Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-28-2010, 08:34 PM   #31
Veteran Member
Jewelltrail's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Rhode Island
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,180
QuoteQuote:
Pentaxor, 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.
Hi Pentaxor:

1)Yes, this is precisely my point. I did not bring up IQ or distortions, but responded to the fact that others who did, only mentioned the ones which weighed positively on the 12-24. For example:

QuoteQuote:
Jewelltrail: if you want to bring distortions 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.
2) On your "word" "irregardless" --you should use regardless, because it would support your thoughts here. Irregardless, a corruption of regardless, by combining the 2 words "irrespective and regardless," actually says the opposite of what you are trying to convey: irregardless=not regardless. The word originated in a dialect and has persisted in use, though it is generally considered to not be a word.

3) Yes, I understand the forces which drive price in a capitalistic society. It is common knowledge Tokina and Pentax work together on lens' design. For example, this quote from DPreview: "Tokina clearly cooperates very closely with Pentax (and its parent company Hoya), and even a cursory glance at the respective lens lineups shows many designs in common." The 12-24's creation owes homage to both Pentax & Tokina. This fact, IMO, weighs heavily in favor of Sigma: Tokina can sell the lens for $399 in Nikon/Canon mount, and still make money, while Sigma sells its UWA for $480, for all mounts, and also makes money. Pentax sells its version, to its own people, for a substantial sum more.

Most of the costs for lens' design go into the optical formula, not into the mount. This is well evidenced by the fact of how easily we see people "converting" one mount to another with patience, a drill and a dremel.

02-28-2010, 10:30 PM   #32
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by Jewelltrail Quote
Hi Pentaxor:

1)Yes, this is precisely my point. I did not bring up IQ or distortions, but responded to the fact that others who did, only mentioned the ones which weighed positively on the 12-24. For example:



2) On your "word" "irregardless" --you should use regardless, because it would support your thoughts here. Irregardless, a corruption of regardless, by combining the 2 words "irrespective and regardless," actually says the opposite of what you are trying to convey: irregardless=not regardless. The word originated in a dialect and has persisted in use, though it is generally considered to not be a word.

3) Yes, I understand the forces which drive price in a capitalistic society. It is common knowledge Tokina and Pentax work together on lens' design. For example, this quote from DPreview: "Tokina clearly cooperates very closely with Pentax (and its parent company Hoya), and even a cursory glance at the respective lens lineups shows many designs in common." The 12-24's creation owes homage to both Pentax & Tokina. This fact, IMO, weighs heavily in favor of Sigma: Tokina can sell the lens for $399 in Nikon/Canon mount, and still make money, while Sigma sells its UWA for $480, for all mounts, and also makes money. Pentax sells its version, to its own people, for a substantial sum more.

Most of the costs for lens' design go into the optical formula, not into the mount. This is well evidenced by the fact of how easily we see people "converting" one mount to another with patience, a drill and a dremel.
off-topic, the word irregardless is an informal way of saying regardless. dont worry, Im very much aware of the word irregardless and had done enough research about it eversince I started using it, which is about for more than a decade. and Yes, we sometimes use the Oxford English and some words do create some controversy especially if its not in conjunction with Mrs. Webster.

as far as the Tokina lenses are concerned, one must consider that the Tokina brand is a 3rd party lens maker, irregardless of whether their 12-24 lens is identical to the Pentax 12-24, the Tokina one is a 3rd party lens made to compete as a cheaper alternative to the Nikon and Canon UW flagship lenses. and those flagship lenses arent cheap as well.

