[benjikan]

What I love about the Pentax 12-24, which happens to be one of my favorite lens, is the lack of distortion and quality across the whole element, from the edge to the center.
I used to own the Sigma 10-20 when using Canon gear and although a very nice lens, does not come close to the output quality of the Pentax. However, that said, the Sigma once stopped down 1.5 to 2 stops can be a very formidable tool. The Pentax is very sharp right from f4.0 and is flat right to f13.0.

[Nass]

Just wanted to thank everyone for their very helpful replies, and I'm sorry to drag up an old chestnut once again. I appreciate this is very repetetive to some of you guys .

This problem isn't going to go away as I really want to add a low distortion low mm lens to my outfit, for indoors stuff and landscapes. The 15mm is definitely a tremendously tempting alternative because whilst zoom is nice, I don't need zoom, I'd rather have quality and have to work a little harder with composing. The thing that stops me is... 15mm... I'm really after 10-12...

I've since examined the ptlens plugin and it seems to give me good enough results using the 10-17 fisheye for now. Straight lines and all that, and only $25, what a great deal. Beggers can't be choosers . No doubt I'll buy one of these though in a couple of month's time when I've saved the money up and when there's a friendly person coming to the UK from Canada

Btw, I worked out that it is cheaper for me to get a return ticket to Canada to go buy a lens than to get one in the UK. Amazing, huh?

[Jewelltrail]

Peter Zack: So I sold it for the 12-24mm Pentax. Clearly the superior lens in every respect. Distortion is better controlled (curved lines at wide apertures) and the lens is sharp across the frame even when wide open. It costs more but if you demand the best, it can't be beat.

There is a myth here. The myth is that the 12-24 (Tokina made) lens costs more to make than the Sigma 10-20mm lens, and that this makes the 12-24 a better lens--This is wrong. In fact, the 2 lenses cost about the same. Actually right now, you can buy the Nikon version of the 12-24 for a lot less: The Nikon 12-24 costs $399: ATX124AFPRON Tokina 12mm - 24mm f/4.0 PRO DX Autofocus Zoom Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras The Sigma 10-20mm, in Nikon mount, costs $479 @ Adorama: 201306 Sigma 10mm - 20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM Autofocus Zoom Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras. People are trying to say that the 12-24 Tokina costs more, and this makes it better, but this is not true. In fact, the 2 lenses costs about the same to manufacturer and sell. The example here shows this is FACT.

BUT, if you want the Tokina 12-24 lens, in Pentax mount, rebrandred by Pentax, then you are going to pay a lot more for it--BUT YOU ARE PAYING FOR THE PENTAX NAME! Pentax takes the Tokina 12-24 lens and raises its cost! So this notion that you are paying for Pentax quality is simply not true.

If you want to say the Pentax coatings are applied to the 12-24 Tokina, and that this makes it worth the extra $$, then you need to consider that the Sigma handles flare exceptionally well--as well, at least, as the Pentax 12-24.

if you want to bring disortions into the equation, then you must be completely honest. The fact is the Sigma 10-20mm lens control CA much better than the 12-24 does. This is a fact.

Now both lenses are excellent, each appealing to different tastes, but people who try to sell the 12-24 as a better lens, because it is more expensive, are not using FACTS!

[Peter Zack]

OK lets discuss facts. Tokina did not design the 12-24mm. It's a Pentax design that is licensed to Tokina. The lenses are basically the same with the expeption of the SMC coating.
Is it overpriced compared to the Nikon version. Sure yes. But there is one thing that will drive the cost to a point. It's a smaller brand with smaller market share. So the demand does not lower the cost of production. The more you build and sell the lower the cost per unit for R&D and to build will be. But that's not enough to justify the nearly double cost.

As for my comments above. I don;t know why you are so testy. I said at the outset, I've owned all three and shot all three extensively. The Sigma is a great lens but the Pentax is better. See Ben's comments above.

[AirSupply]

Thanks Jewell, very good points and FACTs. I am tending to buy the Sigma 10-20 f3.5 to fix the wide-angle need of my current line up - 35mm f2.8 and 50-135mm f4. But I am not sure the sigma 10-20 can replace the abilities of the 16-50

[YossarianKL]

I purchased a Tamron 10-24 back in October and I can say it is my favorite lens without a dought. I have a smc Pentax DA 21mm f3.2 AL limited which I thought would handle all my landscape needs, but when out in the field the Tamron has just been so versatile and can stay on my camera body for much longer periods of time.

The reviews over at dpreview.com swayed me into the purchase and the price fit my range. The lens is a little bit lighter than I expected compared to my two sigma lenses. I highly recommend it. Sigma just released a 8-16mm which might prove interesting.

