[brecklundin]

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

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

Very similar to mine. I have not added a UWA yet as I had not found a lot of sample shots from the 12-24 and already had a lot of time with a 10-20...but now I might just add a 12-24...I think possibably, maybe, it could be entirely possible.

My walk around kit is smallish:

DA*50-135
FA35ltd Macro
FA43ltd
FA77ltd

So, I think a UWA will round that out nicely and be super light weight. Who knows we might see a WR version of the 12-24 which would, please control your pun-gag reflex, it would "seal the deal" in a heartbeat for the 12-24. Sorry, it had to be written, it wrote itself! It;s not my fault.

[brecklundin]

you know...looking back, there is no doubt in my mind I will go with the 12-24...it is just too nice to pass up. Some of these shots in the thread are so wonderful...thanks guys!!

[Andi Lo]

My walkabout kit is the DA 10-17 and Tammy 28-75... if I add the 12-24 it won't be "smallish" anymore I guess it depends on what I want to shoot that day. I *think* I prefer to have 200mm more than 12-24 though... but that may change

[Rockdoctor]

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

Yes thank you very much for the examples. There are many different variants on HDR and many different styles and effects. The examples you provide are very subtle. It depends on the effect you are looking for.

"Viewer interpretations of beauty possess two concepts of value: aesthetics and taste. Aesthetics is the philosophical notion of beauty. Taste is a result of education and awareness of elite cultural values; therefore taste can be learned. Taste varies according to class, cultural background, and education. According to Kant beauty is objective and universal; thus certain things are beautiful to everyone. The contemporary view of beauty is not based on innate qualities, but rather on cultural specifics and individual interpretations."

Anyway this has really strayed away from the topic at hand now. 12-24mm WA is not really a place to discuss the philosophy of art.

[nmd]

Got this lens, and started taking a few shots with it... alas, it seems soft in the corners. Perhaps a centering issue ?


At Paris CDG Airport (handheld):

The picture looks nice and sharp... excepted that top left corner.



Some tests I later made, using a tripod, at 12mm... (100% crops)

At f/4, center: nice and sharp, as expected from this lens


At f/4, left border: somewhat softer close to the border, but really good for a border


At f/4, top-left corner: VERY soft in the top left, the blur gets in very quickly and massively


The right side corners are also soft, although to a slightly lesser extent (the soft area is smaller)



At f/5.6, center: still very sharp, even somewhat sharper... as expected


At f/5.6, border: still good... but already somewhat worse than before at the very border ? Hard to tell...


At f/5.6, corner: still very blurry... and apparently even worse than at f/4



At f/8, center: no surprise, very sharp


At f/8, border: stopping down doesn't improve this area that much, it looks even worse the more it's stopped down


At f/8, corner: still at least as bad as before... if not even much worse



Of course, I won't exclude that my test isn't perfect - I was slightly misaligned with the wall, but at this focal length the depth of field is quite large... besides, I did multiple tries and moved the focusing ring, the results were the same. And as stopping down doesn't improve the blur, I'd guess it's not just due to being out-of-focus (which, anyway, wouldn't have made such a strong transition from sharpness to blur).

What are your thoughts about this ? I'm wondering if it's normal at 12mm and I just have unrealistic expectations, or I should send the lens back for servicing/exchange (2nd hand but still under warranty). Or could it be the camera itself ?

Looks like I'm condemned to shoot wide open, and not close more than 5.6 without some cropping...

[gfmucci]

I apologise if it offends you but the HDRs, especially the third, are overdone.

"Overdone" is very subjective, but you state as "fact." "Overdone" based on what/whose criteria? Others might complain the perspective distortion taken of tall buildings is "overdone" yet many are stunningly dramatic photos.

[gfmucci]

Got this lens, and started taking a few shots with it... alas, it seems soft in the corners. Perhaps a centering issue ?What are your thoughts about this ? I'm wondering if it's normal at 12mm and I just have unrealistic expectations, or I should send the lens back for servicing/exchange (2nd hand but still under warranty). Or could it be the camera itself ?

Looks like I'm condemned to shoot wide open, and not close more than 5.6 without some cropping...

If it were my $600 lens, I'd send it into Pentax for a checkup, along with my examples and an explanation of concern.

