[dehanson1]

Iam trying to decide between a pentax 12-24 and a sigma 10-20. I am starting to lean toward the 10-20. I noticed there are 2 different 10-20's. One w/f4 and one with a constant f3.5. The latter being 170.00 more than the f4. Does anyone have any personal experience w the 12-24, 10-20 f4, and 10-20 f3.5? Is the 3.5 worth the extra money? The 3.5 also has the HSM focusing motor in it. Can that be used on a kx?

Thanks

[Pentaxor]

Iam trying to decide between a pentax 12-24 and a sigma 10-20. I am starting to lean toward the 10-20. I noticed there are 2 different 10-20's. One w/f4 and one with a constant f3.5. The latter being 170.00 more than the f4. Does anyone have any personal experience w the 12-24, 10-20 f4, and 10-20 f3.5? Is the 3.5 worth the extra money? The 3.5 also has the HSM focusing motor in it. Can that be used on a kx?

Thanks

if you have the cash or willing to pay extra, go for the 12-24. the added 24mm can be really useful and worth it. if budget does not permit you to buy it, go for the cheapest 10-20, not the f3.5. f3.5 is not worth the extra money, nor the HSM.

[neweinstein]

but I would prefer the 10mm. That quite a difference compared to 12mm.

I have the Sigma 10-20 / 4-5.something and I'm quite happy with this one.

PHILIP

[Pentaxor]

but I would prefer the 10mm. That quite a difference compared to 12mm.

I have the Sigma 10-20 / 4-5.something and I'm quite happy with this one.

PHILIP

true, as long as you can live with the distortion, stop down compensation for IQ and a longer workflow. though I believe this would come down to the budget of the OP.

I have the 10-20 and I'm very happy with it, as are the people who have contributed to this thread - https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/84539-sigma-10-20mm-club.html (most of whom own the older, cheaper version I believe). The owners of the Pentax 12-24 are also happy with their lens so you can't really go wrong. Sigma does have a much longer warranty than Pentax though (only 1 yr).

IMO, you don't need the constant 3.5 aperture of the newer version, it's not necessary on an ultra wide (certainly not worth an extra $170).

That's my 2 cents anyway.

[axl]

as Gary pointed out there are many 10-20/4-5.6 owners very happy with this lens. The extreme corners at 10mm show some ddiistortion and some softness but hey it's 10mm. I do like this lens but it's tad on the big side and there were times I wished for faster f stop. If only it was 10mm f4 prime... oh well,
btw: I may be selling my copy, so keep an eye.

BR
Peter

[Russell-Evans]

If only it was 10mm f4 prime...

For my use it is a 10mm f4 prime, 11-20mm, only by accident. If only it was a 10mm f4 prime the size of the DA 15mm f4 ...

This was how my decision went:
Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 macro - US $419
Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 - US $479
Total - US $898
or
Pentax 12-24mm f4 - US $719.95

Thank you
Russell

[Hello_Photo]

I've had the 10-20 for nearly two years. It's definitely not my most used lens, but it makes a great impression when it does come out of my bag. My main complaints are its size (I blame my DA35 and FA 77 for this) and flare that can pop-up in contra-light situations.

In terms of shooting technique, I usually manual focus to just past the 3-foot mark on the focus ring, since the DOF is so massive. The one exception, is where I'm taking hand-held shots of my son playing, where I'll MF to about 2 feet, hold the camera low infront of him while he runs and "spray and pray" for a decently framed shot out of the bunch. Another unconventional use (non-landscape) is for up-close shots of kids indoors. Last Christmas, I took advantage of the large DOF at 10-15mm used MF and TAv with a flash indoors to take action shots of the kids opening their presents and playing with them. Lots of fun.

As to whether I would upgrade to the F/3.5 version? No. For landscapes, I'm usually at F/8 anyway. Also, when you consider that you only need 1/15 sec shutter speed to hand hold at 10mm with a static subject (even less with SR and concentration), the lure of a faster or constant aperture lens is lost on me.

[panoguy]

As to whether I would upgrade to the F/3.5 version? No. For landscapes, I'm usually at F/8 anyway. Also, when you consider that you only need 1/15 sec shutter speed to hand hold at 10mm with a static subject (even less with SR and concentration), the lure of a faster or constant aperture lens is lost on me.

You're right that if you already have the 10-20mm in variable-aperture, there wouldn't be a huge reason to upgrade. However, if you are buying new, there may be reasons aside from cost. I recently ordered the constant 3.5 version over the "older" one (at a $180 premium) for three reasons:
- Sharper than the old 10-20 at the edges (depending on the test you read)
- I use the full range and manual focus sometimes, and that's a much brighter viewfinder at 20mm
- HSM w/ quickshift focus override for hyperfocal when you need it

Plus I already have some nice 82mm filters (CPL and NDs) for another lens, so the larger filter size is a non-issue for me, personally.