so it is understandable that the Pentax 12-24 is sold as a Pentax flagship lens for Pentax and not a cheap alternative lens. Tokina cannot sell a lens technology that they had simply acquired the rights to a particular brand that they got it from due to a consortium. it is somewhat similar to the telecom business here in Canada. here in the west coast, we cannot avail certain services that are offered in the east coast due to a consortium. stipulations can really be a pain in the behind.
03-01-2010, 10:05 AM   #33
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by Jewelltrail Quote
Tokina can sell the lens for $399 in Nikon/Canon mount, and still make money, while Sigma sells its UWA for $480, for all mounts, and also makes money. Pentax sells its version, to its own people, for a substantial sum more.
Of course, a large part of the reason Tokina sells the 12-24 for $399 is because it's discontinued in favor of the "II" version with the focus motor and improved coatings. So the original is being sold at closeout prices. Still, no denying Tokina manages to sell even the new "II" version for less (about 30% less) than Pentax does its version. No doubt, the much larger market for Nikon and Canon allows them to do much more volume thus driving per unit costs down and also allowing them to sell to a lower margin; plus they don't have the R&D costs to recoup that Pentax does. Unfortunate, but more or less unavoidable, unless Pentax were able to raise their license fees - thus increasing the price for Tokina but also perhaps subsidizing the Pentax price.
03-01-2010, 11:42 AM   #34
Veteran Member
Jewelltrail's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Rhode Island
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,180
QuoteQuote:
Marc Sabatella: Of course, a large part of the reason Tokina sells the 12-24 for $399 is because it's discontinued in favor of the "II" version with the focus motor and improved coatings. So the original is being sold at closeout prices. Still, no denying Tokina manages to sell even the new "II" version for less (about 30% less) than Pentax does its version. No doubt, the much larger market for Nikon and Canon allows them to do much more volume thus driving per unit costs down and also allowing them to sell to a lower margin; plus they don't have the R&D costs to recoup that Pentax does. .
Yes, good added information to the discussion. It is worth noting, that even version II of the Tokina 12-24 in C & N mounts, is priced comparably with the "old" Sigma though.

Current ADORAMA "In Cart" Pricing:

The old Sigma, in all mounts about $480

The new Tokina, in C & N mounts, about $500

The Pentax Da 12-24 f4 $700

QuoteQuote:
Marc Sabatella: Unfortunate, but more or less unavoidable, unless Pentax were able to raise their license fees - thus increasing the price for Tokina but also perhaps subsidizing the Pentax price.
Yes, if the net effect of increasing fees resulted in a more competitive price for its adherents, as well as an increase in total net revenue, then this would be the way to go--presumably, Pentax examines this option from time to time.

03-01-2010, 01:06 PM   #35
Pentaxian
philbaum's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA
Posts: 3,659
All,
I think the price of the 12-24 compared to the Sig 10-20 probably has more to do with the popularity of the 12-24 than its cost to manufacture. Pentax knows its a good lens, has a great reputation, and charges what the market will bear. Is Pentax bad because of what they charge, by no means, they have to pay their manufacturing and overhead costs some way. the cost would probably be a lot higher if the Sig 10-20 wasn't in the market place.
I love my Sigma 10-20, but have always heard that "oh, the distortion is too high on it". I suspect what people are talking about is the 10mm end of the zoom.
I've looked at the Photozone.de tests of the 10-20 f4-f5.6 at 14mm and the DA 15. At F4 and F5.6, the DA-15 is sharper than the Siggy in the center (both are easily in the highest resolution category) but less sharp than the siggy at the border and extreme edge. At F8 and F11, the DA 15 was slightly ahead everywhere. In terms of barrel distortion, the Siggy wins with only 1.14% while the DA-15 had 1.4%. They didn't test the Siggy at 15mm so can't compare directly. If anything, comparing the 14mm fl to the 15mm Pentax is to Sigma's disadvantage since the Sig is better at longer FLs.
So the next time i hear that the Sigma 10-20 has too much distortion, I'll remind them that it beats out the highly regarded DA-15 :-).
03-01-2010, 01:28 PM   #36
Veteran Member
Ben_Edict's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SouthWest "Regio"
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,303
I can only comment on the old Sigma 10-20/4.5-5.6, as I have never used the Penta 12-24.

