[gokenin]

OK its tax refund season and I decided to treat myself to one lens my choices are the DA15, the DA35 or the Sigma 10-20 EX DC (non HSM). I know two are primes and ones a zoom but given my lens lineup which would you add or would you add something else?

glass DA: 10-17,50-200,21,55-300 FA: 43,28-105,77 K: 24,30,50,55,135 A: 28,50 macro M:50 150,200 sigma 17-70 tamron 18-250, 24-135,75-300 Takumars: 28,35,50,55,85,105,135

also may thin the herd out a little as well but havent decided

[Lowell Goudge]

I would go for the sigma 10-20

Although there is some overlap with your 10-17, the sigma is a good lens, and while some people complain there is a little distortion, it is easily fixed with most photo editors.

It, along with my Tamron 28-75F2.8 make up the basis of my travel kit.

This lens would fit in the best, I think, into your line up.

none of the other lenses on your list offers the same extension of range that the 10-20 would offer.

[tokyoso]

I *think* you're missing a 8mm somewhere.

[blackcloudbrew]

Looks to me that the 35 would be the least likely choice as you have lenses in that range already. Don't know what you like to shoot but the 15 seems like a limited choice as well. That leaves the 10-20. My daughter has the cannon mount version of this and it's a good lens. However, if it were me, I'd get the Pentax 12-24 lens. I did last year and it really is sweet and complements my DA 10-17.

$0.02

[Ben_Edict]

I voted for the Sigma 10-20. First of all, its of very good quality. Once you stepped down to f/8 sharpness and contrast leave nothing to be desired. Second, you have already amassed a choice of good primes (21mm or the old K 30 etc.), which makes (from my point of view) the two DAs somewhat redundant.

Regarding the distortion: yes, there is some, as expected with such an ultra-wide lens. But honestly, the DA 16-50/2.8 is worse at 16mm than the Sigma.

Ben

[reeftool]

You pretty much have the other focal lengths covered with some decent glass. The 10-20 will give you a non fisheye ultra wide, something I don't see in your collection already. The DA 15 maybe, if you don't think the wider range of the Sigma will be that useful to you. Why not the DA 12-24?

[Lowell Goudge]

You pretty much have the other focal lengths covered with some decent glass. The 10-20 will give you a non fisheye ultra wide, something I don't see in your collection already. The DA 15 maybe, if you don't think the wider range of the Sigma will be that useful to you. Why not the DA 12-24?

my only comment about the 12-24 is that 60% of the shots I take with my 10-20 are at 10mm

I can't speak for the OP but I think I would miss the extra FOV. Maybe in fact I should be looking at an 8mm???

[Biro]

my only comment about the 12-24 is that 60% of the shots I take with my 10-20 are at 10mm

I can't speak for the OP but I think I would miss the extra FOV. Maybe in fact I should be looking at an 8mm???

I also voted for the Sigma 10-20. It seems that it would add the most to the OP's kit. Meanwhile, I'm in the market for an ultrawide zoom myself and I find myself leaning toward the Sigma. I find Lowell's comment very significant and informative.

While I certainly like the Pentax 12-24, I already have two lenses that zoom as wide as 16mm. I'm not sure I want to pay $700 for an extra 4mm. Meanwhile, the Sigma is well under $500 and gives an extra 6mm. Now, if Pentax finally released an 11-16mm f/2.8 and kept it at $800 or less, there'd be no question at all. Can I get an "Amen" on that?

[StephenMerola]

It really depends on what you need. I chose the 15mm because I don't own any limiteds and have heard it is a very nice lens. Also, my Sigma 28mm f/1.8 does decent as a macro lens so I don't need the 35mm.

[JasonA]

Testify!

Actually, I have the same dilemma myself. I have nothing wider than 28mm at the moment. The 12-24, 10-20 and 15 all appeal to me. The DA15 would be great because of the small size and weight, and I've never been much of a wide angle guy in the past so it might be fine. The size would mean I'd be more likely to carry it with me regularly.

But who knows, maybe the 12-24 or 10-20 would open up new possibilities I've never tried before. Decision, decisions...

[gokenin]

I have to admit I was leaning towards the sigma to begin with to give me an alternative to my fisheye for wide angles and when i do use the fish its usually from the 10-14mm range. Not going for the Pentax version simply for ecomonics with the Sigma i can still get myself one of the various Ereaders (kindle or nook) which I wouldnt be able to swing with the extra money for the Pentax version.

[hs57]

I sold my DA 12-24/4 lens, for me too big and bulky.
And I have the following fine lenses made from the finest metal and the best optical quality purchased.

- DA 15/4 Ltd.
- DA 35/2.8 Ltd.
- DF-A 100/2.8 WR

LG
Hartmut

[gokenin]

tight race between the 15 and the zoom. was also looking at the Tamron 10-24 last night, thinking of doing either the Sigma or Tamron that would give me a small travel kit of a 10-20 or 24 and the 18-250 plus either the 43 Ltd or the F50 1.7 for lowlight shots

[Biro]

The Tamron 10-24 is interesting. On paper, it seems superior to the Sigma 10-20 and even the Pentax 12-24. But most reviews tend to be disappointing. Then again, the few people we've heard from who actually own the lens seem to love it. I've love more reliable information on the Tamron.

[Egg Salad]

If anything I'd go for the 10-20 but actually it looks like you are already too covered.
You don't need to buy - you need to sell lenses.

Lenses in red are the ones I'd sell (if these were mine I'd sell even more)
DA: 10-17, 50-200, 21, 55-300
FA: 43, 28-105, 77
K: 24, 30, 50, 55, 135
A: 28, 50 macro - Do you really need a 21, 24, 28 and 30mm lens?
M:50, 150, 200
sigma 17-70
tamron 18-250, 24-135, 75-300
Takumars: 28, 35, 50, 55, 85, 105, 135 - too special to be sold