wide angle dilema

tvfd911 · 06-07-2009, 09:33 AM

I decided I "need" a wider lens than my kit lens and I don't want a fisheye. Down the road, I intend to replace the kit lens with the DA*16-50 to take advantage of the weathersealing.

So, after a bunch of debating, I decided that the Sigma 10-20 was the way to go for value. It complements the kit lens and should do the same with the 16-50.

Now I just looked at my Amazon wishlist and saw I could join the Limited club with the new 15mm for an extra hundred bucks over the sigma. Then I saw next to it the DA14mm. Basically the same price, but I gain a mm and speed, but give up on size obviously. Luckilly the $200 difference between the 10-20 and the 12-24 is too much for me to swallow this year because I've seen some amazing stuff here produced from that.

Questions:
1. If I went with one of the primes (most likely the 15mm limited), am I getting too close to the range of the 16-50 that I'd like in a year or two?

2. Would I miss the extra 10-15mm width from the Sigma? (I'm starting to say to myself "you won't miss what you've never had" but I know that's not true otherwise this conflict wouldn't exist in the first place)

3. If the 15mm is cutting in near the 16-50 too close, maybe just bite the bullet and get the 16-50? I'm pushed away from this for two reasons: Cost which is why I don't plan on getting this thing now. Range, while i know there is a big difference in mm's at the wide end, without actually trying anything at 16mm, I don't think I'd be gaining enough width to justify the cost of this DA* lens over what I already own. I know, I'd be gaining speed, weathersealing, IQ, and SDM at the same time, which I want, but have decided I could wait for more than width.

So, I have myself pretty much talked out of the 16-50 unless you all think I'm way off base with my logic. The 12-24 is too expensive. I can't keep my mind set on the 15mm or 10-20 until I buy one, which probably won't happen until the end of the month or so anyways.

Robert S Donovan · 06-07-2009, 10:00 AM

I have owned the Sigma 10-20 and have shot the 16-50 DA*. There's a world of difference in those 6mm:

If you can't swing the Pentax 12-24, I'd go with the Sigma. The 15 Limited is a beautiful little lens but it doesn't really give the super wide effect the Sigma does. I also feel it's kind of hard to compare to the 16-50 due to the size difference. IMO the Limited primes kind have their own mission that compliments the zooms.

Bart · 06-07-2009, 11:27 AM

Questions:
1. If I went with one of the primes (most likely the 15mm limited), am I getting too close to the range of the 16-50 that I'd like in a year or two?

I'm the other way around: I have the 16-50 but the 15mm Ltd is still on my list, way to the back though.

2. Would I miss the extra 10-15mm width from the Sigma? (I'm starting to say to myself "you won't miss what you've never had" but I know that's not true otherwise this conflict wouldn't exist in the first place)

16mm is the widest I have. So can't help you there.

3. If the 15mm is cutting in near the 16-50 too close, maybe just bite the bullet and get the 16-50?

I don't see a zoom and a prime as competing lenses. I just try to cover my most used ranges both ways. So the 15mm Ltd would be for my prime line up. When (if) Pentax ever comes out with the DA*11-16mm, I would be interested in that one as well - if the SDM problems have died out by then.

Sean Nelson · 06-07-2009, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by tvfd911

1. If I went with one of the primes (most likely the 15mm limited), am I getting too close to the range of the 16-50 that I'd like in a year or two?

My opinion is that if you're comparing these lenses ONLY on the basis of their focal lengths then yes, there's no point in getting the 15mm if you know you'll be getting the 16-50. But there's a lot to distinguish the two lenses - the 15mm has a lot less distortion, is much smaller and lighter, and shares filters with the other limited lenses. If none of those things are important to you then it's probably not the right lens to buy.

Quote:

2. Would I miss the extra 10-15mm width from the Sigma?

Again, it depends on whether you get "hooked" on wide angle shots. If you do, then yes, you'd definitely miss the extra field of view.

Quote:

So, I have myself pretty much talked out of the 16-50 unless you all think I'm way off base with my logic. The 12-24 is too expensive. I can't keep my mind set on the 15mm or 10-20 until I buy one, which probably won't happen until the end of the month or so anyways.

I agree that the extra 2mm (assuming you're "kit" is the 18-55) seems a pretty meager benefit for buying a new lens. My solution was the DA12-24 (although I'd still like to get the DA15 if it's price comes down a little). It's a beautiful lens, but costly now that the price has gone up. I'm have no experience with the Sigma 10-20 but Photozone seems to think it's decent and from your musings I suspect it may be a good fit for you.

