Originally posted by tokyoscape
I was in the same boat late last year. I used to have the DA15 and now use a lot of 10-17. I was looking at 12-24, Samyang 10, Irix 11 (FF lens).... So I go back to I ask myself why do I want a new ultra-wide?
I want a non fisheye 10-17 + WR, that is what I want. But then look at the 10-17, I can defish it at 10mm if I want to. With the right post-processing technic, it is still good enough for me. And all the other option comes with no WR but only DA11-18. I am not going to carry something that heavy. ....
Yeah, DA15mm + Pentax 10-17mm fisheye seems like an UWA winner since I already own both. I'm experimenting with defishing more; I discovered painshoppro gets rid of PF/CA pretty well which is the
primary weakness of the 10-17mm fisheye.
Pentax mount 2nd hand copies of the Rokinon/Sigma10-20mm are rare and over priced and this is just a hobby for me and I have a bias towards more compact lenses. I have the same conclusion as tokyoscape; and the UWA showdown conclusion!
Originally posted by tokyoscape: So what is my conclusion? I am still stuck with 10-17!

Quote: Rokinon 8mm vs. 10mm vs. Sigma 8-16mm vs. Pentax 10-17mm Ultra-wide Showdown Review
It's hard to pick an overall "winner," and even going by the numbers we have an apparent tie. At the end of the day, if you could only afford one (and you aren't an overly demanding and professional pixel peeper), our choice lies in the Pentax 10-17mm fisheye zoom. Aside from the Rokinon 10mm, our reviewer has personally owned the rest of the lenses for over three years each, and yet all he has left is the Pentax after streamlining his kit...