[Kozlok]

I currently own the Sigma 8-16 as my ultra-wide zoom. I find that the widest end of that lens is wider than I need most of the time. I'm thinking about getting a 12-24 for walking-around while traveling, and carrying just the 12-24 and the 55-300 as a two-lens kit instead of carrying the Sigma 8-16, the 16-85 and the 55-300. In cities, just the 12-24 would probably cut it for me most of the time, maybe with the 43 in the pocket for something with a bit of reach. I find I pretty much shoot wide (between 10 and 24mm), or tele (>70mm). I really don't shoot a lot in the mid-ranges, so I don't think I'd miss the 25-54mm range much. I'd miss the 10-12 range a little bit, but I can always do panoramas in a pinch. I was thinking also about the 11-18 and the Sigma 10-20, but I really do want to get to 24. These lenses don't seem to add enough to the top end of the 8-16, so I think I'd still end up with 3 lenses all the time.


My hesitation comes from the purple-fringing question. Looking at the Pentax Forum review, it seems pretty bad. I'm wondering if it is a significant problem in practice, or is it really only at 12mm? I have the 10-17 FE and the purple fringing has absolutely ruined a few otherwise great shots over the years. Not many, but it has happened. I guess the bottom line of the question is if the purple fringing is as-bad or not as-bad as the 10-17?

[grispie]

To be honest, i am surprised with the question
maybe i am fortunate but never felt it being a problem with this lens. certainly not anything like my fa31

if any help, this link is a recent pic with it and guess this is what you'd call a rather risky shot. very contrasty with backlight.
this is what i got.. didn't really correct a lot.
You'll Need a Newer Browser to See This Page

[blackcloudbrew]

I would agree with grispie on this point. I'm assuming you're using that on an APS-c body. For a long time my 12-24 was my go to lens for many things. I even like it better than the DA 15 Limited. Can't speak about the 11-18 but I think that's a different caliber lens. Regardless, IMHO the 12-24 is a good way to go. My only problem with that lens is that using a polarizer on it is not recommended for landscapes as it tends to darken only part of the sky and looks kinda weird. Otherwise, just go with it.

[ramseybuckeye]

I would agree with grispie on this point. I'm assuming you're using that on an APS-c body. For a long time my 12-24 was my go to lens for many things. I even like it better than the DA 15 Limited. Can't speak about the 11-18 but I think that's a different caliber lens. Regardless, IMHO the 12-24 is a good way to go. My only problem with that lens is that using a polarizer on it is not recommended for landscapes as it tends to darken only part of the sky and looks kinda weird. Otherwise, just go with it.

I don’t have the lens, but I would definitely trust Tim’s opinion, I think you have found your two lens combo. Many photographers feel they need to cover every focal length, but I feel if I rarely ever shot a focal length area, why lug it around. That way you can use the lenses that best suit you without compromising.

[FozzFoster]

I adore my DA* 11-18
It's a tad heavy compared to other that you might carry daily, but I don't mind it's very worth it

[Kozlok]

My question arises from the image in the Pentax Forum Review:

DA 12-24mm vs Sigma and Tamron 10-24mm Comparison Review - Image Quality: Chromatic Aberration | PentaxForums.com Reviews

Grispie, I do see some purple fringing in that shot, but it certainly looks fixable in lightroom. Would you mind emailing me a full res version either raw or jpeg so I can try to fix it LR? If you will, I will PM you my real email address.

And yes, I'm an APS-C user only. I just don't see an advantage to making my kit 1 or 2 kg heavier. Also, I am aware of the polarizer limitations for wide lenses.

My question arises from the image in the Pentax Forum Review:

DA 12-24mm vs Sigma and Tamron 10-24mm Comparison Review - Image Quality: Chromatic Aberration | PentaxForums.com Reviews

Grispie, I do see some purple fringing in that shot, but it certainly looks fixable in lightroom. Would you mind emailing me a full res version either raw or jpeg so I can try to fix it LR? If you will, I will PM you my real email address.

And yes, I'm an APS-C user only. I just don't see an advantage to making my kit 1 or 2 kg heavier. Also, I am aware of the polarizer limitations for wide lenses.

Grispie, it is a great shot. To be honest I think that every tone in that picture adds to the atmosphere. So there is purple fringing, well so be it. It is just one of the qualities of the lens you used. In the film era you could not correct it, so why would you do that with digital. It is a bit like plastic surgery, most of the time it does not make the person who had the job done more attractive.
Kozlok, I think you have to stick with what you got, it covers everything from 8mm to 300mm. Why buy a 12-24 when most of it is covered by the 16-85. And why a 43mm for a bit of reach as your 16-85 covers that as well? And as you concluded in your first paragraph: every way you looked at it , it boils down to three lenses, so why invest money in a non solution?

