Wide angle Choices

daacon · 05-15-2007, 11:17 AM

I am looking for a wide angle -

From the lenses I have , I think the Tamron will be my walk around day / night lens (Vacation kinda walking) with 50 f1.7 in the bag. That should cover day/ dusk and night as best as I can.

I can live with my Sigma's 70-300mm for now - mostly wild life shots and as soon as football starts will use it then for my son in daily light does a pretty reasonable job (this is where I may buck up for a da*)

As you may have noticed in my sig I have picked up the K10D !!! now I am just as incompetent as before but with a much higher end tool

I will be selling the K100D along with the kit lens (18-55) and perhaps my Sigma 18-125 to fund a new lens at some point. (I think, still kinda thinking about it)

For comparison purposes I had a look at one online shop and my 'short list' is below. So I guess I am looking for a relatively fast , zoom that covers 10 - 28 or close to it. I could be convinced on a couple of primes or a couple of zooms I guess. I do like the convenience of zoom, and for what I do with the pictures the sharpnes seems more than adequate. The $700 is on the upper end of what I want to spend as well.

I don't think I will get the DA* 16-50 as for that kind of money I think I would rather have a longer range. The Pentax SMC 16-45 may be a contender as it is a great price and lots of good talk here, but is that allot of overlap with my Tamron ?As mentioned I would like to carry as few lenses as possible. Also is 16 wide enough ? (Rhetorical question as the come back is wide enough for what ? haha)

I guess it boils down to the Sigma 10-20 and the Pentax 12-24 f4 and the SMC 16-45. tHE 16-45 wind on price for sure the other two Price is pretty comparable but hte sigma is a full stop slower at the wide end (I can probably find it cheaper elsewhere) But that fisheye is kinda cool as well ...

Sigma
10-20mm f4-5.6 EX DC HSM Lens for Digital Pentax $647.81
Tamron
Dont see anything from Tamron with a Pentax Mount
Pentax
10-17mm f3.5-4.5 ED IF smc DA Fish-Eye Lens $472.40
12-24mm f4 smc ED AL IF DA Lens $708.60
16-45mm f4 Digital smc DA ED AL Lens $377.60
16-50 F2.8 DA* Perhaps June / July / August / Sept Cdn price > $1k

For prices I am heading to Sin City (Las Vegas) in October may be able to get a btter price there - thinking of doing the Helicopter tour of the Strip , Hover Dam and Grand Caynon thus the 'need' for something wide ... plus a few trips to the moutnains this summer. Do you think the 16-45 would be enoguh ?

egordon99 · 05-15-2007, 11:47 AM

I've been happy with the Sigma 10-20mm. If you are going to go wide, you might as well go W-I-D-E! 10mm is quite a bit wider than 12mm! (not to knock the Pentax, as it appears to be a great lens as well)

I gave it a workout at the local park this Sunday -

I no longer carry the 18-55mm kit lens in my bag as I have the 10-20mm and my Tamron 28-75mm to cover my <100mm focal lengths.

daacon · 05-15-2007, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by egordon99

I've been happy with the Sigma 10-20mm. If you are going to go wide, you might as well go W-I-D-E! 10mm is quite a bit wider than 12mm! (not to knock the Pentax, as it appears to be a great lens as well)

I gave it a workout at the local park this Sunday -

I no longer carry the 18-55mm kit lens in my bag as I have the 10-20mm and my Tamron 28-75mm to cover my <100mm focal lengths.

Now that is wide

- you don't find the f5.6 at the narrow end (20mm) an issue ?

roscot · 05-15-2007, 01:21 PM

Well, Since you have the Tamron covering the normal range ( I love mine BTW) An Ultra wide-to-wide zoom would seem to fit your needs.

If you like the fish eye effect, the DA 10-17 is a very good and fun lens. If you prefer rectilinear WA, then I'd go for the DA 12-24 f4.0. It is well regarded, and I happen to prefer a fixed aperture.