Last edited by Sean Nelson; 06-07-2009 at 12:26 PM.

tvfd911 · 06-07-2009, 04:29 PM

Thanks for the input everyone. I completely understand there are other attributes to these lenses besides width and comparing the 16-50 to a 15mm prime isn't fair to either, but width is what's driving the purchase at the moment. I'm still fairly new to the SLR game and trying to get the focal lengths covered with something. Once I have a base set, then I'm sure I'll diversify where focal lengths are overlapping but have other attributes that make both lenses worth having.

Part of what I'm after this range for is my trip to Tanzania in a few months. I want to be good and comfortable with what I take along.

Seems like people are agreeing with my gut feeling that while the 16-50 is a great lens that I ought to have at some point, it isn't the best fit for what I'm looking for the next lens purchase to do for me. I guess I'll probably end up with the sigma10-20, unless I come across a price that's more manageable on the DA12-24.

Eric

axl · 06-08-2009, 04:12 PM

10mm is 10mm. Period.
You can't beat it. Nothing can at the moment at 10mm (talking corrected lenses).
It's not the sharpest thing in the bag, but at 10mm it offers you urivaled experience. Stop it down to f5.6 or f8. Manualy set focus at 1m and off you go. Enjoy....
Seriously, I wouldn't hesitate about recommending Sigma 10-20 to anybody. My experience with it has been great...

BR

Graham67 · 06-08-2009, 04:25 PM

Originally posted by axl

10mm is 10mm. Period.
You can't beat it. Nothing can at the moment at 10mm (talking corrected lenses).
It's not the sharpest thing in the bag, but at 10mm it offers you urivaled experience. Stop it down to f5.6 or f8. Manualy set focus at 1m and off you go. Enjoy....
Seriously, I wouldn't hesitate about recommending Sigma 10-20 to anybody. My experience with it has been great...

BR

Another vote for the Sigma 10-20, it complements the DA*16-50 beautifully, at a reasonable cost.

06-07-2009, 09:33 AM	#1
tvfd911 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: WI Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 354	wide angle dilema I decided I "need" a wider lens than my kit lens and I don't want a fisheye. Down the road, I intend to replace the kit lens with the DA16-50 to take advantage of the weathersealing. So, after a bunch of debating, I decided that the Sigma 10-20 was the way to go for value. It complements the kit lens and should do the same with the 16-50. Now I just looked at my Amazon wishlist and saw I could join the Limited club with the new 15mm for an extra hundred bucks over the sigma. Then I saw next to it the DA14mm. Basically the same price, but I gain a mm and speed, but give up on size obviously. Luckilly the $200 difference between the 10-20 and the 12-24 is too much for me to swallow this year because I've seen some amazing stuff here produced from that. Questions: 1. If I went with one of the primes (most likely the 15mm limited), am I getting too close to the range of the 16-50 that I'd like in a year or two? 2. Would I miss the extra 10-15mm width from the Sigma? (I'm starting to say to myself "you won't miss what you've never had" but I know that's not true otherwise this conflict wouldn't exist in the first place) 3. If the 15mm is cutting in near the 16-50 too close, maybe just bite the bullet and get the 16-50? I'm pushed away from this for two reasons: Cost which is why I don't plan on getting this thing now. Range, while i know there is a big difference in mm's at the wide end, without actually trying anything at 16mm, I don't think I'd be gaining enough width to justify the cost of this DA lens over what I already own. I know, I'd be gaining speed, weathersealing, IQ, and SDM at the same time, which I want, but have decided I could wait for more than width. So, I have myself pretty much talked out of the 16-50 unless you all think I'm way off base with my logic. The 12-24 is too expensive. I can't keep my mind set on the 15mm or 10-20 until I buy one, which probably won't happen until the end of the month or so anyways.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Sigma 24mm Wide II AF Lens indetification Dilema	Indecent Exposure	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	9	06-07-2010 03:28 AM
Misc Wide angle	wllm	Post Your Photos!	6	12-07-2009 09:57 AM
Which wide angle should i go for ??	Bossy	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	03-22-2009 05:05 AM
which wide angle?	Ken Eremko	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	08-06-2008 09:53 AM
Wide Angle	daacon	Monthly Photo Contests	0	06-23-2008 02:00 PM

06-07-2009, 10:00 AM	#2
Robert S Donovan Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Anderson, SC Photos: Gallery Posts: 361	I have owned the Sigma 10-20 and have shot the 16-50 DA*. There's a world of difference in those 6mm: If you can't swing the Pentax 12-24, I'd go with the Sigma. The 15 Limited is a beautiful little lens but it doesn't really give the super wide effect the Sigma does. I also feel it's kind of hard to compare to the 16-50 due to the size difference. IMO the Limited primes kind have their own mission that compliments the zooms.

