[Narsiliouz]

Hi.
I'm thinking about buying some wide angle lens.
Something between 10 and 25mm, aperture is not essential, anything between F1.x - F4 will do.
Lower price will be better.
For now I use Sigma 24-70 F2.8 EX DG IL HSM, and it's brilliant, but sometimes I really could use wider angle.
Fish Eye is OK too.
I really like Sigma lenses, I was looking for ART series of Sigma lens that have a wide angle, and I really struggle with finding one for Pentax K mount.
Are they even exist?
What is compareable to Sigma ART 10-20mm lens?
Have Tamron something as good, or should I look for Pentax lenses instead Sigma/Tamron ?
I would love to buy one of those "HD Pentax-DA* 11-18mm F2.8 ED DC AW", but it's out of my budget.
Maybe some dy, for now I look for used lenses, priced up to 300-400USD.

[roberrl]

I have Pentax 10-17 and Sigma 8-16 both of which I'm happy with and should be available at your budget level

The Pentax is very fishy at the 10 end but not much at 17. The Sigma is rectilinear but still a bit fishy at the 8 end.

I find uses for both. The Pentax has the advantage of being light and small so is part of my travel kit.
The Sigma had most use when I was often in the situation of not being able to distance myself from the subject I wanted to capture

[hcc]

I shoot with APS-C bodies and I use the DA15mm Ltd and DA10-17mm.

The DA10-17mm offers some flexibility, as a fisheye at 10mm and a wide angle at 15-17mm. I like it for very tight situations, incl. indoor architecture.

But the DA15mm Ltd is on another level. Great IQ, Small, very solid. A gem IMHO. I found the DA15mm much more polyvalent, for indoor as well as outdoor. When I bought it, I did not believe that I would love this lens, use it so much and regard it as one of my best lenses. But it is true. Many other PF members talk very highly about the DA15mm Ltd and for very good reasons.

Hope that the advice may help.

[Paul the Sunman]

I agree that the DA 15 Limited is excellent for APS-C; the SMC version if you want star bursts. The DA 10-17 fisheye is lots of fun, but optically not in the same league.

I've heard lots of good things about the Sigma 8-16 but not tried it myself. Depends how wide you actually need. I find 15mm is enough for me most of the time. The 10-17 gets used for the fisheye effect rather than as a pseudo-ultrawide.

[acoufap]

If you are interested in a one case comparison of DA15Ltd. and DA*11-18@15 have a look here (Pentax Forums KP thread).

[Oldbayrunner]

Zooms have worked well for me over the years. I do use a few primes I couldn't live without but for my wide angle I prefer using a zoom. I have owned the Sigma 10-20mm DC for several years now and have been very satisfied with it for my apsc cameras and I also have a few Sigma & Tamron Zooms for my K1 mkll. For my taste I am not a big fan of fish eye effects, I get that enough with my GoPro wide angle. All mentioned are very good for what you are seeking. I seem to have acquired more Sigma zooms more than Pentax mainly due to budget restraints then anything and have been very satisfied with them for my needs.

[aslyfox]

[ if new is out of the budget range, perhaps " experienced " lens would do ? ]

_____________________

I like my Sigma 10-20mm F3.5 EX DC HSM

Sigma 10-20mm F3.5 vs F4.0-5.6
Introduction
Have you ever wished for a do-over on a project? Sometimes you finish up a project and realize that maybe you should have done something a little different. Well, this one of those situations. After completing the comparative review of the Pentax 12-24mm, Sigma 12-24mm, and the Tamron 10-24mm, a lot of forum members said that we should have selected the Sigma 10-20mm, instead of the Sigma 12-24mm. Well you can’t rewrite history, but you can to listen to your forum members. We listened!

In this comparative review, we will take a detailed look at the two Sigma 10-20mm lenses that are currently available. The Sigma lenses are considered ultra-wide angle lenses. A wide-angle lens, by definition, has a focal length shorter than the long side of the camera sensor. The APS-C sensor, used in all Pentax DSLR’s, is approximately 24 mm x 16 mm. This means that any lens with a focal length between 24mm and 16mm is considered wide angle. An ultra-wide angle lens has a focal length less than the short side of the camera sensor. All ultra-wide angle lenses provide the photographer a wider view, with some distortion, which is the appeal of the ultra-wide angle lens.

Ultra-wide angle lenses come in two types: Fisheye lenses with curvilinear barrel distortion and rectilinear lenses. Fisheye lenses are very useful in some situations and can create unique photographs because of their distortion. Rectilinear lenses are designed so straight lines in a photograph will appear relatively straight and thus lack the extreme distortion that is characteristic of fisheye lenses. Rectilinear lenses are more versatile and can be used in architectural and landscape photography.. . . . .

