[Wasp]

To go wide on APS-C you need 14mm at least. There are some nice primes out there. For value you can look at something from Samyang, but there are some rumblings about quality control. Some lenses with decentring issues have been reported.

My recommendation would be for a Sigma 10-20mm. I have the f/3.5 version and I love it.

[TwoUptons]

The DA*16-50 may be sufficiently inexpensive if it’s lost its SDM focusing...
There’s also a new one coming which may depress the prices of the old one.
I’m a fan of mine.

Or even the older 16-45 f4. I’d pick that for interior events over a film-era 24mm.

-Eric

[Austro-Diesel]

Really? I did the single in with the 21mm limited and it was extremely sharp and the distortion was both minimal and easy to rectify in post. As for historic wide angle lenses being poor, maybe you should tell Pepperberry Farm or Sandy Hancock. They have both had exceptional results from 20s, 21s, 24s etc.

Yes, indeed. And I know what I am writing, really.

If one is printing his pictures 13 x 18 cm or shows them online in half resolution or less, it doesn't matter. Correct. One can take nice pictures with old lenses. Maybe the contrast is worse because of the poor coatings.

Claims are different and mine are quite high. I don't really care how others set their standards. I know that many others see it differently, especially some Pentax freaks, but that doesn't change anything.

Therefore I do not recommend old wide angle lenses because of the optical complications of a retrofocal construction. Wide angle optics evolved far more than normal and long focal lengths. A retrofocal construction need more lenses so very small objektives are problematic too. When one can get a better modern construction for the same price he should go for it, most modern standard zooms are in the wide angle focal range nearly as good as corresponding primes.

And yes, the DA 21 shows signiciant distortion and average resolution, you can trust in me. I had a SMC DA 21 and now a HD DA 21 version, used with the K-3. They are okay, but nothing special. Same with den DA 15, the borders are really weak. Both the SMC and now the HD here. The DA* 16-50/2.8 is another problematic lens, you need f/8 for good borders -- Compare e.g. to the Sigma 18-35/1.8, this is a far better league in the aspect of sharpness over the frame at every aperture.

[dms]

Retrofocus design leads to easier handling of even illumination and can be acceptably high in resolution. And how does one get a wide angle on a dslr with the large distance to the film/sensor otherwise?

I generally print about 8"x12" and occasionally 13"x19" and the older lenses such as I mentioned do fine. I have done a few at 2 ft x 3 ft and I am sure one of the lenses used was Pentax Super Takumar pre SMC 28mm f/3.5. Basically for most prints essentially any lens will be satisfactory as regards resolution--so long as one is not staring at the computer screen and comparing lenses at 100%--which is not very meaningful for the size prints most of us make.

It may not work for you, likely b/c you print large and/or have very high resolution/contrast standards, but for many of us the older lenses actually produce more pleasing images. And they are more fun to use: less expensive and smaller. Quite a kick using a 5 decade old lens that handles so smooth, and has all the information and control one wants on the lens itself, and makes images we appreciate. Different horses for different courses.

[howieb101]

Sigma 17-50 HSM F2.8. I have it and it's a great lens. Have no desire to ever upgrade it as it's so good.

[Sandy Hancock]

The Tamron 17-50 is excellent by all accounts. There is a good three-way review HERE comparing it with the Sigma and the DA*16-50.

I have owned both the Sigma and two copies of the DA*16-50. I preferred the Pentax for its colour rendition and weather sealing, but both suffered SDM failure.

[Sandy Hancock]

To go wide on APS-C you need 14mm at least.

You are confusing "wide" with "ultra-wide".
A 24mm lens still qualifies as a wide angle on a crop sensor camera. Below 16mm is ultra-wide.

FA*24 on crop:

[Cerebum]

Claims are different and mine are quite high. I don't really care how others set their standards. I know that many others see it differently, especially some Pentax freaks, but that doesn't change

When one can get a better modern construction for the same price he should go for it,

And yes, the DA 21 shows signiciant distortion and average resolution, you can trust in me.

I am going to put Pentax freaks down to lost in translation presumably you meant obsessive pentaxians or Pentax nuts like me I am also assuming you mean it doesn’t change your opinion which is fair enough. I do agree on going for the modern lens if he can afford it but that’s the thing. Vintage lenses are sometimes all you can afford. As for quality, I have both won and scored well in competitions using vintage glass and these are professionally analysed and projected onto a huge screen and nobody prints that big! Good modern lenses kick ass but they also cost A LOT more money, something I don’t have. Regarding the DA 21, maybe I have a good one or my style lends itself to getting the best from the lens. There are so many things that can affect ones experience but I am not seeing what you describe and I am often shooting to quite a high standard and examine competition entry images very closely. Like I say, I am not disagreeing with you on any of your points, I am just saying that different people have different experiences and our opinion is just that, our opinion!