My buying decision was based on: 2mm more wide angle for the Sigma and many images, I have scrutinized here and on other sites. I do not regret the least having bought the Sigma. These 2mm were very important for my decision, as I already have 15mm and 16mm fish-eye and 20mm Pentax primes, so that I wanted something significantly wider and the Sigma fitted the bill better.

When stopped down to f/8, the lens is sharp enough all over the image field. Wide open, the corners leave a lot to be desired, if images are viewed on the 100% level onscreen. These flaws have been remedied at f/8.

I always disliked slow lenses and I made a compromise here, because of the somewhat wider angle of view over the Pentax lens. I also find the distortion to be very acceptable for such an ultra-wide lens. I see some people complaining, but I wonder, whether they actually understand, how a rectilinear lens works (which leads to heavily distorted corners) and also how much holding the lens straight influences the appearance of distortions.

Even if I use the Sigma inside buildings, the distortion is not on an annoying level. And if I really need straight lines, I can invest in post-processing. But that is rarely the case, as in most images the distortion is not disturbing.

Also the lack of CAs, is a very welcome feature, as the removal of CAs in post-processing often leaves slight halos, which I dislike.

Yes, the Sigma should be used at f/8 and f/11 to perform best. But that is (for me) rarely a problem, as with such a short fl I can use quite long shutter speeds withou inducing camera shake. This is one point, which realy should be emphasized.

Ben
03-01-2010, 01:29 PM   #37
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by philbaum Quote
All,
I think the price of the 12-24 compared to the Sig 10-20 probably has more to do with the popularity of the 12-24 than its cost to manufacture. Pentax knows its a good lens, has a great reputation, and charges what the market will bear. Is Pentax bad because of what they charge, by no means, they have to pay their manufacturing and overhead costs some way. the cost would probably be a lot higher if the Sig 10-20 wasn't in the market place.
I love my Sigma 10-20, but have always heard that "oh, the distortion is too high on it". I suspect what people are talking about is the 10mm end of the zoom.
I've looked at the Photozone.de tests of the 10-20 f4-f5.6 at 14mm and the DA 15. At F4 and F5.6, the DA-15 is sharper than the Siggy in the center (both are easily in the highest resolution category) but less sharp than the siggy at the border and extreme edge. At F8 and F11, the DA 15 was slightly ahead everywhere. In terms of barrel distortion, the Siggy wins with only 1.14% while the DA-15 had 1.4%. They didn't test the Siggy at 15mm so can't compare directly. If anything, comparing the 14mm fl to the 15mm Pentax is to Sigma's disadvantage since the Sig is better at longer FLs.
So the next time i hear that the Sigma 10-20 has too much distortion, I'll remind them that it beats out the highly regarded DA-15 :-).
Yes, except that the OP is not considering the DA15 or any prime wide angle.
03-01-2010, 09:52 PM   #38
Veteran Member
Jewelltrail's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Rhode Island
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,180
QuoteQuote:
Pentaxor: Yes, except that the OP is not considering the DA15 or any prime wide angle.
QuoteQuote:
Nass Hello,

I was just hoping to get some opinions from people on rectilinear lenses in the low mm area, 10-15. I'm slightly lost on which to purchase, is the Pentax 12-24 really twice as good as the Sigma (it costs twice as much in the UK). Alternatively there seems to be a rumour about 10-15 and I'd get that in an instant but is that just a rumour or is there any substance to it whatsoever? I'm not at all averse to primes either, as my dear wife knows, but 14 mm isn't quite the 10-12 I'm looking for.

Many thanks in advance
Regardless of your perception of the OP's lens considerations, I think there is enough room in his/her introductory statement to consider the possibility that they would consider a prime.

I have not shot with the Da 12-24, but have seen pics with it. To be dead honest, I am still wondering what all the fuss is about. I honestly feel the Sigma renders better, with excellent colors, sharpness, and contrast. This is my opinion--but anyone can visit the Sigma 10-20mm Club and judge for himself.