Edit: just thought I'd add that while the Pentax 12-24 is only slightly more expensive than the 3.5 Sigma, and known to be sharp - I happen to be very wide-angle hungry (as my name would suggest). 10mm vs. 12mm on an APS-C sensor is a bigger difference in FOV than you'd think! (+12 degrees, in this case)

[aleonx3]

Both the sigma 10-20mm and Pentax 12-24mm are great lens to own. I based my decision on how often do I use the lens. Since both are 2x lens, sigma has the advantage on the wide end (10mm) while Pentax has it on the long end (24mm). Yes, I realize there is a big difference between 10 and 12mm, but I do find that 24mm is more useful as a walk around lens. The other advantage is the constant aperture on the 12-24mm makes it more useful for both outdoor and indoor shots especially with flash (which depends much on the max aperture).

I ended up getting a used 12-24mm and I am happy with my copy. As I said before, it depends on your application.

[axl]

For my use it is a 10mm f4 prime, 11-20mm, only by accident. If only it was a 10mm f4 prime the size of the DA 15mm f4 ...

This was how my decision went:
Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 macro - US $419
Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 - US $479
Total - US $898
or
Pentax 12-24mm f4 - US $719.95

Thank you
Russell

My usage of the 10-20 is pretty much the same Russell.
My wish was more about the size. If it was the size of FA20 or so and 10mm f4 prime that would be great. Like this it often gets left out for it's size, especialy when I really like 24.
I'm really thinking of selling 10-20 in favor of FA20 or K15 or K18. Frankly, I would be happy with DA15 but I can't afford it

[Lowell Goudge]

Iam trying to decide between a pentax 12-24 and a sigma 10-20. I am starting to lean toward the 10-20. I noticed there are 2 different 10-20's. One w/f4 and one with a constant f3.5. The latter being 170.00 more than the f4. Does anyone have any personal experience w the 12-24, 10-20 f4, and 10-20 f3.5? Is the 3.5 worth the extra money? The 3.5 also has the HSM focusing motor in it. Can that be used on a kx?

Thanks

It depends on your lens kit and other lenses.

I have the origonal 10-20 F4-5.6 and am very happy with it. I shoot about 60% of all shots at 10mm and would therefore probably miss the additional field of view if I had a 12-24. BUT, I also have 4 zooms as my basic set-up

a 10-20, a 18-35 a 28-75 and a 70-200, the latter two being constant aperture F2.8 lenses. The point is that I have an overlap witl all lenses in terms of focal lengths.

if you are really restricted by light the constant aperture F3.5 may be of interest, but with a wide angle lens, usually you are interested in static things, land scapes buildings etc, and the SR in the camera body solves most of those issues so that real lens speed is not as critical. (IMO)

Consider what you shoot what you have already for lenses, and whether the 10-12mm gap is more or less important than the 20-24mm gap.

[panoguy]

Consider what you shoot what you have already for lenses, and whether the 10-12mm gap is more or less important than the 20-24mm gap.

Interesting to note that the 10-12mm gap is around 12 degrees of view, while the 20-24mm gap is around 11 degrees of view.

I don't think any difference will be known unless you already have a definite shooting style and history in those focal lengths, at which point you'd have one or the other and not need to ask. Like it's been said many times before; "no wrong answer."

[philbaum]

Damn Brit's comment:

IMO, you don't need the constant 3.5 aperture of the newer version, it's not necessary on an ultra wide (certainly not worth an extra $170).

I think the basis for this quote is the shutter speed thumb rule, i.e. 1/FL in sec = min shutter speed. In other words, for a 10mm FL(if we put in 1.5 to compensate for the crop factor), we should have a shutter speed of 1/15 sec. Thats even without any Pentax SR effects. so yes, my experience indicates Damn Brit's comment to be generally true, except where one needs to stop fast subject action.

With the higher ISO capabilities of new sensors, the need for large apertures seems to be diminishing as well.

The 10-20 F4 lens is already somewhat bulky, i wouldn't want to make room for its bigger cousins.

I spent so much time studying this 18 months ago, while waiting for the Tamron version to come out, i finally realized that i was missing many opportunities to use one, so popped for the 10-20. never regretted the decision. Like someone else said, i haven't found the UWA FL range to be a frequent use for me. If it would be for you, then perhaps pop for the Pentax.

[Jewelltrail]

Russell-Evans: This was how my decision went:
Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 macro - US $419
Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 - US $479
Total - US $898
or
Pentax 12-24mm f4 - US $719.95

LOL Some pretty basic and loud speaking math which resonates with my feelings as well. Mine was only a little bit different:

Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 $449
Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 $425
Total US $874

Pentax 12-24mm f4 US $720


With my Tammy covering the 17-24mm focal range, much of the Da's advantage was canceled out. On top of this, I really like the fact that PF/CA is a non-issue with the Sigma lens, though I couldn't say that for the Pentax lens. Not that the PF/CA is serious, because it is not, but I do not think it should be there on a lens of that cost--just my 2 cents. As Gary mentions the warranty is better on the Sigma too.

Lowell Goudge: .....and whether the 10-12mm gap is more or less important than the 20-24mm gap.

Sounds like excellent advice to me. Finally, visit the thread which Dam Brit provides above and see what you think about the Sigma. Then look at as many Da 12-24mm pics as you can. Go to this forum' reviews for both lenses and read what owners have to say. Best!