06-07-2009, 11:27 AM	#3
Bart Pentaxian Join Date: May 2007 Location: WW community of Pentax users Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,646	Questions: 1. If I went with one of the primes (most likely the 15mm limited), am I getting too close to the range of the 16-50 that I'd like in a year or two? I'm the other way around: I have the 16-50 but the 15mm Ltd is still on my list, way to the back though. 2. Would I miss the extra 10-15mm width from the Sigma? (I'm starting to say to myself "you won't miss what you've never had" but I know that's not true otherwise this conflict wouldn't exist in the first place) 16mm is the widest I have. So can't help you there. 3. If the 15mm is cutting in near the 16-50 too close, maybe just bite the bullet and get the 16-50? I don't see a zoom and a prime as competing lenses. I just try to cover my most used ranges both ways. So the 15mm Ltd would be for my prime line up. When (if) Pentax ever comes out with the DA*11-16mm, I would be interested in that one as well - if the SDM problems have died out by then.

06-07-2009, 12:19 PM	#4
Sean Nelson Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 353	Originally posted by tvfd911 1. If I went with one of the primes (most likely the 15mm limited), am I getting too close to the range of the 16-50 that I'd like in a year or two? My opinion is that if you're comparing these lenses ONLY on the basis of their focal lengths then yes, there's no point in getting the 15mm if you know you'll be getting the 16-50. But there's a lot to distinguish the two lenses - the 15mm has a lot less distortion, is much smaller and lighter, and shares filters with the other limited lenses. If none of those things are important to you then it's probably not the right lens to buy. Quote: 2. Would I miss the extra 10-15mm width from the Sigma? Again, it depends on whether you get "hooked" on wide angle shots. If you do, then yes, you'd definitely miss the extra field of view. Quote: So, I have myself pretty much talked out of the 16-50 unless you all think I'm way off base with my logic. The 12-24 is too expensive. I can't keep my mind set on the 15mm or 10-20 until I buy one, which probably won't happen until the end of the month or so anyways. I agree that the extra 2mm (assuming you're "kit" is the 18-55) seems a pretty meager benefit for buying a new lens. My solution was the DA12-24 (although I'd still like to get the DA15 if it's price comes down a little). It's a beautiful lens, but costly now that the price has gone up. I'm have no experience with the Sigma 10-20 but Photozone seems to think it's decent and from your musings I suspect it may be a good fit for you. Last edited by Sean Nelson; 06-07-2009 at 12:26 PM.

06-07-2009, 04:29 PM	#5
tvfd911 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: WI Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 354 Original Poster	Thanks for the input everyone. I completely understand there are other attributes to these lenses besides width and comparing the 16-50 to a 15mm prime isn't fair to either, but width is what's driving the purchase at the moment. I'm still fairly new to the SLR game and trying to get the focal lengths covered with something. Once I have a base set, then I'm sure I'll diversify where focal lengths are overlapping but have other attributes that make both lenses worth having. Part of what I'm after this range for is my trip to Tanzania in a few months. I want to be good and comfortable with what I take along. Seems like people are agreeing with my gut feeling that while the 16-50 is a great lens that I ought to have at some point, it isn't the best fit for what I'm looking for the next lens purchase to do for me. I guess I'll probably end up with the sigma10-20, unless I come across a price that's more manageable on the DA12-24. Eric

06-08-2009, 04:12 PM	#6
axl Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,183	10mm is 10mm. Period. You can't beat it. Nothing can at the moment at 10mm (talking corrected lenses). It's not the sharpest thing in the bag, but at 10mm it offers you urivaled experience. Stop it down to f5.6 or f8. Manualy set focus at 1m and off you go. Enjoy.... Seriously, I wouldn't hesitate about recommending Sigma 10-20 to anybody. My experience with it has been great... BR

06-08-2009, 04:25 PM	#7
Graham67 Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Leicester, England Photos: Gallery Posts: 89	Originally posted by axl 10mm is 10mm. Period. You can't beat it. Nothing can at the moment at 10mm (talking corrected lenses). It's not the sharpest thing in the bag, but at 10mm it offers you urivaled experience. Stop it down to f5.6 or f8. Manualy set focus at 1m and off you go. Enjoy.... Seriously, I wouldn't hesitate about recommending Sigma 10-20 to anybody. My experience with it has been great... BR Another vote for the Sigma 10-20, it complements the DA*16-50 beautifully, at a reasonable cost.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search