Pentax DA 10-17mm or Sigma 10-20mm

wa5am · 11-07-2008, 06:45 AM

I am getting ready to order one of these two lenses and would really appreciate some feedback from anyone that has used both of these lenses. I know it would be unlikely that someone would have both of them at once, but maybe there are some that have had both at different times.

There is some difference in "speed", I know, however that difference does not matter a lot to me. I have never owned a Sigma, however I see a lot of you have them, and quite happy with the IQ, etc. There is some difference in price I see, however at this point, that does not matter a lot to me either. I just want the best IQ, construction, coatings, etc.

What do you think?

Your advice is appreciated.

-Morg-

egordon99 · 11-07-2008, 07:35 AM

They are very different lenses. The Sigma 10-20mm is rectilinear, and the 10-17mm is a fisheye. I went with the Sigma and have been happy, but you have to decide which type of wide-angle lens you want. Best thing to do is to look at as many samples of both lenses and decide which "look" you prefer. Both lenses are optically top notch though.

**Lowell Goudge** · 11-07-2008, 07:42 AM

I looked at both when I wanted an ultra wide.

the question is do you want to always correct for fish eye distortion (it is possible in photo editors) when you want a rectalinear image.

To me, a fisheye is more limited in use.

Additionally when you streighten out a fish-eye image you actually do this at the expense of field of view, and the image is not as wide as a true 10mm.

In the end, I bought the 10-20, but am now thinking a fiosh eye of some type might be interesting to play with, but when I travel to foreigh cities about 60% of my shots are with my 10-20. If you like travel and archetecture, the 10-20 (or someone elses ultra wide) is a must

**iCrop** · 11-07-2008, 07:59 AM

I have both, and as egordon99 says, the Pentax is a fisheye, the Sigma is rectilinear. So, it depends on what you intend to use it for. The fisheye is good for fun, distorted images. It has an almost 180 degree field of view, so you can get some pretty wide landscapes, but mountains, trees and other objects will appear bent and distorted unless you correct afterwards. The Sigma, introduces much less distortion, but has about 90 degrees field of view. The Sigma also has much less chromatic aberration (purple fringing).
Check out the reviews of both at: Pentax Lens Tests
Mike

maxwell1295 · 11-07-2008, 10:35 AM

Both?

I have the DA10-17 and the DA12-24 on the way. Have used the 10-17 quite a bit, I can see the need for both of these lenses in my bag. No doubt, the 12-24 will get more use, but the 10-17 will always have a place in my kit. It's really more of a specialty lens, but there isn't another lens quite like it.

One the about shooting with the FE was that it helped me realize that I needed an ultra-wide rectilinear. Don't get me wrong.....I love the distortion. It just doesn't work for every ultrawide shot. I had the DA14, but like the flexibility of the zoom. It's also fills I gap I have in my current setup.

If I had to choose one, I'd probably opt for the rectilinear ultrawide zoom, whether it be the 10-20 or 12-24.

Gooshin · 11-07-2008, 10:46 AM

one is a rectilinear lens

one is a fish eye lens

you cant compare the two.

its like having a saw and a hammer, both are "tools", but they perform different tasks.

egordon99 · 11-07-2008, 11:13 AM

Come on Gooshin, we all know that a saw is MUCH cooler than a hammer!

Gooshin · 11-07-2008, 11:21 AM

ever smash a computer with a sledge hammer????

daacon · 11-07-2008, 11:45 AM

What Alan said - I have the 12-24 and 10-17 - Genreal landscapes 12-24 , fun and certain scenarios for me cry for fisheye - I would not be without both. In fact I sold my original 12-24 thinking the 10-17 would do. A few months later I re-purchased the 12-24.

I find you are either a fisheye fan or not. To get a good sampling of the fisheye check out htis thread https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/33549-fisheye-...ye-photos.html

You can go to flckr and search for the Sigma 10-20 as well. I think you would do well with both - but they serve different purposes for sure.

wa5am · 11-07-2008, 02:26 PM

Thanks for all the replies and comments. I forgot the Pentax was a fisheye, and had only recently read some user comments on it, but they didn't mention the fisheye fact. My memory is good, it's just too short. I had a Nikkor fisheye many years ago, and rarely used it.

I think I will settle on the Sigma 10-17mm, as I do want a wide rectilinear for now. It sounds like Sigma, in general, has some very nice optics.