[Pentaxor]

There is a myth here. The myth is that the 12-24 (Tokina made) lens costs more to make than the Sigma 10-20mm lens, and that this makes the 12-24 a better lens--This is wrong. In fact, the 2 lenses cost about the same. Actually right now, you can buy the Nikon version of the 12-24 for a lot less: The Nikon 12-24 costs $399: ATX124AFPRON Tokina 12mm - 24mm f/4.0 PRO DX Autofocus Zoom Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras The Sigma 10-20mm, in Nikon mount, costs $479 @ Adorama: 201306 Sigma 10mm - 20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM Autofocus Zoom Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras. People are trying to say that the 12-24 Tokina costs more, and this makes it better, but this is not true. In fact, the 2 lenses costs about the same to manufacturer and sell. The example here shows this is FACT.

BUT, if you want the Tokina 12-24 lens, in Pentax mount, rebrandred by Pentax, then you are going to pay a lot more for it--BUT YOU ARE PAYING FOR THE PENTAX NAME! Pentax takes the Tokina 12-24 lens and raises its cost! So this notion that you are paying for Pentax quality is simply not true.

If you want to say the Pentax coatings are applied to the 12-24 Tokina, and that this makes it worth the extra $$, then you need to consider that the Sigma handles flare exceptionally well--as well, at least, as the Pentax 12-24.

if you want to bring disortions into the equation, then you must be completely honest. The fact is the Sigma 10-20mm lens control CA much better than the 12-24 does. This is a fact.

Now both lenses are excellent, each appealing to different tastes, but people who try to sell the 12-24 as a better lens, because it is more expensive, are not using FACTS!

if we talk about optical performance, there is no debate that the DA12-24 is the better lens overall. even the most experienced UW shooter could attest to this with no bias. so Yes, it is a better lens and it's à simple evident fact and not a myth. the price is not only dictated by lens quality but also rely on market factors as well. cite other great Pentax lenses that were cheaper before but have gone up way out of proportions.

people would reiterate that a 10mm advantage of the Sigma, but that doesn't make it a better lens optically speaking. intended use does not make the lens optically better.

regarding CA control, the DA12-24 has a horrible CA, but does that make it an inferior lens compared to the 18-55 kit lens which has a better and very good CA control?

the only optical advantage that the Sigma has over the Pentax is CA control. that's about it. and CA control is not what people look for initially in a lens, nor it is the one thing that is the important. otherwise, you'd be better off with the kit lenses.

---

Last edited by Pentaxor; 02-28-2010 at 05:05 PM.

[Jewelltrail]

Peter Zack: I said at the outset, I've owned all three and shot all three extensively. The Sigma is a great lens but the Pentax is better. See Ben's comments above.

The entire point of my post, is to question the prevailing myth, alive and well at this forum, that the Pentax 12-24 is superior to the Sigma 10-20 because it costs more, ie., that the cost makes it the "Best." Please re-read my post through this lens.

Peter Zack: Is it overpriced compared to the Nikon version. Sure yes. But there is one thing that will drive the cost to a point. It's a smaller brand with smaller market share. So the demand does not lower the cost of production. The more you build and sell the lower the cost per unit for R&D and to build will be. But that's not enough to justify the nearly double cost.

I agree, the 12-24 is over-priced. Here is another fact: Sigma sells the 10-20mm, in all mounts, for the same price--regardless of the demand involved. To me as a buyer, coming form a smaller market brand (Pentax), this is a cherished fact.

BTW, did I once not see a review of yours here, of the Sigma lens?: PentaxForums.com Third-Party Lens Review Database - 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM (AF Lens) ....................................I know you like the Sigma lens--this was never in doubt. What was in doubt, I made clear in my post to you above--let me re-word this for the sake of clarity: I argue against the myth the Pentax is a better lens simply because it costs more.

Peter Zack: As for my comments above. I don;t know why you are so testy.

There is nothing testy about the post: I do not know from where this comes. I will conclude here with the closing sentence in my last post:

Jewell trail: Now both lenses are excellent, each appealing to different tastes, but people who try to sell the 12-24 as a better lens, because it is more expensive, are not using FACTS!

BTW, great hockey game today, eh!

[Jewelltrail]

Pentaxor: if we talk about optical performance, there is no debate that the DA12-24 is the better lens overall. even the most experienced UW shooter could attest to this with no bias. so Yes, it is a better lens and it's à simple evident fact and not a myth. the price is not only dictated by lens quality but also rely on market factors as well. cite other great Pentax lenses that were cheaper before but have gone up way out of proportions.

people would reiterate that a 10mm advantage of the Sigma, but that doesn't make it a better lens optically speaking. intended use does not make the lens optically better.

regarding CA control, the DA12-24 has a horrible CA, but does that make it an inferior lens compared to the 18-55 kit lens which has a better and very good CA control?

the only optical advantage that the Sigma has over the Pentax is CA control. that's about it. and CA control is not what people look for initially in a lens, nor it is the one thing that is the important. otherwise, you'd be better off with the kit lenses.

