[deadwolfbones]

I took over two months to research these 2 lenses. I really had a hard time pulling the trigger. However, nowhere could I find the Pentax for $540.

In the end, things like warranty, 10mm, and price tipped the scales to the Sigma. Also, I already have a Tamron 17-50 which negated the long-end advantage of the Pentax. I looked at countless shots on line of both lenses & was not convinced that either lens had a decisive advantage.

Yeah, I came to this conclusion as well... I went with the Sigma. If I end up not liking it, I can always sell and get the 12-24.

[brecklundin]

Yes, yet another thread about these lenses, but I know we all love debating the relative worth of hunks of glass, so let's go!

I can get a Sigma 10-20mm for $400 w/ Bing.com cashback, or I can get a Pentax DA 12-24mm for $540 w/ Bing.com cashback.

Or... I can wait until someone lists a nice one on the marketplace and buy used, like I usually do, but I think the price difference will be the same or even greater in the Sigma's favor.

I'm particularly interested in hearing from people who've used both extensively, but anyone can chip in.

I might be prejudice here but after using the 10-20 for over a year, and the fact that the DA 12-24 is not a sealed DA, given the IQ as well as the price of the 10-20 there is no question that the 10-20 is the better lens and the better value. Does not mean the 12-24 is a bad lens, just that it's not $140 better, if you can find it at that differential.

I know that the new 10-20 is due out this fall and the fixed f3.5 will be nice, but I find it interesting that even while Sigma, like Pentax, increased their lens prices across the board, the 10-20 actually has dropped $100 from a year ago. So maybe they are going to D/C the f4-5.6 version? I would say it's a good time to buy a new copy. It is a FUN lens with a fast focus (not much of a range and not like you are gonna use it for action shots that often anyway).

I will add there seems to be a tendency for the AF to break for no apparent reason. MF will keep working the the AF stops focusing past 2'-3'. I know a couple folks who had it happen and it also happened to my copy. But Sigma fixed it quickly, I just sent it in a box with the paperwork and *boom* they fixed it and sent it back, no prob.

Oh, and there is the inherent value in a 4-yr USA warranty on the EX Sigma lenses...right there is a big value in my book. And Sigma is not too fussy about fixing pretty much anything. Or even just doing a calibration and such if you send it into them. Never read about them refusing a simply tune-up service let alone try and charge $19.95 for having it serviced/repaired under the warranty period.

I guess you can say, I have been pondering this very issue and the f4 of the Pentax is not fast enough to fork out the extra cash...especially as a warranty equal Sigma's will cost about $50-$70.

[Jewelltrail]

Deadwolfbones: Yeah, I came to this conclusion as well... I went with the Sigma. If I end up not liking it, I can always sell and get the 12-24.

Best of luck with the lens.

[jsherman999]

I've heard people complain about softness issues with the Sigma wide-open, and I think the Pentax is fully usable at f/4, where the Sigma needed to be stopped down to f/8. (unconfirmed, but heard from multiple sources.)

I think the real consideration is the FL range - for me, 24mm is a very fun walkabout FL, and the 12-24 can do double-duty as a walkabout zoom.

[stl09]

Hi,

I think the 12-24mm lens is great, clear, sharp pictures. I don't know if I would get rid of your prime. I too wasn't sure which lens to go with. I ended up posting a want ad on this site and picked up a slightly used lens from a fellow member. He provided a copy of the original receipt in case of repair. I would highly recommend you try this route and save yourself money. I was very learly of purchasing overseas and felt this was a safer route to go.

Good luck

Ok, one more question, then...

If I get the 12-24mm, is the image quality at 21mm good enough to ditch the DA 21mm Ltd (assuming size is not a factor)?

[GeneV]

It's nice to have choices that are this difficult. It is a bit like the choice between the Pentax and Sigma 17-70mm lenses. You can't really make a big mistake.

[brecklundin]

Hi,

I think the 12-24mm lens is great, clear, sharp pictures. I don't know if I would get rid of your prime. I too wasn't sure which lens to go with. I ended up posting a want ad on this site and picked up a slightly used lens from a fellow member. He provided a copy of the original receipt in case of repair. I would highly recommend you try this route and save yourself money. I was very learly of purchasing overseas and felt this was a safer route to go.

Good luck

Very good point. I also do not think the Sigma @ 20mm is going to beat the 21mm prime either. I would keep whatever UWA zoom AND the 21mm prime. Pentax's primes are just about as nice a group of lenses that I've ever used. Not sure if they are good enough to justify the new prices but still worthy of consideration. I know I plan on adding a couple more further down the line.

[F8&Bthere]

Looks like the OP's made his/her decision, but FWIW....

In Canada (local shops, not ebay/mail order from USA) the Sigma is $700 and the Pentax has gone up to $1300. So a few months ago when I caved in to a time crunch and bought the Sigma for lack of a better option, if I was given the choice to pay $140 more (heck even US$140) to get the Pentax, I would have jumped at it. I've said it before in another thread- to me the extra 2mm is useless unless significant uncorrectable distortion suits your shooting style. As my next lens up is the 35mm ltd, I would rather have the extra 4 mm on the long end. And it's true in my experience that the Sigma is soft around the edges wide open so, as someone mentioned before me, at the long end you are essentially comparing say Pentax's 20mm/f4 to Sigma's 20mm/f8.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the Sigma's a bad lens, especially is you can get it for US$500 or less.... but I personally would pay the $140 more to get the Pentax based on many reviews I've researched and my experience with the Sigma.

