What's the best of these 3 super-wides: Sigma 10-20, Pentax 14, or Pentax 12-24?

Grimlock · 10-03-2008, 06:47 AM

I'm going on vacation towards the end of the month and I want to rent a lens for some landscape shots at a state park. The super-wide I own I've never been happy with (it's one of those lenses I hate), but since I'm almost flat-broke, I can't afford to just simply buy a new wide-angle (unless it's super-cheap). So I want to rent one for my K20d, and the reviews I've been reading for all three make them sound almost equally-good. I'm going to be shooting all day into sunset, and then into the night for a laser-light show, so I'll need something that'll be a good all-around performer regardless of light levels. Can anyone point me in the right direction with these 3 lenses? I'm currently leaning towards the Pentax 14mm for it's speed, but I'm wondering if a little wider-angle would be better.

rburgoss · 10-03-2008, 07:05 AM

I can't comment on the Sirma 10-20 or the Pentax 14. but I do have the Pentax 12-24 and I am very pleased with it. Before I bought it, I was very concerned about chromatic aberrations and purple fringing, but after a few shots, I discovered this is quite a great performer. Of course it has aberrations and a bit of purple fringing, but its too low to even pay attention to it. In short words, the only ones that would notice this are other photographers that dont look at your pictures.... for the image, but for its defects.. Do you get my point?

RB

kenyee · 10-03-2008, 07:34 AM

I like my 10-20...gives you nice wide angles and you get to play with perspective distortion (this part is a learning experience though) to get some interesting shots or you can push it up to 16mm to get rid of most of it.
None of the ultra wides are really fast enough for low light usage, so you'll need a tripod. They all need to be stopped down to f/11 or so for best performance...

miniman82 · 10-03-2008, 10:32 AM

Originally posted by kenyee

None of the ultra wides are really fast enough for low light usage, so you'll need a tripod.

f/2.8 isn't fast enough for you?
I have the Sigma 14, which does pretty well in low light. Half second exposures at f/2.8 aren't terribly hard to handhold, provided you are able to steady yourself against something. It is a hefty lens though, so if you need light/protable don't go for it.

soccerjoe5 · 10-03-2008, 10:45 AM

if you get a fine copy of the sigma, that extra 2mm is noticeable. the "depth" you get from the distortion is unbelievable. things up close really feel/look in your face. i was very happy with mine when i was using a nikon system. build quality is very good, i love the feel of the focus and zoom rings, lovely damping.

**Lowell Goudge** · 10-03-2008, 11:32 AM

define "best"

the extra 2 mm of the sigma helps a lot.

I use mine on vacation and in interiors (cathedrals etc) when in europe. Lack of speed is not an issue with shake reduction. overall 12% of my shots in total, and 60% with this lens are at 10mm, I would miss it if I didn;t have it.

No one will argue the 14mm prime probably has the best image quality and faster, and that within it's range the 12-24 from pentax is also a very fine lens.

For vacations I find the zooms are more practical.

tybeck · 10-03-2008, 11:33 AM

I'm interested in a solid answer on these lens as well. So much so I've been thinking of renting them for a test session before I invest further. Nobody would practically need all three lens which is most likely why a "side-by-side" comparison hasn't surfaced. Anybody got any good criteria for testing wide-angle lens? Maybe I should start a seperate thread on this.

soccerjoe5 · 10-03-2008, 11:34 AM

Originally posted by Lowell Goudge

define "best"

the extra 2 mm of the sigma helps a lot.

I use mine on vacation and in interiors (cathedrals etc) when in europe. Lack of speed is not an issue with shake reduction. overall 12% of my shots in total, and 60% with this lens are at 10mm, I would miss it if I didn;t have it.

No one will argue the 14mm prime probably has the best image quality and faster, and that within it's range the 12-24 from pentax is also a very fine lens.

For vacations I find the zooms are more practical.

i would've liked the SR with the 10-20, i didn't have that with my nikon

soccerjoe5 · 10-03-2008, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by tybeck

I'm interested in a solid answer on these lens as well. So much so I've been thinking of renting them for a test session before I invest further. Nobody would practically need all three lens which is most likely why a "side-by-side" comparison hasn't surfaced. Anybody got any good criteria for testing wide-angle lens? Maybe I should start a seperate thread on this.

you can compare the technical stuff on photozone, i think they've got all of them

the sigma i'm not so sure if they have a review on the pentax mount

thom hogan, a nikon guy, used the 10-20 instead of the 12-24 before he went full-frame even if the 12-24 was superior to the 10-20 in pretty much every way (optics/sharpness, build, af-speed). i asked him why and he said he loves that extra 2mm and when stopped down, the sigma is excellent.

since i used it mostly on landscapes and on a tripod, i stopped it down most of the time. even wide open i liked it for those casual wide-angle fun. love the HSM (don't know if the pentax has HSM), very fast (much faster than my 16-50 SDM), and very quiet.

so do you need the speed, extra 2mm, flexibility of the zoom vs. a prime? i also liked the sigma because it was a lot cheaper than the nikkor and has excellent support/warranty where i'm from.

hope that helps!