Thanks Again,

-Morg

Gooshin · 11-07-2008, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by wa5am

Thanks for all the replies and comments. I forgot the Pentax was a fisheye, and had only recently read some user comments on it, but they didn't mention the fisheye fact. My memory is good, it's just too short. I had a Nikkor fisheye many years ago, and rarely used it.

I think I will settle on the Sigma 10-17mm, as I do want a wide rectilinear for now. It sounds like Sigma, in general, has some very nice optics.

Thanks Again,

-Morg

you mean sigma 10-20, the rectalinear

pentax 10-17, fisheye

egordon99 · 11-07-2008, 02:42 PM

No, he means the Pentax 11-16mm fisheye macro f/2.8 L

Gooshin · 11-07-2008, 02:49 PM

i want that lens SO BAD

11-16, 16-50,50-135

all F2.8, all weathersealed, all SDM,

it only makes sense!

but no, pentax is like, "hey, lets make a 12-24 cuz we're cool like that, and then, lets shove a 14mm, and then a 15mm in there just for shits and giggles, also you know that awesome 20mmf2.8 that we had? yeah? you know, the cool one, lets make it f3.2 cuz everyone is gonna go crazy and world domination will be ours"

grrr

wa5am · 11-07-2008, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by Gooshin

you mean sigma 10-20, the rectalinear

pentax 10-17, fisheye

Yep! Today is certainly not my best day. Too many irons in the fire...

wa5am · 11-08-2008, 12:16 PM

After all that, I ended up ordering the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC IF Macro.

I like that range, but still need to get something a bit wider than 17mm down the road. It will probably be the Sigma 10-20. Maybe next month from Santa...

Thanks for the information on both the Sigma and the Pentax!

-Morg-

11-07-2008, 06:45 AM	#1
wa5am Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Arkansas Posts: 244	Pentax DA 10-17mm or Sigma 10-20mm I am getting ready to order one of these two lenses and would really appreciate some feedback from anyone that has used both of these lenses. I know it would be unlikely that someone would have both of them at once, but maybe there are some that have had both at different times. There is some difference in "speed", I know, however that difference does not matter a lot to me. I have never owned a Sigma, however I see a lot of you have them, and quite happy with the IQ, etc. There is some difference in price I see, however at this point, that does not matter a lot to me either. I just want the best IQ, construction, coatings, etc. What do you think? Your advice is appreciated. -Morg-

11-07-2008, 07:59 AM	#4
iCrop Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Tucson Photos: Gallery Posts: 292	Depends on what you want I have both, and as egordon99 says, the Pentax is a fisheye, the Sigma is rectilinear. So, it depends on what you intend to use it for. The fisheye is good for fun, distorted images. It has an almost 180 degree field of view, so you can get some pretty wide landscapes, but mountains, trees and other objects will appear bent and distorted unless you correct afterwards. The Sigma, introduces much less distortion, but has about 90 degrees field of view. The Sigma also has much less chromatic aberration (purple fringing). Check out the reviews of both at: Pentax Lens Tests Mike

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Wanted - Acquired: Sigma 10-20mm or Pentax 10-17mm	yusuf	Sold Items	4	04-11-2010 10:02 AM

11-07-2008, 07:35 AM	#2
egordon99 Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Outside of Philly Posts: 1,561	They are very different lenses. The Sigma 10-20mm is rectilinear, and the 10-17mm is a fisheye. I went with the Sigma and have been happy, but you have to decide which type of wide-angle lens you want. Best thing to do is to look at as many samples of both lenses and decide which "look" you prefer. Both lenses are optically top notch though.

11-07-2008, 07:42 AM	#3
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,886	I looked at both when I wanted an ultra wide. the question is do you want to always correct for fish eye distortion (it is possible in photo editors) when you want a rectalinear image. To me, a fisheye is more limited in use. Additionally when you streighten out a fish-eye image you actually do this at the expense of field of view, and the image is not as wide as a true 10mm. In the end, I bought the 10-20, but am now thinking a fiosh eye of some type might be interesting to play with, but when I travel to foreigh cities about 60% of my shots are with my 10-20. If you like travel and archetecture, the 10-20 (or someone elses ultra wide) is a must