I have the 10-17, and the 12-24 is probably next on my list.

egordon99 · 05-15-2007, 03:23 PM

Of course I'd prefer a 10-20mm f/1.2

But seriously, outside I tend to stop down to f/8 or f/11, and indoors I have a Sigma flash which I use alot. I also have the Tamron which is f/2.8 at 28mm.

Also, using the 1/focal length rule of thumb for shutter speeds (or 1/2*focal length), I can usually get fairly sharp shots at 1/20s using the 10-20mm (motion blur aside), so f/4-f/5.6 isn't too bad.

One day I'd like to pick up the 21mm f/3.2 and the 14mm f/2.8, that would be nice for a kinda-fast Wide-angle set

Originally posted by daacon

Now that is wide

- you don't find the f5.6 at the narrow end (20mm) an issue ?

Skorzen · 05-15-2007, 09:03 PM

Tamron has the 17-35, while not as wide as some it kinda qualifies.

jslifoaw · 05-16-2007, 05:26 PM

While not on your list, the Pentax DA 14mm is a really nice lens if you're into primes. I find it about as wide as I need for anything I shoot.

alinla · 05-21-2007, 03:48 PM

I have samples from the 16-45 & the 10-20 on my site if it helps you any:
alinla's Photo Galleries at pbase.com

I think the comparison should really come to how are these lenses going to modify your current lineup? The 10-20 is a dedicated UWA whereas the 16-45 is more an all around lens. The 12-24 falls in between.

I have the 10-20 with the 28-75 as my next lens. That gap is pretty big but it doesn't bother me. If you think you may need that coverage you could carry your 18-125 instead or you could buy the 12-24.

For me however, I tend to think in terms of normal/tele or ultrawide. So I'm always quite sure which lens to grab from my bag when I shoot. I had the 16-45 & the 28-75 and both were excellent together but at the end of the day I really needed a wider lens.

**NaClH2O** · 05-21-2007, 06:01 PM

If you are willing to consider primes, I will HIGHLY recommend the Zenitar 16mm f2.8 Great little lens. Kinda soft wide open but certainly sharp from 4.0 on. Excellent close up lens too (wouldn't exactly call it a macro)

NaCl(one of the few lenses that never leaves my bag)H2O

Buddha Jones · 05-21-2007, 06:50 PM

I have the DA 10-17mm FE and the DA 16-45mm. I love the creativity of the FE, I wouldn't consider it a wide angle though, more of a specialty lense. The 16-45mm is a very good replacement for the 18-55, but I still carry around the kit lens because of its psuedo macro abilities, you can't get close with the 16-45mm. I will find out just how wide it really is when I take it to the ballpark this weekend. Wanna see how much of Turner Field I can get into it.

dbh · 05-21-2007, 07:52 PM

I have the Pentax DA12-24 f4 but have no experience with any of the others on your list. It and the Tamron 90mm f2.8 Di macro have been on my camera for the last few days, meeting my needs very nicely. The 12-24 is a big lens, for a DA, heavy and solid feeling. It is very wide but amazingly low distortion, has an 8-bladed diaphragm and gives sharp images with creamy out of focus rendering.
Some in my gallery here were taken with it.
FWIW, IMHO, YMMV, etc.
--
dbh

kskjon · 05-22-2007, 02:12 AM

Originally posted by NaClH2O

If you are willing to consider primes, I will HIGHLY recommend the Zenitar 16mm f2.8 Great little lens. Kinda soft wide open but certainly sharp from 4.0 on. Excellent close up lens too (wouldn't exactly call it a macro)

I can vouch for that. I bought it because I wanted a nice wide angle lens, but this lens is simply incredible. I ALWAYS bring it along when I have the camera with me (which is most of the time)

daacon · 05-22-2007, 06:34 AM

Originally posted by NaClH2O

If you are willing to consider primes, I will HIGHLY recommend the Zenitar 16mm f2.8 Great little lens. Kinda soft wide open but certainly sharp from 4.0 on. Excellent close up lens too (wouldn't exactly call it a macro)

