Pentax DA 12-24mm f4.0 Praise

song_hm · 08-12-2009, 09:39 PM

gnaztee · 08-12-2009, 10:13 PM

Hey Esman, this:

Originally posted by mtngal

it didn't seem so bad to go straight from 24 to 50 most of the time

is a great point. Many feel that you need to have every millimeter of focal length range covered (I did for awhile too), but many pros (who use zooms for their assignments) will take out a 17-35mm and a 70-200mm (full frame, so equivalent to the 12-24 and 50-135) with a 50 mm macro thrown in. It really depends on what you like to shoot, what comfort level you have with getting closer to your shot (if you get the 12-24). And yes, the build quality of the 12-24 is quite good compared to the 18-55.

opiedog · 08-13-2009, 10:02 AM

the 12-24 has better build than the 18-55, however, my 1st 12-24 had a strange zoom noise problem and i had to return it. QC, QC, QC!

i was also thinking of getting the 16-50 and maybe sell the 12-24, but upon further review....
nope. the 16-50 has much too much distortion at 16. my 12-24 is staying, but i'm still getting the 16-50, when i'm confident that the earlier SDM and QC issues have been addressed.

esman7 · 08-13-2009, 12:07 PM

Originally posted by mtngal

I agree that the 12-24 feels much sturdier than the old kit lens I had (mine was the first version). I liked the kit lens and so there was no question when I got the 12-24. After I got the K20, the kit lens ended up on the shelf and it didn't seem so bad to go straight from 24 to 50 most of the time (I've been shooting like that for the past 2 years, but finally gave into desire and have a 16-50 arriving tomorrow). The front element is pretty big (77mm!) but the lens itself isn't huge and it's easy to shoot with.

I'm thinking as a city walkaround lens, would you guys still suggest it? If I can't cover 24-50, it's not the end of the world, but it would be crazy to have the expanse of the 12mm end.

EDIT, gnatzee, saw your comment...

esman7 · 08-13-2009, 12:11 PM

Originally posted by gnaztee

Hey Esman, this:

is a great point. Many feel that you need to have every millimeter of focal length range covered (I did for awhile too), but many pros (who use zooms for their assignments) will take out a 17-35mm and a 70-200mm (full frame, so equivalent to the 12-24 and 50-135) with a 50 mm macro thrown in. It really depends on what you like to shoot, what comfort level you have with getting closer to your shot (if you get the 12-24). And yes, the build quality of the 12-24 is quite good compared to the 18-55.

That is awesome advice. That just made me lean toward the 12-24mm that much more. Plus, down the road, I would like to get my hands on the 35mm f2.8 Macro Limited.

So then I'll be covering (not including kit lens): 12-24, 35, 50, 50-135...

Not bad... would you agree?

gnaztee · 08-13-2009, 12:38 PM

My kit is close to that (with a little more overlap):

DA 12-24, DA 21 (for when I want to be discreet on the street!), DA 35, DA 70 and DA 55-300 (I don't shoot long that often, so I went with portability/quality mix instead of a pro zoom).

jsherman999 · 08-13-2009, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by esman7

That is awesome advice. That just made me lean toward the 12-24mm that much more. Plus, down the road, I would like to get my hands on the 35mm f2.8 Macro Limited.

So then I'll be covering (not including kit lens): 12-24, 35, 50, 50-135...

Not bad... would you agree?

.

Yes - for a while, that was my main 'in the bag' kit - 12-24 f4, DA 35ltd f2.8, 50-135 f2.8, FA 50 1.7.

It gave mind-blowingly good IQ, and covered literally everything except long telephoto. (very wide, macro, fast lens, telephoto/portrait zoom)

Alternative kits:

12-24, FA 35 f/2, 50-135 (lose macro but fold the 'fast' lens into the 35mm)
12-24, DA-or-FA 35, 60-250 f4 (gain long telephoto, but one stop slower)

.

systemA · 08-14-2009, 09:52 AM

Whoa I was only there a few days ago!

RBellavance · 08-14-2009, 11:02 AM

My "lightweight walkabout" kit tends to be the following lately:

- DA12-24
- FA35
- DA50-200 or FA77

scorpioh · 08-14-2009, 12:35 PM

Originally posted by Rockdoctor

It doesn't offend me at all IF you are willing to show off some of your HDR photos. Please post some.

P.S. Yes, the third is overdone.

Sorry for the late response for I'd almost lost the thread. I admit I am not a shooter of HDR and perhaps not the best person to criticise your pictures but the "halos' are too strong imho. These are good examples of HDR: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/post-your-photos/69599-hdr-mountains.html

heatherslightbox · 08-15-2009, 06:03 PM

For a short time, I had the DA12-24, but never really got the hang of it--after selling it, I figured out that I didn't give myself enough time to really master WA photography. Before selling off all of my Pentax, I had contemplated picking up another UWA lens. Now that I'm building my Canon kit, I've decided to give UWA another try, so my plan is to pick up a Tokina 12-24/4, which basically shares the same innards as the Pentax 12-24. I've got my eye on several used ones on Fleabay right now, so I'm hoping to get a really good deal on one.

