Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-11-2010, 09:19 AM   #1
Veteran Member
UpNorth's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 708
Pentax DA 12-24 f4 or Tamron 10-24 f3.5/4.5.....

I'm thinking that a wide-angle lens is the next one I'd like to add to the arsenal, and I was wondering what people thought of the Pentax DA 12-24 f4 versus Tamron 10-24 f3.5/4.5.
From what I've seen in reviews and discussions, the owners of either seem to be satisfied with the results. I'm just wondering if anyone out there has tried both, and if so did you feel one was "better" than the other? Given that the Pentax seems to go for about 50% more than the Tamron, do folks feel there's that much of a difference, if any?
I realize that the Tamron gives you a little more width, and that the Pentax has the fixed aperture, but how do people feel they stack up against each other in real life use?

Thanks,

Tim

03-11-2010, 09:46 AM   #2
Veteran Member
PrimeObjectif's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: New York
Photos: Albums
Posts: 600
There are a few threads on here discussing the two lenses. The Pentax 12-24 seems to be a very highly regarded wide angle, and I know it's a favorite of some great photographers on this forum. The Tammy gives the most range out of all the ultra-wide zooms. The Sigma 10-20 has a pretty strong cult following, too, and if the price of the Pentax is a bit too high for you, you may want to consider that one, too.
03-11-2010, 09:58 AM   #3
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
simple answer. if you got the money, go for the DA12-24. if not, go for the 10-20.
03-11-2010, 11:21 AM   #4
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
SpecialK's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: So California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,935
Never used the Tamron but the 12-24 is excellent and is used frequently. Edit: I also have the 10-17 so the "missing" 2mm with the 12-24 is not an issue.


Last edited by SpecialK; 03-11-2010 at 07:50 PM.
03-11-2010, 12:44 PM   #5
Veteran Member
enoxatnep's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: The edge of nowhere, Alberta, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 467
Sorry, I've also never used the Tamron, but Pentax glass and f4 constant aperture made the 12-24 decision a no-brainer for me. I also read while researching that linear distortion was better on the 12-24 than its competitors - in fact, I can't find any in my shots with it.
03-11-2010, 01:23 PM   #6
Veteran Member
UpNorth's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 708
Original Poster
Great - Thanks for the info so far. Just wanted to see people's opinion on whether they thought the $200+ "premium" for the Pentax glass was worth it in their mind.
So far the answer sounds like it may be "yes". (Keeping in mind, of course, that there MAY be a LITTLE bias, given the audience I'm posing the question to!)

Any other opinions welcomed.

Tim
03-11-2010, 01:53 PM   #7
Veteran Member
Jewelltrail's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Rhode Island
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,180
QuoteQuote:
UpNorth: So far the answer sounds like it may be "yes". (Keeping in mind, of course, that there MAY be a LITTLE bias, given the audience I'm posing the question to!)

Any other opinions welcomed.

Tim
Yes, if you walk into Yankee stadium and ask opinions on Ted Williams vs Joe DiMaggio, your sampling is going to very widely from the opinions you obtain in Fenway Park on the same question.

That said, look at the pics from both lenses, read the owner reviews, assess your needs, and make your decision. I did this, chose the Sigma 10-20, and am glad I did.
03-11-2010, 02:08 PM   #8
Veteran Member
UpNorth's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 708
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Jewelltrail Quote
Yes, if you walk into Yankee stadium .......
Now why would I want to do THAT!?!?!

03-11-2010, 06:17 PM   #9
Veteran Member
tokyoso's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Tokyo
Photos: Albums
Posts: 723
difference between 10m and 12mm

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/tokina_12_24/10vs12-2.jpg
03-11-2010, 06:30 PM   #10
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by tokyoso Quote
that looks more like a 6mm difference.
03-11-2010, 06:32 PM   #11
Veteran Member
tokyoso's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Tokyo
Photos: Albums
Posts: 723
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxor Quote
that looks more like a 6mm difference.
really? maybe this guy botched his review? you can read it here...

Tokina 12-24mm f4 DX Review - Complete "Hands-on" Lens Test
03-11-2010, 09:30 PM   #12
Veteran Member
Jewelltrail's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Rhode Island
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,180
QuoteQuote:
Pentaxor: that looks more like a 6mm difference.
Yes, it does look significant, because it is significant. If we talk percentages, with the focal range of the Sigma 10-20 & Tokina 12-24, we see the 4mm advantage of the Tokina lens on the long end, is exactly canceled out by the 2mm advantage of the Sigma on the short end.

