. I took it on a tour through a vintage B-17 bomber, and it was amazing. It is also great for “exaggerated perspective”, with a very close subject, and a distant background where the effect provides interesting subject isolation. That isn’t very useful for landscape, and probably not street photography (which I don’t do, so take it for what it’s worth). It can be good for interior architecture. For landscape work, I’d think something like the 12-24 would work well. It reaches into the ultra-wide zone, but is mostly “regular” wide angle. On the other hand, if close quarters or exaggerated perspective sounds interesting, an ultra-wide, like the Sigma 8-16, Sigma 10-20, or the not-yet-released Pentax DA* 11-18/2.8 might be worth a try.
04-23-2018, 11:26 PM - 2 Likes   #7
Veteran Member
Eyewanders's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Land of the Salish Sea
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,343
I realize you're looking at zooms, but I might suggest a couple of wider primes to really sink teeth in the focal lengths, get better IQ overall in many cases, and if you opt for older manual focus (which is hardly a big deal at wider lengths) save a silly amount of money. The M 20/4 is a stand-out sleeper in my opinion, couple with a 28mm or 35mm (several to choose from in M and A varieties), and you're squared away. What's more, the Ms and A at these lengths are tiny but incredibly well built.
And though it can't cross-over into full-frame or 35mm, the DA15 is a stunner.

---------- Post added 04-23-18 at 11:31 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Cthulhugan Quote
Ultra wide lenses (wider than about 15 or 16 mm) are REALLY wide. I have the Sigma 8-16. I find it is not that useful for landscape work, which surprised me.
Very true. I think this surprises most people at first... They're good in a place like perhaps Yosemite, when you're engulfed in landscape from top to bottom, but in most cases your surroundings are a much narrow FOV and the ultra-wides give a perspective that pushes what seem close into the very far distance with their far off perspective, giving more attention to the foreground and sky while reducing a mountain range or vista to something almost out of sight. A sort of anti-compression.


Last edited by Eyewanders; 04-23-2018 at 11:32 PM.
04-24-2018, 01:26 AM - 5 Likes   #8
Des
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Des's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Victoria Australia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,404
I agree that there's nothing more boring than the phone-type "wide shot from the lookout", where that dramatic landscape that you experience is pushed into insignificance.

Ultrawide shots require a different mindset, and different skills. I'm no expert, just Joe Amateur trying to work it out for myself, looking at what others have done and trying to see things in a different way. It's been a good learning exercise for me. I find I really have to concentrate on composition: selecting an interesting foreground, getting close, drawing the eye into the scene, looking for lines and patterns and colours, and so forth.

Looking at my own photos I can see two broad styles of UWA shots for landscape/nature photography. The first is using an expanse of sky, or forest, or water, or whatever for effect. This sort of thing (all at 12mm).









The idea here is to use the space and distance to evoke a feeling of awe.

The second is getting close and trying to have a subject that draws the viewer in, and has as much interest as possible in the scene. This sort of thing (again these are all at 12mm).









The idea here is to feel part of the scene, to feel engaged and involved.

Of course many aspects of photography do these things, but UWA does it in a particular way. I find it a lot of fun. I'd really miss a UWA lens.
04-24-2018, 01:33 AM - 3 Likes   #9
Veteran Member
Eyewanders's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Land of the Salish Sea
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,343
QuoteOriginally posted by Des Quote
I agree that there's nothing more boring than the phone-type "wide shot from the lookout", where that dramatic landscape that you experience is pushed into insignificance.

Ultrawide shots require a different mindset, and different skills. I'm no expert, just Joe Amateur trying to work it out for myself, looking at what others have done and trying to see things in a different way. It's been a good learning exercise for me. I find I really have to concentrate on composition: selecting an interesting foreground, getting close, drawing the eye into the scene, looking for lines and patterns and colours, and so forth.

Looking at my own photos I can see two broad styles of UWA shots for landscape/nature photography. The first is using an expanse of sky, or forest, or water, or whatever for effect. This sort of thing (all at 12mm).









The idea here is to use the space and distance to evoke a feeling of awe.

The second is getting close and trying to have a subject that draws the viewer in, and has as much interest as possible in the scene. This sort of thing (again these are all at 12mm).









The idea here is to feel part of the scene, to feel engaged and involved.

Of course many aspects of photography do these things, but UWA does it in a particular way. I find it a lot of fun. I'd really miss a UWA lens.
These are lovely btw.... But I could not help but notice in several that, even operating from that mindset, there was substantial vertical crop involved to "make" the image about more than everything that was (presumably) above and below what made the "cut".

---------- Post added 04-24-18 at 01:39 AM ----------

On 6x7, one of my most oft used lengths is 75mm which is roughly 38mm in 135 equivalency. And even still, it can be awfully expansive....



The 45mm (roughly 21mm on a smaller format) gets even more bonkers...

04-24-2018, 02:12 AM   #10
Seeker of Knowledge
Loyal Site Supporter
aslyfox's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Topeka, Kansas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 24,559
Welcome to the forum

as you are discovering, a lot of friendly members willing to try to assist you.

my suggestions are a little different
_______________________

first I would urge you to spend a little $ you can do you own evaluation before spending more so

you live here in the US so you could contact one of the companies that rent photography equipment.

I have used Lensrental.com ( borrowlenses.com is another company, there may be more ). You select what you want, buy the protection plan you want, I recommend the highest possible.

what you chose is delivered to you and when the rental period is over, you just send it back. Lensrental uses Fed Ex as their standard delivery service.