I also hear a lot here @ the forum about this so-called distortion at the widest end of the Sigma, but I do not actually see the distortion in real pics, unless the shooter composes badly. Sure, there is measurable distortion in the laboratory, no doubt--but where in counts--in the pics, even @ 10 & 11mm the Sigma does an incredible job, especially, when we remember the Herculean task assigned to a lens this wide. I do not do real estate shots, but surely that is where distortion would reveal its ugly head. Here is a test shot I did when I first got the lens, to see, for myself, just where this distortion is. This is a RAW, converted to jpg, downsized, & no distortion software--long exposure, at night, with a couple of low powered incandescent light bulbs working: F9, 10mm



03-01-2010, 11:41 PM   #39
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by Jewelltrail Quote
Regardless of your perception of the OP's lens considerations, I think there is enough room in his/her introductory statement to consider the possibility that they would consider a prime.

I have not shot with the Da 12-24, but have seen pics with it. To be dead honest, I am still wondering what all the fuss is about. I honestly feel the Sigma renders better, with excellent colors, sharpness, and contrast. This is my opinion--but anyone can visit the Sigma 10-20mm Club and judge for himself.

I also hear a lot here @ the forum about this so-called distortion at the widest end of the Sigma, but I do not actually see the distortion in real pics, unless the shooter composes badly. Sure, there is measurable distortion in the laboratory, no doubt--but where in counts--in the pics, even @ 10 & 11mm the Sigma does an incredible job, especially, when we remember the Herculean task assigned to a lens this wide. I do not do real estate shots, but surely that is where distortion would reveal its ugly head. Here is a test shot I did when I first got the lens, to see, for myself, just where this distortion is. This is a RAW, converted to jpg, downsized, & no distortion software--long exposure, at night, with a couple of low powered incandescent light bulbs working: F9, 10mm

your opinion is duly noted Jewel. however, I dont think it would be a fair or even a good comparison if you havent tested or tried both lenses. what would be the more logical or apparent reason is more of a subjective bias. as long as you are happy with what you see in your images, it now becomes the best lens in the world, regardless of the existence of other untested lenses. you wont see the difference unless you have something to compare it with.

before I made the decision of which lens to buy, I was debating between the Sigma and the Pentax as well. I asked personally about the Sigma and Pentax, tested both and what differences they have between them, optically. and had seen the Pentax is really better overall. although it came down to my budget of which lens to buy. luckily I was able to get a good deal with a mint copy of the DA12-24, otherwise I would had bought the Sigma, because its within my price range. if I bought the Sigma, Im sure that I will love it as well, but I still wont deny that the Pentax is better than it.

one example is my love for the FA35. I love it, but the FA31 is ehem....

as far as the OP`s statement that you highlighted is concerned, he followed up his statement with this one, and I quote but 14 mm isn't quite the 10-12 I'm looking for

btw, regarding your test shot, look at the upper cupboards on opposite sides at the borders, and the wall to the right where the oven is. I can see some pretty obvious distortions right there.

Last edited by Pentaxor; 03-01-2010 at 11:51 PM.
03-02-2010, 12:40 AM   #40
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Nass's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: The British Isles
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,213
Original Poster
Since I'm after the low MM area, that new Sigma 8-16 looks awfully tempting too, though there havn't been any details about it and initial signs are disappointing (it lacks the designation used for their best lenses I gather).

Also, I take it that nothing further has come out regarding that rumour of a Pentax 10-16 - was that just speculation by some mag?
03-02-2010, 12:51 AM   #41
Veteran Member
Jewelltrail's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Rhode Island
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,180
QuoteQuote:
Pentaxor: your opinion is duly noted Jewel. however, I dont think it would be a fair or even a good comparison if you havent tested or tried both lenses. what would be the more logical or apparent reason is more of a subjective bias. as long as you are happy with what you see in your images, it now becomes the best lens in the world, regardless of the existence of other untested lenses. you wont see the difference unless you have something to compare it with.
Yes, you make a good point--my opinion would carry more weight if I shot with the Da as well--+ 1 to you. But, I am still entitled to an opinion and that is all it really is. I did the best I could to pick out the best lens, as I saw it. In fact, I bought the Sigma, without even trying it. Am I happy--yes--do I think it is the greatest lens ever made--no.