NaCl(one of the few lenses that never leaves my bag)H2O

I have been looking at this - this is a Fish-Eye right ? How is the distortion ?

kskjon · 05-22-2007, 08:14 AM

It's a fish eye, but the distortion isn't bad with an APS-C sensor. Do a search in the "post your photos" subforum for "zenitar" and you will get quite a few results.

daacon · 05-22-2007, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by Buddha Jones

I have the DA 10-17mm FE and the DA 16-45mm. I love the creativity of the FE, I wouldn't consider it a wide angle though, more of a specialty lense. The 16-45mm is a very good replacement for the 18-55, but I still carry around the kit lens because of its psuedo macro abilities, you can't get close with the 16-45mm. I will find out just how wide it really is when I take it to the ballpark this weekend. Wanna see how much of Turner Field I can get into it.

Really tron between the 10-17 and 12-24 ...Both are relatively expensive one more so. The Zenitar 16mm recommended here is priced nicely - but I think I want a little wider (thus elimination ghe 16-45 as well). Ahhhhhhhh so many choices ... so few funds ....

Do you like the Fish-Eye Buddah ? I think that would be a fun lens and I like the price much better. With the right software softwareyou can 'un Fish-Eye" the results I believe ..

thx.......dy

05-15-2007, 11:17 AM	#1
daacon Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Alberta,Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 20,914	Wide angle Choices I am looking for a wide angle - From the lenses I have , I think the Tamron will be my walk around day / night lens (Vacation kinda walking) with 50 f1.7 in the bag. That should cover day/ dusk and night as best as I can. I can live with my Sigma's 70-300mm for now - mostly wild life shots and as soon as football starts will use it then for my son in daily light does a pretty reasonable job (this is where I may buck up for a da) As you may have noticed in my sig I have picked up the K10D !!! now I am just as incompetent as before but with a much higher end tool I will be selling the K100D along with the kit lens (18-55) and perhaps my Sigma 18-125 to fund a new lens at some point. (I think, still kinda thinking about it) For comparison purposes I had a look at one online shop and my 'short list' is below. So I guess I am looking for a relatively fast , zoom that covers 10 - 28 or close to it. I could be convinced on a couple of primes or a couple of zooms I guess. I do like the convenience of zoom, and for what I do with the pictures the sharpnes seems more than adequate. The $700 is on the upper end of what I want to spend as well. I don't think I will get the DA 16-50 as for that kind of money I think I would rather have a longer range. The Pentax SMC 16-45 may be a contender as it is a great price and lots of good talk here, but is that allot of overlap with my Tamron ?As mentioned I would like to carry as few lenses as possible. Also is 16 wide enough ? (Rhetorical question as the come back is wide enough for what ? haha) I guess it boils down to the Sigma 10-20 and the Pentax 12-24 f4 and the SMC 16-45. tHE 16-45 wind on price for sure the other two Price is pretty comparable but hte sigma is a full stop slower at the wide end (I can probably find it cheaper elsewhere) But that fisheye is kinda cool as well ... Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 EX DC HSM Lens for Digital Pentax $647.81 Tamron Dont see anything from Tamron with a Pentax Mount Pentax 10-17mm f3.5-4.5 ED IF smc DA Fish-Eye Lens $472.40 12-24mm f4 smc ED AL IF DA Lens $708.60 16-45mm f4 Digital smc DA ED AL Lens $377.60 16-50 F2.8 DA* Perhaps June / July / August / Sept Cdn price > $1k For prices I am heading to Sin City (Las Vegas) in October may be able to get a btter price there - thinking of doing the Helicopter tour of the Strip , Hover Dam and Grand Caynon thus the 'need' for something wide ... plus a few trips to the moutnains this summer. Do you think the 16-45 would be enoguh ?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Misc Wide angle	wllm	Post Your Photos!	6	12-07-2009 09:57 AM
Ultra-Wide Choices?	potatolicious	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	16	10-29-2009 05:36 PM
which wide angle?	Ken Eremko	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	08-06-2008 09:53 AM
Super Wide Choices?	Okami	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	17	05-28-2008 06:05 PM
Extreme wide angle choices	Stoosh	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	25	03-03-2008 02:43 AM