11-07-2008, 10:35 AM	#5
maxwell1295 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Long Island, New York Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,703	Both? I have the DA10-17 and the DA12-24 on the way. Have used the 10-17 quite a bit, I can see the need for both of these lenses in my bag. No doubt, the 12-24 will get more use, but the 10-17 will always have a place in my kit. It's really more of a specialty lens, but there isn't another lens quite like it. One the about shooting with the FE was that it helped me realize that I needed an ultra-wide rectilinear. Don't get me wrong.....I love the distortion. It just doesn't work for every ultrawide shot. I had the DA14, but like the flexibility of the zoom. It's also fills I gap I have in my current setup. If I had to choose one, I'd probably opt for the rectilinear ultrawide zoom, whether it be the 10-20 or 12-24.

11-07-2008, 10:46 AM	#6
Gooshin Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Toronto, the one in Canada. Posts: 5,610	one is a rectilinear lens one is a fish eye lens you cant compare the two. its like having a saw and a hammer, both are "tools", but they perform different tasks.

11-07-2008, 11:13 AM	#7
egordon99 Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Outside of Philly Posts: 1,561	Come on Gooshin, we all know that a saw is MUCH cooler than a hammer!

11-07-2008, 11:21 AM	#8
Gooshin Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Toronto, the one in Canada. Posts: 5,610	ever smash a computer with a sledge hammer????

11-07-2008, 11:45 AM	#9
daacon Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Alberta,Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 20,914	What Alan said - I have the 12-24 and 10-17 - Genreal landscapes 12-24 , fun and certain scenarios for me cry for fisheye - I would not be without both. In fact I sold my original 12-24 thinking the 10-17 would do. A few months later I re-purchased the 12-24. I find you are either a fisheye fan or not. To get a good sampling of the fisheye check out htis thread https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/33549-fisheye-...ye-photos.html You can go to flckr and search for the Sigma 10-20 as well. I think you would do well with both - but they serve different purposes for sure.

11-07-2008, 02:26 PM	#10
wa5am Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Arkansas Posts: 244 Original Poster	Thanks for all the replies and comments. I forgot the Pentax was a fisheye, and had only recently read some user comments on it, but they didn't mention the fisheye fact. My memory is good, it's just too short. I had a Nikkor fisheye many years ago, and rarely used it. I think I will settle on the Sigma 10-17mm, as I do want a wide rectilinear for now. It sounds like Sigma, in general, has some very nice optics. Thanks Again, -Morg

11-07-2008, 02:28 PM	#11
Gooshin Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Toronto, the one in Canada. Posts: 5,610	Originally posted by wa5am Thanks for all the replies and comments. I forgot the Pentax was a fisheye, and had only recently read some user comments on it, but they didn't mention the fisheye fact. My memory is good, it's just too short. I had a Nikkor fisheye many years ago, and rarely used it. I think I will settle on the Sigma 10-17mm, as I do want a wide rectilinear for now. It sounds like Sigma, in general, has some very nice optics. Thanks Again, -Morg you mean sigma 10-20, the rectalinear pentax 10-17, fisheye

11-07-2008, 02:42 PM	#12
egordon99 Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Outside of Philly Posts: 1,561	No, he means the Pentax 11-16mm fisheye macro f/2.8 L

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-07-2008, 02:49 PM	#13
Gooshin Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Toronto, the one in Canada. Posts: 5,610	i want that lens SO BAD 11-16, 16-50,50-135 all F2.8, all weathersealed, all SDM, it only makes sense! but no, pentax is like, "hey, lets make a 12-24 cuz we're cool like that, and then, lets shove a 14mm, and then a 15mm in there just for shits and giggles, also you know that awesome 20mmf2.8 that we had? yeah? you know, the cool one, lets make it f3.2 cuz everyone is gonna go crazy and world domination will be ours" grrr

11-07-2008, 03:00 PM	#14
wa5am Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Arkansas Posts: 244 Original Poster	Originally posted by Gooshin you mean sigma 10-20, the rectalinear pentax 10-17, fisheye Yep! Today is certainly not my best day. Too many irons in the fire...

11-08-2008, 12:16 PM	#15
wa5am Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Arkansas Posts: 244 Original Poster	After all that, I ended up ordering the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC IF Macro. I like that range, but still need to get something a bit wider than 17mm down the road. It will probably be the Sigma 10-20. Maybe next month from Santa... Thanks for the information on both the Sigma and the Pentax! -Morg-