---------- Post added 07-18-20 at 03:55 PM ----------

You are confusing "wide" with "ultra-wide".
A 24mm lens still qualifies as a wide angle on a crop sensor camera. Below 16mm is ultra-wide.

FA*24 on crop:

Not sure about “wide” but that’s certainly a fabulous angle

---------- Post added 07-18-20 at 03:56 PM ----------

Retrofocus design leads to easier handling of even illumination and can be acceptably high in resolution. And how does one get a wide angle on a dslr with the large distance to the film/sensor otherwise?

I generally print about 8"x12" and occasionally 13"x19" and the older lenses such as I mentioned do fine. I have done a few at 2 ft x 3 ft and I am sure one of the lenses used was Pentax Super Takumar pre SMC 28mm f/3.5. Basically for most prints essentially any lens will be satisfactory as regards resolution--so long as one is not staring at the computer screen and comparing lenses at 100%--which is not very meaningful for the size prints most of us make.

It may not work for you, likely b/c you print large and/or have very high resolution/contrast standards, but for many of us the older lenses actually produce more pleasing images. And they are more fun to use: less expensive and smaller. Quite a kick using a 5 decade old lens that handles so smooth, and has all the information and control one wants on the lens itself, and makes images we appreciate. Different horses for different courses.

This.....100% This

[Sandy Hancock]

I had a SMC DA 21 and now a HD DA 21 version, used with the K-3. They are okay, but nothing special.

Really? It has provided me with some of my favourite images. I would never carry a crop camera without my DA21 in the bag.

[Cerebum]

Really? It has provided me with some of my favourite images. I would never carry a crop camera without my DA21 in the bag.

Have you been single in ing since 2013? Madre de Dios jajajaja I just favourited a really early pic! But I figured it is a bit late to leave a comment

[Sandy Hancock]

I figured it is a bit late to leave a comment

Never!

[gatorguy]

IMO for a great budget wide-angle that delivers the goods I could not more strongly suggest the Sigma 17-50 2.8. If you look at Sandy's link to the comparison the Sigma rated higher than either the Tamron or Pentax equivalent tho all three perform very well.

With patience you can find well-treated used examples for $200-250 and sometimes even less. I recently bought one for "less" .

[gebco]

I also have that lense and like it quite a bit. But it isn't cheap.

My recommendation would be for a Sigma 10-20mm. I have the f/3.5 version and I love it.

[Austro-Diesel]

Really? It has provided me with some of my favourite images.

Show 1:1 crops, please. The DA 21 has a nice rendering, I like it too. I wrote this above.
But in the aspect of sharpness it's average and the distortion is quite strong for a prime.

---------- Post added 07-19-20 at 07:44 AM ----------

Retrofocus design leads to easier handling of even illumination and can be acceptably high in resolution. And how does one get a wide angle on a dslr with the large distance to the film/sensor otherwise?

Sure, you are right. As I wrote, this optical constructions evolved a lot in the last 15-20 years.

I had so many of them ...

[...] one of the lenses used was Pentax Super Takumar pre SMC 28mm f/3.5.

This Takumar is one of few recommendable old wide angle primes.

On the other side 28 mm isn't really wide angle at APS-C sensors and it's fully manually (metering, MF).

I do agree on going for the modern lens if he can afford it but that’s the thing. Vintage lenses are sometimes all you can afford. As for quality, I have both won and scored well in competitions using vintage glass and these are professionally analysed and projected onto a huge screen and nobody prints that big! Good modern lenses kick ass but they also cost A LOT more money, something I don’t have.

There are some modern and very good wide angle lenses for reasonable money, it's not worth to hang around with most of the old glass (Laowa, Samyang, Irix e.g.)

In practice one of the best lenses will be the DA 12-24/4. Some CAs, but good correctable. Nice rendering, good contrast, good sharpness. The DA 16-45/4 is okay too, but most older samples are decentered because ot the poor mechanics. if one get a cheap one which works, okay. The DA* 16-50/2.8 will be replaced by a better construction in the future by good reason. Poor borders and SDM trouble ... it's not worth the star. Sealing is overrated.


And now everyone hits me!

[luftfluss]

IME there is a significant amount of sample variation with the DA21. I've owned 5 copies of the lens, including the current HD version.

This chart is from Ephotozine's review:


This one is from Optical Limits. You can see there is a bit of a different shape to the resolution characteristics.