[K-9]

Below is a paste of my post in a previous thread about these exact two lenses. The Pentax has not gotten favorable reviews and I certainly wouldn't spring the cash for it. Questionable CA and IQ.

@F8 - I'm not sure what reviews you saw, but most I've seen were not favorable for the 12-24.

The May issue of Digital Photo tested 12 current wide angle zooms and the Sigma was rated the best (the older F stop one, not the just coming out 3.5) and the Pentax ranked the worst and actually was dead last. It showed pics with some bad fringing and softness at f4, and this internet review also shows CA is a little too high for my liking on the Pentax:

Pentax DA 12-24mm f/4 AL ED [IF] - Review / Test Report

There's also someone with a review on BandH about the horrible CA/purple fringing of this lens.
Pentax | SMCP-DA 12-24mm f/4 ED AL Autofocus Lens | 21577 | B&H

I would definitely go with the Sigma, and even the current one as it will be cheaper than the new f3.5. Both should be cheaper than the Pentax, and from what I've seen, better IQ.

[brecklundin]

I've heard people complain about softness issues with the Sigma wide-open, and I think the Pentax is fully usable at f/4, where the Sigma needed to be stopped down to f/8. (unconfirmed, but heard from multiple sources.)

I think the real consideration is the FL range - for me, 24mm is a very fun walkabout FL, and the 12-24 can do double-duty as a walkabout zoom.

Not sure about others but I had no issue with any visible softness at f4 with the 10-20. Here are a coupld hand held examples taken where I had to hold the camera with my arms extended to get the camera beyond the bars in a window. Both are taken at 10mm and f4:





And this one is at 10mm f/4.5


One last at 10mm and f/8 just because:


You can see a bunch of shots I took with the 10-20 here:
BreckLundin's Place

Like I said, I was very happy with the lens. And while near to all lenses are softer wide open, the 10-20 is not really a victim of that for me or anyone else I know. As for sigma lenses I never received a bad copy of a single Sigma lens. But for sure when they are bad...they are bad!! hahaha...same can happen with a $5k lens of other brands.

[Peter Zack]

Late to the party but I've owned 3 of these wide lenses. First the Sigma 12-24mm which is a big hunk of glass but a very good lens other than the variable aperture and the fixed hood setup. Used it a year and bought the Sigma 10-20mm. Nice lens but the first one was better. I missed the extra 4mm and found the lens to be soft (a lot) in the corners to the point of cropping 10-14mm shots. Center was good but overall I didn't like the IQ.

I now have the Pentax 12-24mm. The best of the 3. A slightly warmer image, fast focus and by far the best of these lenses. Hands down worth the extra $$ over the others.

[Jewelltrail]

brecklundin: Not sure about others but I had no issue with any visible softness at f4 with the 10-20.

Nice shots--I have no problems with mine wide open either.

[Psynema]

Question, if you have the 16-50mm 2.8 is it really worth it to get the 12-24mm 4.0?

Does the 4mm make that much of a difference in everyone's workflows to warrant the loss of a stop?

debating on whether to get a 12-24 since I'm already ordering a 16-50mm.

I wish Pentax made a rectilinear 2.8 10-12mm range prime...or something to at least compete with the Canon 16-35mm L 2.8...this is the bulging weakness in Pentax's lineup whereas the other lens types stack up just fine.

[Peter Zack]

Without question. 4mm at 100mm is almost nothing but 4mm less than 16mm is huge.
16mm on APSc is 83 degrees angle of view.
12mm is 99 degrees angle of view.
10mm is fisheye on the DA10-17mm at 180 degrees angle of view.

Consider that as you get a shorter focal length the FOV get much bigger. 2mm from the 12mm to the 10mm almost doubles the FOV.

Were as the 200mm is 8.1 degrees angle of view and the 300mm is 5.4 degrees angle of view. A 100mm difference (50%) doesn't change the FOV much. The 12-24mm is sharp wide open so you are not really loosing much in speed. The 16-50mm is usable at 2.8 but much better at f4

[Psynema]

Without question. 4mm at 100mm is almost nothing but 4mm less than 16mm is huge.
16mm on APSc is 83 degrees angle of view.
12mm is 99 degrees angle of view.
10mm is fisheye on the DA10-17mm at 180 degrees angle of view.

Consider that as you get a shorter focal length the FOV get much bigger. 2mm from the 12mm to the 10mm almost doubles the FOV.

Were as the 200mm is 8.1 degrees angle of view and the 300mm is 5.4 degrees angle of view. A 100mm difference (50%) doesn't change the FOV much. The 12-24mm is sharp wide open so you are not really loosing much in speed. The 16-50mm is usable at 2.8 but much better at f4

Thanks.

I'd love a 10mm rectilinear lens at 2.8, but doesn't seem they make it. Don't quite trust Sigma's 10mm prime 2.8, but that's a fisheye however...heard a lot of complaints with sigma in general wide open and even a stop there after.

Any good manual lenses that are 10-12 primes at 2.8?