[Ben_Edict]

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.

I did not want to critisize your buying decision. It just reminded me, that I read so many (well, at least some) raving reviews about the FA 20-35, which I find quite over the top, considering the cheap build and soso image quality. I have nothing against small, lightweight lenses, but the FA 20-35 is small and lightweight, because it is poorly made. And it was quite expensive at the time of its release. I still remember how I felt let down, after I opened the box and found this heap of plastic inside… Eben the FA 50/1.4 has a better feel to it. And the images, well nothing to compare with WA primes at that time. Current wide angle zooms are much better in my experience, so there are some technological advancements much more noticeabel than in standard or really long focal lengthes.

Ben

[Pentaxor]

I did not want to critisize your buying decision. It just reminded me, that I read so many (well, at least some) raving reviews about the FA 20-35, which I find quite over the top, considering the cheap build and soso image quality. I have nothing against small, lightweight lenses, but the FA 20-35 is small and lightweight, because it is poorly made. And it was quite expensive at the time of its release. I still remember how I felt let down, after I opened the box and found this heap of plastic inside… Eben the FA 50/1.4 has a better feel to it. And the images, well nothing to compare with WA primes at that time. Current wide angle zooms are much better in my experience, so there are some technological advancements much more noticeabel than in standard or really long focal lengthes.

Ben

I do agree with your observation regarding the new wide angle zooms, like the 12-24 and 16-45 as I had tried both lenses. although I can't say the same with the kitlens though. I humbly apologize for the kitlens fans and enthusiasts, but that lens performed below my standards. although I say that I like it's feel, lightweight, small size and WR feature. but in terms of optical performance, the 16-45 is easily superior.

[tokyoso]

Does anybody know when sigma 8-16 will be at the shops? still haven't picked up a ultra wide angle...

[Nass]

Does anybody know when sigma 8-16 will be at the shops? still haven't picked up a ultra wide angle...

I called up a shop in the UK about it, they had the notice last week, expect prices in the next week and purchase availability a month after. Allegedly Sigma moves quite quickly after the notice. But, being in Japan, I'd be surprised if it wasn't sooner for you?

[tokyoso]

I called up a shop in the UK about it, they had the notice last week, expect prices in the next week and purchase availability a month after. Allegedly Sigma moves quite quickly after the notice. But, being in Japan, I'd be surprised if it wasn't sooner for you?

No, don't have the prices yet either. I heard the canikons versions will be out first in a month.

I'll borrow this fine thread instead of starting one more.

Damn, I'm getting crazy trying to figure out the "wide question". I was today visiting a tourist attraction, a "castle" made of snow and ice. As I was traveling light, I only had my K20D and DA 40mm with me and unfortunately the 40mm turned out to be uncomfortably long both inside and outside. There's the kit zoom naturally, but I had figured it's not fast enough aperture-wise and it's really not that wide to begin with. So what on earth should I get? Both of the Sigma 10-20mm zooms would probably do fairly well, but the old one isn't very fast and they're both a bit bigger than I'd like. Pentax 12-24mm is way too expensive today and too big also. DA 14mm f/2.8 is fairly tempting in many ways, but even it is a bit on the big side and for some reason I'm not sure it's worth the price today. My gut feeling is that a 700€ ($950) lens should have limited build quality or weather sealing atleast. All the conclusions above tend to lead me in one direction: the DA 15mm ltd. But I'm still not sure. Is 15mm wide enough? Is f/4 fast enough? And will there soon be a UWA lens with WR to suit my weather resistant camera bodies?

Boy, this is difficult. Or perhaps I just make it difficult.

[Marc Sabatella]

I was today visiting a tourist attraction, a "castle" made of snow and ice. As I was traveling light, I only had my K20D and DA 40mm with me and unfortunately the 40mm turned out to be uncomfortably long both inside and outside. There's the kit zoom naturally, but I had figured it's not fast enough aperture-wise and it's really not that wide to begin with.