05-15-2007, 11:47 AM	#2
egordon99 Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Outside of Philly Posts: 1,561	I've been happy with the Sigma 10-20mm. If you are going to go wide, you might as well go W-I-D-E! 10mm is quite a bit wider than 12mm! (not to knock the Pentax, as it appears to be a great lens as well) I gave it a workout at the local park this Sunday - I no longer carry the 18-55mm kit lens in my bag as I have the 10-20mm and my Tamron 28-75mm to cover my <100mm focal lengths.

05-15-2007, 12:32 PM	#3
daacon Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Alberta,Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 20,914 Original Poster	Originally posted by egordon99 I've been happy with the Sigma 10-20mm. If you are going to go wide, you might as well go W-I-D-E! 10mm is quite a bit wider than 12mm! (not to knock the Pentax, as it appears to be a great lens as well) I gave it a workout at the local park this Sunday - I no longer carry the 18-55mm kit lens in my bag as I have the 10-20mm and my Tamron 28-75mm to cover my <100mm focal lengths. Now that is wide - you don't find the f5.6 at the narrow end (20mm) an issue ?

05-15-2007, 01:21 PM	#4
roscot Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Virginia Beach VA USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,363	Well, Since you have the Tamron covering the normal range ( I love mine BTW) An Ultra wide-to-wide zoom would seem to fit your needs. If you like the fish eye effect, the DA 10-17 is a very good and fun lens. If you prefer rectilinear WA, then I'd go for the DA 12-24 f4.0. It is well regarded, and I happen to prefer a fixed aperture. I have the 10-17, and the 12-24 is probably next on my list.

05-15-2007, 03:23 PM	#5
egordon99 Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Outside of Philly Posts: 1,561	Of course I'd prefer a 10-20mm f/1.2 But seriously, outside I tend to stop down to f/8 or f/11, and indoors I have a Sigma flash which I use alot. I also have the Tamron which is f/2.8 at 28mm. Also, using the 1/focal length rule of thumb for shutter speeds (or 1/2*focal length), I can usually get fairly sharp shots at 1/20s using the 10-20mm (motion blur aside), so f/4-f/5.6 isn't too bad. One day I'd like to pick up the 21mm f/3.2 and the 14mm f/2.8, that would be nice for a kinda-fast Wide-angle set Originally posted by daacon Now that is wide - you don't find the f5.6 at the narrow end (20mm) an issue ?

05-15-2007, 09:03 PM	#6
Skorzen Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 95	Tamron has the 17-35, while not as wide as some it kinda qualifies.

05-16-2007, 05:26 PM	#7
jslifoaw Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Toronto/Victoria Posts: 460	While not on your list, the Pentax DA 14mm is a really nice lens if you're into primes. I find it about as wide as I need for anything I shoot.

05-21-2007, 03:48 PM	#8
alinla Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 193	I have samples from the 16-45 & the 10-20 on my site if it helps you any: alinla's Photo Galleries at pbase.com I think the comparison should really come to how are these lenses going to modify your current lineup? The 10-20 is a dedicated UWA whereas the 16-45 is more an all around lens. The 12-24 falls in between. I have the 10-20 with the 28-75 as my next lens. That gap is pretty big but it doesn't bother me. If you think you may need that coverage you could carry your 18-125 instead or you could buy the 12-24. For me however, I tend to think in terms of normal/tele or ultrawide. So I'm always quite sure which lens to grab from my bag when I shoot. I had the 16-45 & the 28-75 and both were excellent together but at the end of the day I really needed a wider lens.