Heather

ivoire · 08-16-2009, 09:02 AM

Great lens for landscapes. i took a few in the badlands of South Dakota

jenko · 08-17-2009, 02:21 AM

Nice shots again all, love these threads

Thinking about this lens to complement the collection as most of my shots are landscape, but versatile throughout it's range for portrait and alike.

A quick question, how does this lens handle filters, being Nuetral density and UV - being close to the glass element, and how does such a wide angle of view with a lot of sky in it's shots affect any CPL's?

Keen to hear any feedback before I take the plunge, thanks

gnaztee · 08-17-2009, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by jenko

Nice shots again all, love these threads

Thinking about this lens to complement the collection as most of my shots are landscape, but versatile throughout it's range for portrait and alike.

A quick question, how does this lens handle filters, being Nuetral density and UV - being close to the glass element, and how does such a wide angle of view with a lot of sky in it's shots affect any CPL's?

Keen to hear any feedback before I take the plunge, thanks

Hi Jenko,

I use a Hoya Pro-1 slim CPL on the lens most of the time, but you have to be careful because at the wider focal lengths it won't cover the whole frame. So if you're shooting an evenly lit sky, the CPL at 12mm will make it unevenly lit. It's definitely a tradeoff, but I still feel it's useable in most situations. I also use the Cokin P ND and Split ND filters, and again, at wider FLs there is obvious vignetting from the adapter ring and filter holder. However, this is gone by 14mm. Definitely able to use filters with the lens, just not in every situation.

Todd

Kei · 08-17-2009, 08:17 PM

I just bought the DA12-24 from the marketplace; now shopping around for a uv filter and saw this:

UV filters test - Introduction - Lenstip.com

This is a test of 20 uv filter from different brands and grades and they test with 72mm in most cases except two; so that may be relevant to anyone looking for 77mm for the DA12-24.

08-12-2009, 09:39 PM	#46
song_hm Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Pennsylvania, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 797	Civic Center, NYC

08-13-2009, 12:38 PM	#51
gnaztee Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: West Palm Beach, FL Posts: 772	Similar to what I have... My kit is close to that (with a little more overlap): DA 12-24, DA 21 (for when I want to be discreet on the street!), DA 35, DA 70 and DA 55-300 (I don't shoot long that often, so I went with portability/quality mix instead of a pro zoom).

08-16-2009, 09:02 AM	#57
ivoire Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,381	Great lens for landscapes. i took a few in the badlands of South Dakota Last edited by ivoire; 11-03-2010 at 08:43 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Praise and an example...	FHPhotographer	Pentax K-r	6	01-24-2011 11:45 PM
In praise of pentax photo laboratory	peter sellmer	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	2	04-05-2010 10:24 AM
In Praise of the Sigma 24-60 f/2.8	Damn Brit	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	33	12-02-2009 02:10 AM
HIgh Praise for Pentax K-x	BobRad	Pentax DSLR Discussion	6	11-01-2009 01:42 AM
Praise for Pentax, and a little bit for me.	blwnhr	Photographic Technique	12	02-13-2008 11:15 PM

08-12-2009, 10:13 PM	#47
gnaztee Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: West Palm Beach, FL Posts: 772	Hey Esman, this: Originally posted by mtngal it didn't seem so bad to go straight from 24 to 50 most of the time is a great point. Many feel that you need to have every millimeter of focal length range covered (I did for awhile too), but many pros (who use zooms for their assignments) will take out a 17-35mm and a 70-200mm (full frame, so equivalent to the 12-24 and 50-135) with a 50 mm macro thrown in. It really depends on what you like to shoot, what comfort level you have with getting closer to your shot (if you get the 12-24). And yes, the build quality of the 12-24 is quite good compared to the 18-55.

08-13-2009, 10:02 AM	#48
opiedog Inactive Account Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: NC Posts: 787	the 12-24 has better build than the 18-55, however, my 1st 12-24 had a strange zoom noise problem and i had to return it. QC, QC, QC! i was also thinking of getting the 16-50 and maybe sell the 12-24, but upon further review.... nope. the 16-50 has much too much distortion at 16. my 12-24 is staying, but i'm still getting the 16-50, when i'm confident that the earlier SDM and QC issues have been addressed.

08-13-2009, 12:07 PM	#49
esman7 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Vancouver, BC Posts: 322	Originally posted by mtngal I agree that the 12-24 feels much sturdier than the old kit lens I had (mine was the first version). I liked the kit lens and so there was no question when I got the 12-24. After I got the K20, the kit lens ended up on the shelf and it didn't seem so bad to go straight from 24 to 50 most of the time (I've been shooting like that for the past 2 years, but finally gave into desire and have a 16-50 arriving tomorrow). The front element is pretty big (77mm!) but the lens itself isn't huge and it's easy to shoot with. I'm thinking as a city walkaround lens, would you guys still suggest it? If I can't cover 24-50, it's not the end of the world, but it would be crazy to have the expanse of the 12mm end. EDIT, gnatzee, saw your comment...