BTW, your opinion is duly noted, as well as respected. I just think it is silly when someone declares outright that they know one lens outperforms another in every single aspect.


QuoteQuote:
Pentaxor: before I made the decision of which lens to buy, I was debating between the Sigma and the Pentax as well. I asked personally about the Sigma and Pentax, tested both and what differences they have between them, optically. and had seen the Pentax is really better overall. although it came down to my budget of which lens to buy. luckily I was able to get a good deal with a mint copy of the DA12-24, otherwise I would had bought the Sigma, because its within my price range. if I bought the Sigma, Im sure that I will love it as well, but I still wont deny that the Pentax is better than it.
Yes, I think you made a wise choice to think through your purchase like this. I did not have the luxury to do this, so I spent weeks researching, studying, and asking questions---deliberated--and went with the Sigma.

BTW, for what is is worth, the Sigma was not my first choice--I WANTED THE TOKINA 11-16MM 2.8.
QuoteQuote:
Pentaxor: one example is my love for the FA35. I love it, but the FA31 is ehem....

Yes, I hope to get my hands on one of these beauties someday soon. There is no doubt that Pentax makes some of the finest glass in the world--that is why I jumped on board--I just don't think the 12-24 is their best product.

QuoteQuote:
Pentaxor: as far as the OP`s statement that you highlighted is concerned, he followed up his statement with this one, and I quote but 14 mm isn't quite the 10-12 I'm looking for
Yes, I read that too, and posted it, though not in bold, but did not think it completely ruled out his going with a prime--so many people here compare the IQ of the 12-24 to the 15mm, saying the 12-24 is almost as good. I thought Phil made some noteworthy additions to the thread.

QuoteQuote:
Pentaxor: btw, regarding your test shot, look at the upper cupboards on opposite sides at the borders, and the wall to the right where the oven is. I can see some pretty obvious distortions right there.
Yes, you are correct--obviously I can not debate that. My point is that the distortion is not deal ending, just like the ca in the Da is not deal ending either. I can easily PP out that distortion if I desire, but see no need to.

For me, since I already had the Tamron 17-50, and loved it, the Sigma offered me 7 new mms of focal length, the Da only had 5 to offer. I agree that 10 & 11mm are not perfect, but they are perfect enough for me, and certainly beat the 10 & 11mm of the Pentax line, which is, of course, non-existent.

Pentaxor, you make a lot of excellent points. I am glad that reasonable people can reasonably disagree--that is America at its finest. The day this forum starts censoring opinions, is the day I am out of here.
03-02-2010, 01:43 AM   #42
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by Jewelltrail Quote
Pentaxor, you make a lot of excellent points. I am glad that reasonable people can reasonably disagree--that is America at its finest. The day this forum starts censoring opinions, is the day I am out of here.
Im from Canada and we just won the hockey gold against you guys. EH!

anyway, its too bad they dont have the Tokina 11-16 for the K mount. given the focal length and size, it is better than the DA14. I believe its a great lens for UW use.

I would had probably considered it as well if only it is available. the added 1mm and aperture speed are strong marketing points. and if the Tokina lives by what the reviews says regarding its resolution, it is certainly a steal at a much lower price, regardless of the coating difference of the Tokina lens. I believe the trade-off here is losing the added versatility at 20mm and over, which Im willing to sacrifice but would obligate me to buy a FA20-35/f4, which would be an awesome wide angle combo.
03-02-2010, 11:29 AM   #43
Veteran Member
Jewelltrail's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Rhode Island
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,180
QuoteQuote:
Pentaxor: Im from Canada and we just won the hockey gold against you guys. EH!
Yeah, yeah, rub it in now. It is a good thing Canada did win, otherwise we would have to listen to your whining for 4 more years. I think it is the only thing Canada can beat the US at.