---

Last edited by gfmucci; 09-14-2009 at 08:41 AM.

[mtngal]

I've never tried shooting brick walls with mine, so can't totally answer your question. I do know that the lens is best shot with larger apertures, mine gets soft after about f8 or so. But I've never noticed much difference in side-to-side sharpness. The fact that the top left corner is blurrier than the right side (I assume that since you said that was the worst spot) sounds like your lens does have a problem and should definitely go back either for exchange or to Pentax for repair. I had something similar with a DA 55-300, and Pentax replaced it with a much better one.

[brecklundin]

I keep coming back to your shot when I visit the tread looking for more pictures and there is just something about your shot I truly enjoy...I like the geometry but the color is also really appealing to me as is the overall composition. I dunno but it really is a nice shot to look at and should be "wall worthy" for your home!

[song_hm]

I keep coming back to your shot when I visit the tread looking for more pictures and there is just something about your shot I truly enjoy...I like the geometry but the color is also really appealing to me as is the overall composition. I dunno but it really is a nice shot to look at and should be "wall worthy" for your home!

Thanks breck, this one I took great care to compose. I wanted to make the lines and color really stand out. Notice how the eyes is led into the picture, then back to the foreground, and the back in again. My only regret is the softness on the lower foreground.

The rest of the series is on Flickr.

[shemazar]

Anyone have any comparison shots of the same scene at 12mm of the Pentax 12-24 and 10mm of the Sigma 10-20?

Theoretically, there's a big difference in the FoV from 10mm and 12mm, but when looking at the specs between the two lenses, the Angle of View (not to be confused with FoV - field of view). The angle of view between them is only 3.4 degrees by spec sheets.

Sigma 10-20: 102.4 degree angle of view
Pentax 12-24: 99 degree angle of view

Anyone have such images to share? Leaning towards the Pentax unless the Sigma's difference is actually much wider that it seems (3.4 degrees AoV difference by spec).

Thanks.

[dave9t5]

Anyone have any comparison shots of the same scene at 12mm of the Pentax 12-24 and 10mm of the Sigma 10-20?

Theoretically, there's a big difference in the FoV from 10mm and 12mm, but when looking at the specs between the two lenses, the Angle of View (not to be confused with FoV - field of view). The angle of view between them is only 3.4 degrees by spec sheets.

Sigma 10-20: 102.4 degree angle of view
Pentax 12-24: 99 degree angle of view

Anyone have such images to share? Leaning towards the Pentax unless the Sigma's difference is actually much wider that it seems (3.4 degrees AoV difference by spec).

Thanks.

We might expect the AoV of the Sigma 10mm to be 12mm/10mm*99deg = 119deg.

However, the relationship between AoV and FL is not linear for rectilinear lenses.

At normal to tele focal lengths it is almost linear, so we can use linear approximations:
a 200mm lens has twice the AoV of a 400mm lens
a 100mm lens has twice the AoV of a 200mm lens
a 50mm lens has twice the Aov of a 100mm lens
etc.
etc.

However, at wider angles the near-linearity diminishes.

So, we might expect that on a 2x FL zoom lens such as the DA 12-24mm that the 12mm FL has twice the AoV of a 24mm lens, but looking at Pentax's spec:
@24mm = 61 deg
@12mm = 99 deg
we can see that in fact it is only a 1.6x AoV change.

In plain terms, the reason is that we can't keep halving the FL to double the AoV because at we quickly start to approach a limit of 180degree AoV which pushes back hard.

[jenko]

Thought I'd give this thread a bump, got this lens a little while ago (maybe 3-4 weeks?) but haven't had much of a play with it until today - only still playing around with it but goddamn it's nice.



Shot in raw and just a tad of sharpening

[henniker]

I've had this lens for three years and have been delighted with its performance. One day in the winter I found the zoom ring to be stiff. Now, as a workaround I often have to manually change focusing distance before I can change the focal length.

I'm hesitant about dismantling it for lubrication (if that's what it needs) but don't want to part with it as it's probably the most frequently used lens of the four I have.

regards Dave.

[creampuff]

Mine is on its way!
It is a fine lens but shame that it isn't priced a little more competitive to the Sigma 10-20mm. Some who bought the Sigma might well prefer using the optically better Pentax if it was a priced a little lower.