Grimlock · 10-03-2008, 11:58 AM

Hmmm. I'm finding myself leaning towards the Siggy now. It'd be cheaper to rent than either of the others, too.

simonkit · 10-03-2008, 03:10 PM

I can't ultimately answer your question but I can say that now I have a good copy of the Sigma 10-20 it's an excellent lens, although personally I don't always like the 10mm "goldfish bowl" effect....

incidentally when I was purchasing it I spoke the a UK Pentax Dealer (SRSmicrosystems) who told me that the Sigma was better than the
Pentax 12-24 ???

simon

offertonhatter · 10-03-2008, 03:46 PM

I have the 10-20mm and although I cannot comment on the others as I don't have them, the 10-20 is excellent, and above all else, fun!

Any would be good to have.

frank · 10-03-2008, 03:57 PM

Had the DA14 but sold it in favor of the DA 1224 zoom. Tested both Sigma 1020 and DA1224 before I bought the DA1224 and I prefer the DA1224 better: smoother zoom and better MF feel, 24mm is more useful to me than 10mm, and I feel 20mm is too wide sometimes, 24mm is just nice. F4 constant aperture is nice bonus too.

The Sigma 1020 is an excellent lens too, I'm sure you can't go wrong w/ either one. But to me, I prefer the 1224 range w/ F4 constant aperture.

clawhammer · 10-03-2008, 04:59 PM

I've got the DA 14 and it is an excellent lens; however, having played with my brothers 10-20 (on an Alpha 700), the increased amount of coverage would be nice.

jsherman999 · 10-03-2008, 06:08 PM

Both are good lenses, I chose the 12-24 - liked what I saw from the Sigma, but something about the colors of the 12-24 got me.

Check out This Thread for discussion and images.

.

10-03-2008, 06:47 AM	#1
Grimlock Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 115	What's the best of these 3 super-wides: Sigma 10-20, Pentax 14, or Pentax 12-24? I'm going on vacation towards the end of the month and I want to rent a lens for some landscape shots at a state park. The super-wide I own I've never been happy with (it's one of those lenses I hate), but since I'm almost flat-broke, I can't afford to just simply buy a new wide-angle (unless it's super-cheap). So I want to rent one for my K20d, and the reviews I've been reading for all three make them sound almost equally-good. I'm going to be shooting all day into sunset, and then into the night for a laser-light show, so I'll need something that'll be a good all-around performer regardless of light levels. Can anyone point me in the right direction with these 3 lenses? I'm currently leaning towards the Pentax 14mm for it's speed, but I'm wondering if a little wider-angle would be better.

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

10-03-2008, 07:05 AM	#2
rburgoss Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: San Jose, Costa Rica Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 972	I can't comment on the Sirma 10-20 or the Pentax 14. but I do have the Pentax 12-24 and I am very pleased with it. Before I bought it, I was very concerned about chromatic aberrations and purple fringing, but after a few shots, I discovered this is quite a great performer. Of course it has aberrations and a bit of purple fringing, but its too low to even pay attention to it. In short words, the only ones that would notice this are other photographers that dont look at your pictures.... for the image, but for its defects.. Do you get my point? RB

10-03-2008, 07:34 AM	#3
kenyee Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Boston, PRofMA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,026	I like my 10-20...gives you nice wide angles and you get to play with perspective distortion (this part is a learning experience though) to get some interesting shots or you can push it up to 16mm to get rid of most of it. None of the ultra wides are really fast enough for low light usage, so you'll need a tripod. They all need to be stopped down to f/11 or so for best performance...

10-03-2008, 10:32 AM	#4
miniman82 Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Waukegan, IL Photos: Gallery Posts: 83	Originally posted by kenyee None of the ultra wides are really fast enough for low light usage, so you'll need a tripod. f/2.8 isn't fast enough for you? I have the Sigma 14, which does pretty well in low light. Half second exposures at f/2.8 aren't terribly hard to handhold, provided you are able to steady yourself against something. It is a hefty lens though, so if you need light/protable don't go for it.

10-03-2008, 10:45 AM	#5
soccerjoe5 Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Philippines Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,343	if you get a fine copy of the sigma, that extra 2mm is noticeable. the "depth" you get from the distortion is unbelievable. things up close really feel/look in your face. i was very happy with mine when i was using a nikon system. build quality is very good, i love the feel of the focus and zoom rings, lovely damping.