QuoteQuote:
Pentaxor: I would had probably considered it as well if only it is available. the added 1mm and aperture speed are strong marketing points. and if the Tokina lives by what the reviews says regarding its resolution, it is certainly a steal at a much lower price, regardless of the coating difference of the Tokina lens. I believe the trade-off here is losing the added versatility at 20mm and over, which Im willing to sacrifice but would obligate me to buy a FA20-35/f4, which would be an awesome wide angle combo.
Does LBA never end???
03-02-2010, 01:54 PM   #44
Veteran Member
Ben_Edict's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SouthWest "Regio"
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,303
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxor Quote
I believe the trade-off here is losing the added versatility at 20mm and over, which Im willing to sacrifice but would obligate me to buy a FA20-35/f4, which would be an awesome wide angle combo.
I never quite understood how people get that excited about the 20-35/4. I bought one, as soon as it was released many years ago. I used it a couple of times and then it spent its days in the cupboard, until I finally sold it last year in LN condition. It is plasticky (and was too expensive for the poor build) and the images were boring. Not only do I find the Pentax primes so much better, even older ones, preceding the 20-35, but even my Sigma 15-30 produces much better images for my taste.

Ben
03-02-2010, 06:40 PM   #45
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by Ben_Edict Quote
I never quite understood how people get that excited about the 20-35/4. I bought one, as soon as it was released many years ago. I used it a couple of times and then it spent its days in the cupboard, until I finally sold it last year in LN condition. It is plasticky (and was too expensive for the poor build) and the images were boring. Not only do I find the Pentax primes so much better, even older ones, preceding the 20-35, but even my Sigma 15-30 produces much better images for my taste.

Ben
probably it didn't suit your needs or intended use/purpose for that matter. I would had to agree that the primes are better at those focal lengths, though not sure if the Sigma 15-30 is better. but size is the dealbreaker there. I don't mind the cheap plasticky feel as I'm not there to show-off how big my lens is for that matter, I'm there to shoot photos and to shoot comfortably without any excess weight and size.

a much better wide zoom option is the 16-45/4. but this is a big lens and carrying and using 2 big lenses at the same time is not an option for me. plus the fact that it overlaps some of the focal lengths that I don't have any use for like at 16mm and 35mm. plus, it's not an FF lens. my intention of having a zoom is to cover the 20-30mm range for the purpose of using it for semi-distant architectures and for casual walk-arounds, nothing of portraiture. otherwise I would get the FA31 at that focal length.

besides, buying some FA primes would be costly for me. it would cost me around $2,000 just for the 3 lens combo of the FA20, FA*24 and FA31 against only $300 for the FA20-35. that's $1,700 saved for other future investments or purchase. I didn't include the FA28 because it is a so-so performer and I dont want nor need that lens. my only regret is that I didn't purchase the FA20-35 when I had the chance where it was sitting for 5-6 months. I never bought it since I never knew the lens and was out of mad money when I wanted to purchase it. somebody got it eventually a few weeks before I came back. of course, this was when I didn't have the DA12-24 yet. so the later purchase influenced my purchase for a single 28-30mm prime lens.

anyway, the point is an if scenario. if ever there was a Tokina 11-16 for the Pentax mount, the FA20-35 would be an ideal zoom counterpart. since it is not offered, the 16-45 alone would make a great wide angle lens or a 12-24 + FA 31 combo.

Last edited by Pentaxor; 03-02-2010 at 07:22 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
k-mount, mm, pentax, pentax lens, rumour, sigma, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax 12-24mm f4 or Sigma 10-20mm f3.5 parsons Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 26 04-10-2010 02:07 PM
What else but Sigma 10-20mm and Pentax 12-24mm? jpzk Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10 01-31-2010 06:51 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:06 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top