Pentaxor, concerning your post above, I have these 2 questions--please, read them, carefully--thanks. 1) Why is your post so concerned with which lens performs better optically? 2) Can you show me, anywhere in any of my posts for that matter, where I declare either lens a better optical performer?

[Jewelltrail]

AirSupply:Thanks Jewell, very good points and FACTs. I am tending to buy the Sigma 10-20 f3.5 to fix the wide-angle need of my current line up - 35mm f2.8 and 50-135mm f4. But I am not sure the sigma 10-20 can replace the abilities of the 16-50

Yes, I agree, the fast, fixed aperture of the new Sigma 10-20 makes it an even more serious contender: for those who see these qualities in their UWA.

However, who, in any serious manner, would try to replace the 16-50 focal range with the 10-20 focal range???

[SpecialK]

There is nothing testy about the post: I do not know from where this comes.

All capitalized words, italics, and exclamation points, mostly :-)

[Peter Zack]

Ueah I never said it was better because it was more expensive. In fact that brings it down a notch or two since many can't afford it.

It was a great game. Both teams were pretty evenly matched. Tense game expecially at 19:36 of the 3rd period. I nearly had a heart attack.

[Jewelltrail]

Special K: All capitalized words, italics, and exclamation points, mostly :-)

Thank you, precisely my point! These are all tools, to be used to highlight ones point--that is why we have them given to us--to use them. But how someone takes that for "testy," is more reflective of their perception than it is of anything actually there in the text. All that is in the text is the text--it is that simple. What people read into the text is a whole other issue.

Since the cues often present in regular speech are missing for Forum discussion, ie., tonal inflection, facial expressions, hand gestures, body language, etc., all we have are words. The other tools here are meant to bring added expression to those words--especially emphasis.

As far as I can tell, the only EMOTIVE tools here are the "Smiles" icons. Again, people, all people, bring their preconceived perceptions to the table when they put their reading glasses on.

To illustrate further, if my post was indeed, as you describe it, "All capitalized words, italics, and exclamation points, mostly," then I could not have highlighted my points. My points stand out, precisely because they are bolded or punctuated with an exclamation point.

Can you show me somewhere in the post where I use italics?

[Pentaxor]

Pentaxor, concerning your post above, I have these 2 questions--please, read them, carefully--thanks. 1) Why is your post so concerned with which lens performs better optically? 2) Can you show me, anywhere in any of my posts for that matter, where I declare either lens a better optical performer?

hi Jewel,

first, when terms such as distortion, flares and CA are mentioned in a discussion, we already started talking about optical performance, especially when comparisons are made. so it makes sense or fair to point out what or which areas that the Sigma doesnt excel to as well.

2. again, irregardless of whether you mentioned or not which lens is a better optical performer, when you started comparing IQ factors, it is also important to point out which areas are the lenses strong points and weak points. and this is also answers the question of the OPs dilemma of whether the lens is better or not. thats why I specifically mentioned in terms of optical performance. and besides, the OP doesnt seems that concerned about wide size angle differences as long as its 10 or 12mm, its enough for him.

as far as price is mentioned, in general, a better lens is usually more expensive and also dependent on market factors. what is apparent, is that people are trying to justify a lens price for its worth. hence the argument why the FA31 cant be priced the same as that of the Sigma 30? I think the answer is pretty obvious.

and btw, Peter is right about the Tokina thing.

[Jewelltrail]

Peter Zack: Ueah I never said it was better because it was more expensive. In fact that brings it down a notch or two since many can't afford it.

Point conceded! My concern here, indeed in all these perennial "which lenses are better threads," is the pairing of the 2 concepts BEST & COSTS MORE, in the same sentence, especially.

I read this board extensively, and these 2 words are nearly always used in the same sentence to describe the 12-24 in relation to its competition. It is at the point where, from what I can see, the newbies, especially, think the 2 concepts, with regards to the 12-24 anyway, are mutually dependent, when, as you and I agree, they are not.

I think most people are surprised when they learn the real issue behind the increased costs of the 12-24. That is all I meant to tackle in this thread.

I brought up the CA issue, along with the cost issues ( I could have brought up more), in direct response to this quotation of yours:

Peter Zack:Clearly the superior lens in every respect.

Peter Zack: It was a great game. Both teams were pretty evenly matched. Tense game especially at 19:36 of the 3rd period. I nearly had a heart attack.

Yes, my heart took a beating too, but it was such an awesome game that it was all worth it--"It is the moments which take your breath away, not the breaths you take, which define life.!"

Best!