05-21-2007, 06:01 PM	#9
NaClH2O Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Bronx NY Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,631	If you are willing to consider primes, I will HIGHLY recommend the Zenitar 16mm f2.8 Great little lens. Kinda soft wide open but certainly sharp from 4.0 on. Excellent close up lens too (wouldn't exactly call it a macro) NaCl(one of the few lenses that never leaves my bag)H2O

05-21-2007, 06:50 PM	#10
Buddha Jones Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Charlotte, NC Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,587	I have the DA 10-17mm FE and the DA 16-45mm. I love the creativity of the FE, I wouldn't consider it a wide angle though, more of a specialty lense. The 16-45mm is a very good replacement for the 18-55, but I still carry around the kit lens because of its psuedo macro abilities, you can't get close with the 16-45mm. I will find out just how wide it really is when I take it to the ballpark this weekend. Wanna see how much of Turner Field I can get into it.

05-21-2007, 07:52 PM	#11
dbh Inactive Account Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Edmonton Photos: Gallery Posts: 404	I have the Pentax DA12-24 f4 but have no experience with any of the others on your list. It and the Tamron 90mm f2.8 Di macro have been on my camera for the last few days, meeting my needs very nicely. The 12-24 is a big lens, for a DA, heavy and solid feeling. It is very wide but amazingly low distortion, has an 8-bladed diaphragm and gives sharp images with creamy out of focus rendering. Some in my gallery here were taken with it. FWIW, IMHO, YMMV, etc. -- dbh

05-22-2007, 02:12 AM	#12
kskjon Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Ålesund, Norway Photos: Gallery Posts: 170	Originally posted by NaClH2O If you are willing to consider primes, I will HIGHLY recommend the Zenitar 16mm f2.8 Great little lens. Kinda soft wide open but certainly sharp from 4.0 on. Excellent close up lens too (wouldn't exactly call it a macro) I can vouch for that. I bought it because I wanted a nice wide angle lens, but this lens is simply incredible. I ALWAYS bring it along when I have the camera with me (which is most of the time)

05-22-2007, 06:34 AM	#13
daacon Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Alberta,Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 20,914 Original Poster	Originally posted by NaClH2O If you are willing to consider primes, I will HIGHLY recommend the Zenitar 16mm f2.8 Great little lens. Kinda soft wide open but certainly sharp from 4.0 on. Excellent close up lens too (wouldn't exactly call it a macro) NaCl(one of the few lenses that never leaves my bag)H2O I have been looking at this - this is a Fish-Eye right ? How is the distortion ?

05-22-2007, 08:14 AM	#14
kskjon Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Ålesund, Norway Photos: Gallery Posts: 170	It's a fish eye, but the distortion isn't bad with an APS-C sensor. Do a search in the "post your photos" subforum for "zenitar" and you will get quite a few results.

05-22-2007, 09:14 AM	#15
daacon Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Alberta,Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 20,914 Original Poster	Originally posted by Buddha Jones I have the DA 10-17mm FE and the DA 16-45mm. I love the creativity of the FE, I wouldn't consider it a wide angle though, more of a specialty lense. The 16-45mm is a very good replacement for the 18-55, but I still carry around the kit lens because of its psuedo macro abilities, you can't get close with the 16-45mm. I will find out just how wide it really is when I take it to the ballpark this weekend. Wanna see how much of Turner Field I can get into it. Really tron between the 10-17 and 12-24 ...Both are relatively expensive one more so. The Zenitar 16mm recommended here is priced nicely - but I think I want a little wider (thus elimination ghe 16-45 as well). Ahhhhhhhh so many choices ... so few funds .... Do you like the Fish-Eye Buddah ? I think that would be a fun lens and I like the price much better. With the right software softwareyou can 'un Fish-Eye" the results I believe .. thx.......dy