[jatrax]

Like Grispie I was a little surprised at the question as I've not noticed purple fringing to be a big issue with this lens. But I decided to go back and look in Lightroom. I have just under 700 keepers taken with the 12-24. I was honestly surprised as some of the photos were in my portfolio and a couple were best sellers, I just had not remembered that I used the 12-24 for them.

That said, I did find some really bad examples of purple fringing. Shots through trees with a bright sky for example and a few with buildings or equipment against a bright sky showed noticeable PF. The standard response is that Lightroom will clean that right up .

So my answer is: under the right conditions the 12-24 can show some really bad PF, but in most cases it isn't an issue. I suppose your style of photography will come into play here. For me I noticed it to be an issue in maybe 5-10% of the shots I have as keepers. Of course there is no way to know how many I deleted or for what reason. But otherwise I really like the lens. I'm sure the new 11-18 is 'better' but I'm going to stay with the 12-24 on APS and the 15-30 on the K-1.

[Des]

My hesitation comes from the purple-fringing question. Looking at the Pentax Forum review, it seems pretty bad. I'm wondering if it is a significant problem in practice, or is it really only at 12mm?

It can be pretty bad. Here is an example at 12mm.
Unprocessed RAW conversion.


Crop from the top right corner


After processing (with DxO OP). You can still see the effects.


A pity, because I really like it for tall forest shots. Outside these sorts of situations, though, it's a good lens. Samples here: Pentax DA 12-24 f4 images - Des(Australia) - Flickr

I've used the 12-24 + 55-300 (sometimes plus prime) kit myself and it has worked for me. (Lately I've been seduced by the Limiteds and now generally carry 15 + 20-40 + 55-300.)

[house]

To be honest, i am surprised with the question
maybe i am fortunate but never felt it being a problem with this lens. certainly not anything like my fa31

if any help, this link is a recent pic with it and guess this is what you'd call a rather risky shot. very contrasty with backlight.
this is what i got.. didn't really correct a lot.
You'll Need a Newer Browser to See This Page

Didn't expect to see Tony Fretton buildings on this site. He's the architect of the two brick towers.

On the lens. It can produce incredible fringing that leaves a great wide white line behind if corrected in post. Its great in many other ways.

[SpecialK]

.


My hesitation comes from the purple-fringing question.

A) I loved my 12-24 and always recommended it in any "what lens to takes to...?" thread.

B) I don't recall PF ever being a "problem".

C) PF can be minimized in PP.

D) You will normally have many more excellent shots without any PF than a few with.

[clackers]

Hi Kozlok,

I use the Sigma 12-24 on my K-1 and the Pentax 12-24 on my K-S2. The Pentax also works just fine on the K-1 from 17mm up. That is much wider than the old film era 20mm primes, so it's my recommendation for people wanting to shoot ultrawide on a budget on the K-1.

That PF comparison review does summarize by saying:

"If you have an unlimited lens budget, the Sigma DG 12-24 f/4.5-5.6 is the perfect choice. The lens has the least barrel distortion, vignetting, chromatic aberration, and is reasonably sharp. Why wouldn’t you buy a lens that already addresses some of the major problems of ultra-wide angle zooms?

However, if you are trying to get the best lens on a limited budget then the Pentax DA 12-24mm f/4 is the ideal choice. The lens is sharp and fast, which makes it great for interior views. The negatives that the lens brings to the party, such as barrel distortion, and chromatic aberration, can be corrected if necessary with software.

On the other hand, if your budget is the driving issue, then the Tamron SP AF 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 is more than adequate in most situations. The lens is sharp if you stop down and it is the widest of the all the lenses in the review. In the areas where the lens does not excel, they can be corrected with software."

[Kozlok]

Hi Kozlok,

On the other hand, if your budget is the driving issue"

My "budget" is much more in grams and not so much in money. Which is the driver for the whole question, hoping the 12-24 could replace both the 16-85 and 8-16 in my travel kit. When I look at my lightroom catalog with those two lenses, 12-24 and above 50 are my main use cases.

Besides, on the used market, the Sigma and Pentax 12-24's are quite similar in price, though the Sigma is harder to find.

[clackers]

My "budget" is much more in grams and not so much in money.

Well, then the Pentax is lighter.

And it doesn't have a convex front element like the Sigma, so you can use 77mm screw in filters if that's another saving.

[squarenegs]

If you do like your shooting wide, buy the Pentax 12-24mm you'll love it!