It's a heck of a lot wider than the DA40. As for speed, it's f/3.5 at the wide end, and the difference between that and f/2.8 is practically inconsequential in practice. Ice castles don't tend to move very fast (!), and you don't need very fast shutter speeds to avoid camera shake on a wide angle lens - especially with SR. So I wouldn't completely discount what you could have done with the kit lens. And assuming you do want wider still, I wouldn't sweat the difference in speed between *any* of the various wide angle option - f2.8, f/3.5, f/4 are *all* virtually always fast enough when dealing with wide angle shooting. I wouldn't make speed a consideration at all, and there's barely a nickel's worth of IQ difference between any of the lenses you are considering, either. I'd be deciding based on just focal length, size, and price - and actually, there isn't *all* that much difference in price, either (at least in the US). Only you can decide what's wide enough or how big is too big. I've used the DA14 enough to know I find the FOV hard to get used to, and found it really difficult to justify carrying it around. While the DA15 is both a more "natural" (to me) focal length and much smaller to boot. But no question, if size weren't an issue, I'd have been perfectly happy with one of the zooms.

[jsherman999]

I'll borrow this fine thread instead of starting one more.

Damn, I'm getting crazy trying to figure out the "wide question". I was today visiting a tourist attraction, a "castle" made of snow and ice. As I was traveling light, I only had my K20D and DA 40mm with me and unfortunately the 40mm turned out to be uncomfortably long both inside and outside. There's the kit zoom naturally, but I had figured it's not fast enough aperture-wise and it's really not that wide to begin with. So what on earth should I get? Both of the Sigma 10-20mm zooms would probably do fairly well, but the old one isn't very fast and they're both a bit bigger than I'd like. Pentax 12-24mm is way too expensive today and too big also. DA 14mm f/2.8 is fairly tempting in many ways, but even it is a bit on the big side and for some reason I'm not sure it's worth the price today. My gut feeling is that a 700€ ($950) lens should have limited build quality or weather sealing atleast. All the conclusions above tend to lead me in one direction: the DA 15mm ltd. But I'm still not sure. Is 15mm wide enough? Is f/4 fast enough? And will there soon be a UWA lens with WR to suit my weather resistant camera bodies?

Boy, this is difficult. Or perhaps I just make it difficult.

.

I find 15mm sufficient for just about anything I run in to - however, there are situations where you just need very wide angle, and for that you need at least 12mm, IMO.

But really, for general shooting, I'd look into the Tamron 17-50 2.8 - fast, sharp, versatile, and 17mm is pretty wide. prodigital2000 has them for $389 or so.

The DA 15 is a stunner, and is very useful to have along in the bag in case you may need WA, or to just keep on your camera as a take-everywhere photographic tool.


.

[Class A]

I suggest you also consider the Tamron 10-24mm. It's a bit cheaper, has done a little worse in the reviews than the Sigma until stopped down, however, it's also got a 109° view as opposed to the Sigma 102°. If you're trying to create exaggerated perspectives, that additional 7° is something to consider.

The difference in AOV you state is just the result of Sigma's habit to state the AOV of their lenses with respect to their own Foveon sensor. The latter is slightly smaller than APS-C, hence the difference.

Any any single camera there is no difference between one 10mm lens and another.

[Jewelltrail]

Originally Posted by cgoudie:
I suggest you also consider the Tamron 10-24mm. It's a bit cheaper, has done a little worse in the reviews than the Sigma until stopped down, however, it's also got a 109° view as opposed to the Sigma 102°. If you're trying to create exaggerated perspectives, that additional 7° is something to consider.

ClassA:The difference in AOV you state is just the result of Sigma's habit to state the AOV of their lenses with respect to their own Foveon sensor. The latter is slightly smaller than APS-C, hence the difference.

Any any single camera there is no difference between one 10mm lens and another.

Yes, that is correct. The equation to calculate AOV uses sensor size as one of the variables. If you calculated the Tamron 10-24mm, @ 10mm, on the Sigma camera you would get 102.4 degrees for AOV, just like Sigma reports for its 10-20mm. Also, numbers for AOV can be reported from the diagonal or horizontal perspective.

For both lenses, the Sigma 10-20mm & the Tamron 10-24 mm, the AOV is exactly equal (about 100 degrees in the horizontal and about 109 degrees in the diagonal). Bottom line 10mm is 10mm.

Tamron seems to have taken advantage of the math here.