Read more at: Sigma 10-20mm F3.5 vs F4.0-5.6 Review - Introduction | PentaxForums.com Reviews

which type of ultra wide angle lens do you want, " fish eye " or " rectilinear "

____________________

another comparison you might want to read:

DA 12-24mm vs Sigma and Tamron 10-24mm Comparison
Introduction . . .

Read more at: https://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/pentax-12-24mm-lens-comparison/introduc...#ixzz6RJh6ARMr

__________________

if not a zoom, there is the Pentax 14mm, 15mm limited and 21mm limited that might be worth checking out

[ I am an admirer of the Pentax Limiteds FA and SMC DA ]

https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-DA-Lenses-c34.html

---

Last edited by aslyfox; 07-05-2020 at 04:05 AM.

[Bertrand3000]

I have both Pentax SMC DA 10-17 and Sigma 10-20 F3.5.

The 10-17 is a light and fun lens. It allows you to be creative, 180° field-of-view, and the fish-eye effect can be controlled by the zoom ring (17 is minimal) but also by tilting the camera on the sides, and up and down, and subject positionning. It's really a creative and fun lens, you can do many things with it (even pseudo-macro !), and can even be used as a nearly rectilinear wide angle at 17mm setting.

The Pentax is better at 10mm though, and suffers from Chromatic Aberrations.

The Sigma, at 10mm, has nearly the same angle of view as the Pentax at 17mm. It's a rather heavy lens (but nothing compared to the DFA zooms), but it's a quality lens, only thing missing is WR (but the Pentax Fisheye is not either). It suffers from light field curvature below 14mm, but most of the time it is not a problem. This lens seems to be at best at 20mm. Can be used for astrophotography. Truth be told, this is my most used lens.

I recommend both.

[aslyfox]

.. .The Sigma, at 10mm, has nearly the same angle of view as the Pentax at 17mm . ..

i'm confused at this

wouldn't both lenses have the same angle of view at the same focal length ?

or is it due to the " fish eye " effect ?

[cport]

10-17 fish eye for fun

15/4 if this is enough wide angle for you and you need exceptional flare resistance

12-24/4 otherwise

of course, 11-18/2,8 is the best option

[pepperberry farm]

DA 14/2.8 is always my answer for an APS-C wide angle lens - it's amazing...

Sigma 20mm f1.8 EX DG is an option also, but only used...

if you want to go all the way to 25mm, there's the Zeiss option - 25mm f2.8 ZK T*, but again, only used....

[ramseybuckeye]

I have the HD DA 15 and and the HD DA20-40 zoom and they cover the wide angles very well for me. Both have that special Pentax Limited . After a while I realized that I was preferring the 15 over the Tamron in any focal length from 10-20. The 20-40 came later when I wanted a better IQ in a small WR zoom for traveling. It now one of my most used and favorite lenses.

[UncleVanya]

i'm confused at this

wouldn't both lenses have the same angle of view at the same focal length ?

or is it due to the " fish eye " effect ?

The type of projection of a lens has a profound effect on the angle of view. The fisheye effect is much wider than rectaliner and even within fisheye lenses there are different projection models that impact angle of view.

[aslyfox]

The type of projection of a lens has a profound effect on the angle of view. The fisheye effect is much wider than rectaliner and even within fisheye lenses there are different projection models that impact angle of view.

thanks for the explanation

[UncleVanya]

I own the DA 12-24, the DA 10-17, and the DA 16-50 zooms - each has its own strength.

10-17 is wide with some nutty special fisheye fun. The effects available can be creative but it's a little harder to use effectively than the 12-24. The 12-24 is wide but perspective is normalized more. The 16-50 is fast and big at f2.8, it is the least wide, but it's quite versatile. But then again so is the 12-24. Of these I like the 12-24 the most. The 16-50 had always felt too bulky and clumsy compared with something like my 18-135.

I also own the DA 14 and 15. Both lenses offer interesting photographic results. The SMC DA 15 is a marvelous Jewel with starbursts and flare resistance nearly unmatched. The 14 offers f2.8 speed and very close focus for some really neat object in the foreground shots. I'm still getting to know this lens.

In Sigma, there are two 10-20 lenses. The link given earlier highlights the differences.

Finally a monkey wrench option...

While I don't own a copy, the HD DA 16-85 is highly rated and offers much wider angles of view than what you're using. The versatility of the range should be similar but wider and longer than the Sigma you are using now. Ultrawide lenses take some getting used to, and adding the 16-23 range is a big change but one that's less shocking than adding 10-20mm to the kit.