Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home

Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-08-2008, 06:34 PM   #31
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,158
I have both the Pentax 14mm and 12-24mm. The 12-24 is quite good, the 14mm is even better. Since I won't ever touch a Stigma, I can't comment on it one way or the other.

10-09-2008, 03:27 AM   #32
Senior Member
kyrios's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Indonesia
Posts: 123
QuoteOriginally posted by troyz Quote
I've been waiting for the Tamron 10-24 to come out. . . so far I haven't seen it for sale in any mount.

If the Tamron becomes available in the near future and beats the Sigma for geometric distortion (and matches the Sigma in other respects), I would definitely consider it!
Check fleebay please. It's already for sale in Nikon mount
06-28-2009, 12:59 PM   #33
New Member

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: USA, the deep South
Posts: 1
have 12 24

I recently bought the Pentax 12-24 after much debate and consternation. So far I am very happy with it. The colors are nice. I own the Sigma 18-50, 2.8 and am very pleased with it too after 3 years of shooting. I believe Sigma makes a quality product; at the time I bought the 18-50, Pentax really didn't have a comparable lens and I wanted something to go with my new K10d. I would have had no hesitation buying the Sigma 10-20; however the deciding factor was the software coming out on the K-7 which auto-corrrects CA and other factors but apparently only for Pentax make lenses--This appears to be the future and a way for camera body makers to insure future lens purchases 'within the family'
06-29-2009, 02:07 AM   #34
Senior Member

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney
Posts: 157
Just Wondering when these questions come up and people always say the Sigma is good for the extra 2mm. Why does no one mention the Pentax 10-17mm(?) fisheye?

That one is slightly lacking on the long end, but gets you 10mm and Pentax coatings.

I only ask because I'm going to be looking at a wideangle soon and I have to ask the same question all over again.

06-29-2009, 08:58 AM   #35
Veteran Member

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 2,869
This has been my personal wide angle lens roadmap:

From the kit 18-55 I replaced it with the 16-45mm
From there added the 10-17mm - this felt too wide, and left too big of a gap between the 16-45mm, but I loved the unique perspective.

sold the fisheye after about 6 months of use, and shortly afterwards I acquired the 10-20mm. My thoughts are that while it was excellent build, and great images, the perspective distortion seemed surreal. What I mean is towards the edges the perspective distortion was too much, as if taking a rubber band and stretching it to twice its length. With the fisheye, you get what you expect, a fisheye perspective - and getting to the 17mm end it can be hidden well as long as horizontal/vertical lines are centered.

After a trip to banff/jasper, I missed the fisheye so much that the 10-20 went, and the 10-17 returned to my bag. There is something about the color of the images and build quality of the pentax fisheye that just draws me to it, and the unique perspective makes some beautiful photographs.

I recently came into some spending money, and was on the hunt, re-considering the 10-20, or the 12-24. I happened to stumble upon a used, mint 12-24 from henry's (through that bay site) for the price of a new 10-20, and jumped on it.

I am very happy with that choice. While everyone talks about that extra 2mm on the wide end, you can't forget the 24 vs. 20 - it is also a fairly significant amount, and can get you by on the occasional close portrait when necessary (if you've decided to get outside with a single lens for the day). It doesn't hurt that the angle of view matches right up with the 10-17 either, for me at least.

With that being said, I was lucky to find the 12-24 for the price, and would probably have went with the sigma 10-20 if I hadn't.
06-29-2009, 04:31 PM   #36
Senior Member
jfsavage's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 211
my $0.02

I have the Sigma 10-20 because the 12-24 was not quite wide enough (the 14 is very close to my 16-50). It's not a bad lens, but the build quality is not the same any of the Pentax lenses I have. The weird edge distrortion at the widest length is very strong and disconcerting.

I want Pentax to bring out a version of the Tokina 11-16 f2.8!
06-29-2009, 06:59 PM   #37
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
Necrothread alert!

I got the DA12-24 because the range suits me better than the Sigma, it's sharper, has less distortion, better build, constant aperture and Pentax rendering through and through. No contest.

First I waited for the DA15 Limited, because I'm happier with primes. But I can't justify paying all that money for something with less flexibility. And that isn't even faster.
06-29-2009, 07:11 PM   #38
Veteran Member

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Taylor, Texas
Posts: 1,017
I have the Sigma 10-20 and am very pleased with it. I understand the 12-24 is a really great lens. That said, I've been so pleased with the 10-20 that I've never considered purchasing the 12-24. I am going to get the DA 15mm after I do my penance for pre-ordering the K7.

06-30-2009, 10:10 AM   #39
Veteran Member
Jewelltrail's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Rhode Island
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,180
We read & hear great things about all 3 lenses--you can't go wrong. For me, the 10mm offered with the Sigma was a deal-maker--I own the Sigma. I love the lens--could not be happier.

