[GatorPentax]

Hey all, im finally getting back in the game after a very long hiatus.

I was wondering if anyone has owned 1 or both of these lenses.

I ask because i've used the 16-45 DA lens extensively and although its a wonderful lens, i've always either wished it was wider or longer.

so since its easier to buy old telephoto primes, i've decided to get something in the wider side of life.

here's my thoughts on each lens, i'd love to hear the ups and downs of either of previous/current owners. Also, if you can suggest another lens, im open to all.

DA 10-17
pros:
ultra wide
compact
very sharp
fish eye fun
cheaper of the 2

Cons:
Bubble lens that may scratch easy?
cant place filters on it
not sure how useful a fisheye lens really is (will i even use it that wide?)

DA 12-24
more usable range
very sharp as well
can use filters (although large 77mm)

Cons:
very expensive (might as well get a DA* lens)
very large
only 4mm wider than 16-45 DA (is that alot?)

I'd love to hear everyone's input, i've also considered the 14mm prime and would love to hear from those owners also. i've tried googling info on the 2 lenses but not much is out there.

Thanks!

[sharko]

I traded in my 14mm 2.8 for a 12-24 a month ago or so as I found the extra wideness and length more useful, and with the Tamron 28-75 I could cover the 12-75mm range very well. The 12-24 also has a "bubble" in the front of it as well so you need to be careful nothing scratches it either. Also make sure you get the thin kind of filters for it as it will vignette at anything below 14mm. I own both the fisheye and 12-24 and think they both server their purpose...one is rectilinear and the other a fisheye for those shots that you really want to have that effect come through.

[elho_cid]

I chose the 10-17 and I do not regret.
It has two features you have not listed: Very close focus distance - almost like macro. It has to be seen to understand - the bokeh is then a maybe a bit disturbing on some pictures (only 6 aperture blades) but in most situations it's ok.
Second feature - you can use filters after all - the integrated lens hood has diameter of 58mm exactly. Screw in 58mm step-up ring and use filter as you wish. Of course here is a limitation - you have to zoom in to 13 or 14mm to stop seeing the filter. But working with filter is definately possible.

[Ex Finn.]

12-24.

Cons:
very expensive (might as well get a DA* lens)

Yes, need both.

very large.

*16-50 beats it!, or is close.

only 4mm wider than 16-45 DA (is that alot?)

Yes, big difference.

Pro: 12-24 is also very handy as a every day user.

Can`t comment on 10-17

Cheers.
Mike.

[SpecialK]

I have both lenses. I like them both. The 10-17 is very fun, and produces a distinctive image. The 12-24 is a very useful range. I do not use filters.

[GatorPentax]

Thanks for all the replies!

i didnt know that the 12-24mm also couldnt take filters, and at 77mm with a price tag of $700, its a tough decision.

can anyone give me a quick and dirty analysis regarding the image quality between these 2 lenses and the DA 16-45mm?

Why are you dead set on a Pentax lens? Have you not considered the Sigma 10-20? There have been quite a few pictures posted with it recently. It's a lot cheaper than the Pentax.

---

Last edited by Damn Brit; 09-26-2008 at 06:28 AM.

[ariahspam]

Be aware that those lenses have different field of view, therefore slightly different applications.

[frank]

Thanks for all the replies!

i didnt know that the 12-24mm also couldnt take filters, and at 77mm with a price tag of $700, its a tough decision.

can anyone give me a quick and dirty analysis regarding the image quality between these 2 lenses and the DA 16-45mm?

DA1224 can take 77mm filter, but it's better to use a thin type filter to reduce light fall off at the edge. I had the DA1017 before, really a lovely lens. But I kinda got tired of it after some use, so I changed to a DA14, then a DA1224. Don't think I'd change back

12mm vs 16mm, that's a huge difference. But DA1017 at 10mm is sooo much wider than DA1224 at 12mm.

Optically I think you don't need to worry, all these lenses are good enough for most users.

[JCSullivan]

Why are you dead set on a Pentax lens? Have you not considered the Sigma 10-20? There have been quite a few posted with it recently. It's a lot cheaper than the Pentax.

The Sigma seems to be more expensive.

[dazman]

What Gary said and Tamron will have the 10-24...not sure on the release date, but I'm waiting.

The Sigma seems to be more expensive.

I was going by Amazon prices S10-20 $508 vs P12-24 $674

[GatorPentax]

well i cant say that im DEAD-set on Pentax, but i do like the SMC on the pentax lenses. The coating is easily second to none. I'll look into the Sigma 10-20 since so many here are willing to back it in picture quality.

i think i'd like to go for the 12-24 but its almost double the price of th 10-17! then again, theres the 17-70......which would match up well with the 10-17.....argh!! so many lenses...so little money. lol

as for the optics and resolution, i know these are all great quality lenses, but ive been so use to the 16-45 in sharpness and color rendition, im afraid im in for a let down to expect all DA lenses to be that sharp. im sure i'll eat my words later and enjoy all of them anyways.

thanks everyone for your input!

[rburgoss]

I have the 12-24. Don't have the 10-17 but do have the FA17-28 fisheye zoom, that used back then with film on my PZ1P.

To be honest, the 17/28 (which is about the same thing as the new 10/17 fisheye zoom) got used very few times. Barrel distortion is nice if you got the right subject, but IMHO such distrortion becomes annoying in a short time. I still have it, but it hasn't seen sunlight in the past years since switching to digital bodies.

OTOH, the 12-24 which is pretty distortion free, gets used a lot. This lens came to replace my beloved FA20, FA*24 and FA28 which got used a lot in the film era. Still looking for a new DA prime that can replace my SMC-A 15/3.5. I still have them all and my FA28/2.8 gets a lot of use for instudio product shots.

Can't comment on the Sigma 10-20, as in my photography background, I've had three sigmas and neither of them performed right, which led me to beleive SIGMA stands for SIGnificant MAlfunction.

Robert B

[veggiesosage]

A fisheye and rectilinear wide angle are very, very different types of lenses, your choice depends very much on the type of photography you want to do. I would strongly advise getting the rectilinear 12-24mm if you can only afford one, its much more versatile, any fisheye is much more of a specialist lens, I'd go so far as to say a bit of a luxury if money is tight.

I second the recommendation to have a look at the Sigma 10-20mm, I've got one, it does the job admirably and is as wide as you're ever going to get. That upcoming Tamron sounds good too, depends whether you can wait or not.

One last thing, worth considering the Samsung versions of the 10-17 FE and 12-24, as far as I know they are exactly the same lenses as their Pentax equivalents just a dfferent label, but usually considerably cheaper. I've got the Samsung 10-17mm and its great, saved about 20% over the Pentax version.