__________________

the other thing to consider is the size of the sensor on your camera and its effect on the field of view of the lens you choose.

As simply as possible, here is what you need to know, the field of view you obtain with any lens used with the APS-C camera body's smaller sensor is not the same as you would obtain with a full frame camera's larger sensor

so using a 21mm lenses will give you more of a field of view as using a 35mm lens on a full frame camera.

so to get the same field of view as you might expect ( you want a wide angle right ) you must use a wider lens not a 21 but perhaps a 15mm

these are just an example, and not designed to be exactly accurate

Full Frame Sensor vs Crop Sensor: Which is Right For You?

Crop Factor Explained

I have both the 21mm Limited and the 16-85mm zoom and I like them a lot

the 20-40mm Limited has a good reputation ( it is a " Limited " after all )

I don't know anything about the other lens you are looking at.
____________________________________________

once you decide what you want, decide on new vs. " experienced " if " experienced " is an option, check out what might be offered at the forum's marketplace. [ " buy/sell" ]

I have had good luck dealing with various members selling their " experienced " equipment there.

Last edited by aslyfox; 04-24-2018 at 07:19 AM.
04-24-2018, 02:18 AM - 2 Likes   #11
Veteran Member
kh1234567890's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Manchester, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,653
Another thread where I can chip in with 'get the DA16-45'

I find that 16mm is wide enough on APS-C for me :




On the few occasions when you want to go wider you can always stitch a few shots :


04-24-2018, 05:37 AM - 1 Like   #12
Veteran Member
jtkratzer's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Lancaster County, Pa
Posts: 963
QuoteOriginally posted by chickentender Quote
These are lovely btw.... But I could not help but notice in several that, even operating from that mindset, there was substantial vertical crop involved to "make" the image about more than everything that was (presumably) above and below what made the "cut".[COLOR="Silver"]
I think this is a function of simply tools of the trade with digital. Cropping, stitching, HDR, etc with a lot of emphasis on web presentation. Comparing to the 6x7 shots your posted, whose scans can certainly be cropped and edited, it is evident the film formats are more “print/frame-ready.” You can get a custom frame made for just about anything, but unless the intent is definitively to print and display the image, who cares what the final dimensions turn out to be.

I have the 15 Limited for APS-C and a K24/3.5 for 35mm and 35mm for 6x4.5. One challenge with the WA and UWA is don’t fall into the rut where that’s your only solution for landscapes. A lot can be done with a telephoto. As mentioned before, the UWA/WA can make the features of the landscape almost disappear because of how far they push the subject away. They can flatten the image and take away the “awe factor” of features like mountains and valleys as they show more sky and overall expanse.
04-24-2018, 06:29 AM - 1 Like   #13
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 28,064
I own the DA 12-24, DA 15 LTD, the DA* 16-50, and the DA 20-40 LTD.

As others pointed out, 20-40 isn't very wide. It is superb, but the role it plays isn't normally what you are asking for.

The DA 12-24 F4 is a good lens, but I adore my DA 15 so the 12-24 gets less use than it should. A new 11-18 f2.8 lens is coming, I assume it will be marvelous, but larger and heavier.
04-24-2018, 07:41 AM - 1 Like   #14
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Michigan
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 419
To make a good choice you really have to determine your most commonly used focal lengths over time. For me, the 20-40 does not cover enough range. I chose the very well rated Sigma 17-50 and that was my main lens for a long time. When I wanted to go wider I added the Sigma 10-20, which complements the 17-50 nicely. I finally added the Sigma 8-16 when I wanted to shoot really wide or perhaps more artistic scenes, which made the 10-20 somewhat obsolete. The comment made earlier about planning your ideal lens collection is important. I cycled through a number of lenses kind of haphazardly before I had a set that seemed well thought out and fit my needs very well. And many of the lenses you are considering can be purchased used at a very reasonable cost. Good luck!
04-24-2018, 08:18 AM - 1 Like   #15
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Brooklyn, New York
Posts: 150
Welcome clickity_click!

FWIW, I have the Sigma 10-20 F3.5 and Pentax 16-45 F4. Most of what I shoot is historical homes/architecture and landscapes. The Sigma 10-20 F3.5 was purchased as the Pentax 16-45mm F4 was not wide enough for smaller areas like pre-colonial and colonial rooms in 17th, and 18th Century historical sites. I have had quite a bit of luck with the Pentax 16-45mm for exteriors of homes and landscapes so both of these lenses I can recommend. My only quibble would be to get a fast F2.8 or better UWA zoom but I don't see that happening anytime soon. As Aslyfox had mentioned, it may be a prudent idea to rent before your buy so you get exactly what you need.

Best of Luck!
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
12mm, 35mm, angle, camera, couple, film, flickr, foto, google, k-mount, kevin, landscape, length, lengths, lens, lenses, macro, pain, pentax, pentax lens, perspective, photography, scene, school, slr lens, stitch, uwa
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Help / advice for a wide-angle lens mbukal Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 6 12-23-2017 12:01 PM
Lens buying advice needed. Sigma 18-35mm or Sigma 8-16 Wide angle graym3546 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 5 06-24-2016 03:49 PM
Get wide angle lens from an extreme angle lens jorgegetafe Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 7 10-08-2015 12:53 AM
Need advice for a new wide-angle lens cooldude14es Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 18 06-17-2009 02:58 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:05 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top