Icing on the cake: $425, shipped to my door, brand new from Abes of Maine.
06-30-2009, 11:04 AM   #40
Forum Member

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Finland, Vantaa
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 95
I like more sigma. I have just sold pentax 12-24mm and ordered sigma 10-20 because it feels more solid and i like that 2mm wider.. And its optically superb, specially compared to its price I ordered new one today, only 399, IN Finland!
06-30-2009, 12:25 PM   #41
Veteran Member

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 2,869
I agree with your comment about the 10-20mm feeling like a more solid lens. Those Sigma EX series lenses are very solid, feel like a tank! Easily close to as the quality feeling of the da* lenses.

On the otherhand (in line with my previous post), I also agree with jfsavage's post referring to the distortion of the sigma at 10mm being 'disconcerting!' I prefer the visually meandering quality (as in, my eyes are drawn over the entire frame - in a good way) of the 10-17mm fisheye at that point - to each his own .
06-30-2009, 04:04 PM   #42
Junior Member
F8&Bthere's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Western Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 37
QuoteOriginally posted by jfsavage Quote
my $0.02
I want Pentax to bring out a version of the Tokina 11-16 f2.8!
I'm with you on that!

I bought the Sigma 10-20 mainly because the Pentax 12-24 had gone up way too high in price here in Canada, at the time I needed a wide angle for a trip to Europe. Even the sigma is way overpriced here (CA$700) as it "feels" like a $500 lens to me, and it is that in the USA. The Pentax is just outrageous now- CA$1299 at some popular shops.

I really wished at the time that Tokina made the 11-16/2.8 for Pentax. Not too long ago that lens was CA$600 here. Now, more like $800 but worth every penny from what I hear.

But pricing issues aside, if the lens is for travel, then I would immediately prefer a zoom, so the 14mm is out imo. But although I've never shot with the Pentax 12-24, I would go against the grain and would rather give up the 2mm on the wide end for 4mm on the long. For my shooting style at 10mm the Sigma just has way too much/too weird distortion, can't even correct it in PTLens. It's kinda funky at first but the fun wears off pretty quick. 12mm on that lens is plenty wide enough for me and it starts to shed the extreme distortion as you go longer.

People go on about the Sigma's build quality but I don't get it- doesn't feel superior at all to me. I mean it's okay, but to me superior build quality is more like the LTD lenses and the old 35mm lenses built with metal. I would not be any less in a panic if I dropped that sigma than any other average plastic lens these days.
06-30-2009, 11:00 PM   #43
Forum Member

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 79
I been using the DA 12-24mm and quite frankly I'm happy with it. You can see a couple of shots I've taken today HERE. The first two shots are with the 12-24mm. Both post processed in Photoshop per my (uneducated) taste.

It took me a little getting used to know what to expect from a wide angle lens, but I've come to really enjoy shooting with it.
07-01-2009, 10:56 AM   #44

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Oklahoma USA
Posts: 1,503
Years ago, I bought the Sigma 18mm for my Spotmatic F. It was disappointing in terms of coverage and performance. I traded it for a 17mm Vivitar and was very happy with it. When I switched from Pentax to Canon, I got the 17/4 FD, and was very happy with it. It just seemed like 18mm was a long, long way from 17mm.

So a 12mm (18mm) wouldn't do. And the new fat Sigma didn't appeal to me, besides not being available yet. So the choice was reduced to the "old" 10-20mm Sigma.

While I have issues with element centering or whatever is causing the performance issues I'm experiencing, overall I'm happier with the 10-20mm Sigma than the 18mm I bought in the '70s. I honestly haven't tested or looked for distortion, which I'm sure is an issue as others have described, because it just doesn't show up in the pictures I usually take. I'm sure it would bother me if I start photographing different subjects. I would say that the build quality of the Sigma is superior to the Pentax 16-45, 18-55, or 50-200. That's physical build quality, not quality control. I'm not that thrilled with the proximity of the filter threads to the front element (ordinary filters hit the front element when screwed in.)

The Pentax 10-17 is a special purpose lens and just isn't applicable for 98% of what the other lenses are used for.

I am disappointed that there aren't more choices in the segment, but maybe there will be more in the future.

Incidentally, I'm confused as to why so many of these lenses use 77mm filters (or worse yet, 82mm for the new Sigma.) If the Vivitar and Canon FD could cover full frame with 72mm, why can't these new lenses accomplish that? I'll give the 10-20mm Sigma a bit of a pass since it's wider than 17mm, but it just seems like lenses should be getting smaller with smaller sensors.


Last edited by tibbitts; 07-01-2009 at 11:01 AM.
07-01-2009, 11:11 AM   #45
Veteran Member

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 478
For what it's worth, the Tamron 10-24 is now out. I've been watching this thread and trying to decide on a wide lens. Now considering the Tamron or possibly wait for the HSM Sigma.

  • 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!
k-mount, lenses, pentax, pentax lens, rent, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
DxO and ultra-wides for Pentax... causey Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10 11-01-2010 08:50 PM
Pentax K10D with Sigma EF500DG Super C_Chopper Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 10 05-12-2009 08:51 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax ME Super, Pentax SF10, Sigma 280 Flash, Cokin Filters Set HermanLee Sold Items 13 06-29-2008 12:30 AM
Pentax prime wides: A 15/3.5 or FA* 24/2 ? thePiRaTE!! Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 16 10-30-2007 12:58 PM

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:03 AM. | See also:, 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?
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]