08-13-2009, 12:11 PM	#50
esman7 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Vancouver, BC Posts: 322	Originally posted by gnaztee Hey Esman, this: is a great point. Many feel that you need to have every millimeter of focal length range covered (I did for awhile too), but many pros (who use zooms for their assignments) will take out a 17-35mm and a 70-200mm (full frame, so equivalent to the 12-24 and 50-135) with a 50 mm macro thrown in. It really depends on what you like to shoot, what comfort level you have with getting closer to your shot (if you get the 12-24). And yes, the build quality of the 12-24 is quite good compared to the 18-55. That is awesome advice. That just made me lean toward the 12-24mm that much more. Plus, down the road, I would like to get my hands on the 35mm f2.8 Macro Limited. So then I'll be covering (not including kit lens): 12-24, 35, 50, 50-135... Not bad... would you agree?

08-13-2009, 01:26 PM	#52
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Originally posted by esman7 That is awesome advice. That just made me lean toward the 12-24mm that much more. Plus, down the road, I would like to get my hands on the 35mm f2.8 Macro Limited. So then I'll be covering (not including kit lens): 12-24, 35, 50, 50-135... Not bad... would you agree? . Yes - for a while, that was my main 'in the bag' kit - 12-24 f4, DA 35ltd f2.8, 50-135 f2.8, FA 50 1.7. It gave mind-blowingly good IQ, and covered literally everything except long telephoto. (very wide, macro, fast lens, telephoto/portrait zoom) Alternative kits: 12-24, FA 35 f/2, 50-135 (lose macro but fold the 'fast' lens into the 35mm) 12-24, DA-or-FA 35, 60-250 f4 (gain long telephoto, but one stop slower) .

08-14-2009, 09:52 AM	#53
systemA Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: New York, NY Posts: 385	Whoa I was only there a few days ago!

08-14-2009, 11:02 AM	#54
RBellavance Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Near Montréal, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,716	My "lightweight walkabout" kit tends to be the following lately: - DA12-24 - FA35 - DA50-200 or FA77

08-14-2009, 12:35 PM	#55
scorpioh Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Singapore Photos: Gallery Posts: 182	Originally posted by Rockdoctor It doesn't offend me at all IF you are willing to show off some of your HDR photos. Please post some. P.S. Yes, the third is overdone. Sorry for the late response for I'd almost lost the thread. I admit I am not a shooter of HDR and perhaps not the best person to criticise your pictures but the "halos' are too strong imho. These are good examples of HDR: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/post-your-photos/69599-hdr-mountains.html

08-15-2009, 06:03 PM	#56
heatherslightbox Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Gainesville, FL Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,599	For a short time, I had the DA12-24, but never really got the hang of it--after selling it, I figured out that I didn't give myself enough time to really master WA photography. Before selling off all of my Pentax, I had contemplated picking up another UWA lens. Now that I'm building my Canon kit, I've decided to give UWA another try, so my plan is to pick up a Tokina 12-24/4, which basically shares the same innards as the Pentax 12-24. I've got my eye on several used ones on Fleabay right now, so I'm hoping to get a really good deal on one. Heather

08-17-2009, 02:21 AM	#58
jenko Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Australia, West Coast Posts: 54	Nice shots again all, love these threads Thinking about this lens to complement the collection as most of my shots are landscape, but versatile throughout it's range for portrait and alike. A quick question, how does this lens handle filters, being Nuetral density and UV - being close to the glass element, and how does such a wide angle of view with a lot of sky in it's shots affect any CPL's? Keen to hear any feedback before I take the plunge, thanks

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-17-2009, 11:12 AM	#59
gnaztee Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: West Palm Beach, FL Posts: 772	Originally posted by jenko Nice shots again all, love these threads Thinking about this lens to complement the collection as most of my shots are landscape, but versatile throughout it's range for portrait and alike. A quick question, how does this lens handle filters, being Nuetral density and UV - being close to the glass element, and how does such a wide angle of view with a lot of sky in it's shots affect any CPL's? Keen to hear any feedback before I take the plunge, thanks Hi Jenko, I use a Hoya Pro-1 slim CPL on the lens most of the time, but you have to be careful because at the wider focal lengths it won't cover the whole frame. So if you're shooting an evenly lit sky, the CPL at 12mm will make it unevenly lit. It's definitely a tradeoff, but I still feel it's useable in most situations. I also use the Cokin P ND and Split ND filters, and again, at wider FLs there is obvious vignetting from the adapter ring and filter holder. However, this is gone by 14mm. Definitely able to use filters with the lens, just not in every situation. Todd

08-17-2009, 08:17 PM	#60
Kei Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Toronto, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 207	I just bought the DA12-24 from the marketplace; now shopping around for a uv filter and saw this: UV filters test - Introduction - Lenstip.com This is a test of 20 uv filter from different brands and grades and they test with 72mm in most cases except two; so that may be relevant to anyone looking for 77mm for the DA12-24.