10-03-2008, 11:32 AM	#6
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,891	define "best" the extra 2 mm of the sigma helps a lot. I use mine on vacation and in interiors (cathedrals etc) when in europe. Lack of speed is not an issue with shake reduction. overall 12% of my shots in total, and 60% with this lens are at 10mm, I would miss it if I didn;t have it. No one will argue the 14mm prime probably has the best image quality and faster, and that within it's range the 12-24 from pentax is also a very fine lens. For vacations I find the zooms are more practical.

10-03-2008, 11:33 AM	#7
tybeck Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 452	I'm interested in a solid answer on these lens as well. So much so I've been thinking of renting them for a test session before I invest further. Nobody would practically need all three lens which is most likely why a "side-by-side" comparison hasn't surfaced. Anybody got any good criteria for testing wide-angle lens? Maybe I should start a seperate thread on this.

10-03-2008, 11:34 AM	#8
soccerjoe5 Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Philippines Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,343	Originally posted by Lowell Goudge define "best" the extra 2 mm of the sigma helps a lot. I use mine on vacation and in interiors (cathedrals etc) when in europe. Lack of speed is not an issue with shake reduction. overall 12% of my shots in total, and 60% with this lens are at 10mm, I would miss it if I didn;t have it. No one will argue the 14mm prime probably has the best image quality and faster, and that within it's range the 12-24 from pentax is also a very fine lens. For vacations I find the zooms are more practical. i would've liked the SR with the 10-20, i didn't have that with my nikon

10-03-2008, 11:41 AM	#9
soccerjoe5 Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Philippines Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,343	Originally posted by tybeck I'm interested in a solid answer on these lens as well. So much so I've been thinking of renting them for a test session before I invest further. Nobody would practically need all three lens which is most likely why a "side-by-side" comparison hasn't surfaced. Anybody got any good criteria for testing wide-angle lens? Maybe I should start a seperate thread on this. you can compare the technical stuff on photozone, i think they've got all of them the sigma i'm not so sure if they have a review on the pentax mount thom hogan, a nikon guy, used the 10-20 instead of the 12-24 before he went full-frame even if the 12-24 was superior to the 10-20 in pretty much every way (optics/sharpness, build, af-speed). i asked him why and he said he loves that extra 2mm and when stopped down, the sigma is excellent. since i used it mostly on landscapes and on a tripod, i stopped it down most of the time. even wide open i liked it for those casual wide-angle fun. love the HSM (don't know if the pentax has HSM), very fast (much faster than my 16-50 SDM), and very quiet. so do you need the speed, extra 2mm, flexibility of the zoom vs. a prime? i also liked the sigma because it was a lot cheaper than the nikkor and has excellent support/warranty where i'm from. hope that helps!

10-03-2008, 11:58 AM	#10
Grimlock Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 115 Original Poster	Hmmm. I'm finding myself leaning towards the Siggy now. It'd be cheaper to rent than either of the others, too.

10-03-2008, 03:10 PM	#11
simonkit Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: North Wales, UK Posts: 645	I can't ultimately answer your question but I can say that now I have a good copy of the Sigma 10-20 it's an excellent lens, although personally I don't always like the 10mm "goldfish bowl" effect.... incidentally when I was purchasing it I spoke the a UK Pentax Dealer (SRSmicrosystems) who told me that the Sigma was better than the Pentax 12-24 ??? simon

10-03-2008, 03:46 PM	#12
offertonhatter Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: North West UK Posts: 390	I have the 10-20mm and although I cannot comment on the others as I don't have them, the 10-20 is excellent, and above all else, fun! Any would be good to have.

10-03-2008, 03:57 PM	#13
frank Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Singapore Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,202	Had the DA14 but sold it in favor of the DA 1224 zoom. Tested both Sigma 1020 and DA1224 before I bought the DA1224 and I prefer the DA1224 better: smoother zoom and better MF feel, 24mm is more useful to me than 10mm, and I feel 20mm is too wide sometimes, 24mm is just nice. F4 constant aperture is nice bonus too. The Sigma 1020 is an excellent lens too, I'm sure you can't go wrong w/ either one. But to me, I prefer the 1224 range w/ F4 constant aperture.

10-03-2008, 04:59 PM	#14
clawhammer Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Logan, Utah Photos: Gallery Posts: 971	I've got the DA 14 and it is an excellent lens; however, having played with my brothers 10-20 (on an Alpha 700), the increased amount of coverage would be nice.

10-03-2008, 06:08 PM	#15
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Both are good lenses, I chose the 12-24 - liked what I saw from the Sigma, but something about the colors of the 12-24 got me. Check out This Thread for discussion and images. .