Proof:
2 divided by ten = %20
4 divided by 20 = %20

So, the 4mm advantage of the Tokina lens, percentage wise, is precisely compensated for in the Sigma's 2mm advantage. But this is just the science/math aspect of things. In the real world, the 2mm advantage at the short end is far more valuable, since it is more rare. Indeed, the acronym UWA means ultra wide angle, hence, emphasizing the importance of the short end of the range.

I find the conclusion of the article very interesting, particularly in light of the our above discussion:

Probably the biggest factor in deciding between this lens and one of the other options (Canon 10-22, Sigma 10-20, Tamron 11-18) is whether you want the extra coverage that 10mm can give you over 12mm. If you are happy with 12mm, then the Tokina lens at an average price of around $500 may well be a better buy than the Canon EF-S 10-22 at around $690. The Canon lens has a silent USM motor and full time manual focus, as well as a wider angle of coverage, but it's almost $200 more (plus you have to buy the lens hood separately!).

I also found it interesting, that the Tokina at 12mm, really needs to be stopped down in order to sharpen up--sound familiar?
03-11-2010, 10:20 PM   #13
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by Jewelltrail Quote
Yes, it does look significant, because it is significant. If we talk percentages, with the focal range of the Sigma 10-20 & Tokina 12-24, we see the 4mm advantage of the Tokina lens on the long end, is exactly canceled out by the 2mm advantage of the Sigma on the short end.

Proof:
2 divided by ten = %20
4 divided by 20 = %20

So, the 4mm advantage of the Tokina lens, percentage wise, is precisely compensated for in the Sigma's 2mm advantage. But this is just the science/math aspect of things. In the real world, the 2mm advantage at the short end is far more valuable, since it is more rare. Indeed, the acronym UWA means ultra wide angle, hence, emphasizing the importance of the short end of the range.

I find the conclusion of the article very interesting, particularly in light of the our above discussion:

Probably the biggest factor in deciding between this lens and one of the other options (Canon 10-22, Sigma 10-20, Tamron 11-18) is whether you want the extra coverage that 10mm can give you over 12mm. If you are happy with 12mm, then the Tokina lens at an average price of around $500 may well be a better buy than the Canon EF-S 10-22 at around $690. The Canon lens has a silent USM motor and full time manual focus, as well as a wider angle of coverage, but it's almost $200 more (plus you have to buy the lens hood separately!).

I also found it interesting, that the Tokina at 12mm, really needs to be stopped down in order to sharpen up--sound familiar?
I see. so from distant perspective, the 10mm gives more evident room coverage. this however is doesn't look that significantly wider on shorter or closer shoots.

regarding the Tokina needed to be stopped down for sharpness, that is interesting since I found the Pentax version to be very sharp at 12mm f4 and less sharp at 24mm f4.
03-11-2010, 10:51 PM   #14
Veteran Member
Jewelltrail's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Rhode Island
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,180
QuoteQuote:
Pentaxor: regarding the Tokina needed to be stopped down for sharpness, that is interesting since I found the Pentax version to be very sharp at 12mm f4 and less sharp at 24mm f4.

His precise words for the Tokina, for center performance, (F4 12mm) are these:

"At 12mm you can see a slight softness wide open at f4, which goes away by f5.6. Further stopping down to f8 doesn't really make any improvement."

His precise words, for corner performance, (F4 12mm) are these:

"There's definitely some corner softness wide open at 12mm. Stopping down to f5.6 sharpens things up a lot, and further stopping down to f8 makes another slight improvement."

The corner performance claim at the Tokina's wide end, wide open, sounds the same as the corner performance claim of the Sigma 10-20mm, at the wide end, wide open. Like you, I find the Sigma sharp already @ f4--10mm.
03-12-2010, 12:41 AM   #15
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by Jewelltrail Quote
His precise words for the Tokina, for center performance, (F4 12mm) are these:

"At 12mm you can see a slight softness wide open at f4, which goes away by f5.6. Further stopping down to f8 doesn't really make any improvement."

His precise words, for corner performance, (F4 12mm) are these:

"There's definitely some corner softness wide open at 12mm. Stopping down to f5.6 sharpens things up a lot, and further stopping down to f8 makes another slight improvement."

The corner performance claim at the Tokina's wide end, wide open, sounds the same as the corner performance claim of the Sigma 10-20mm, at the wide end, wide open. Like you, I find the Sigma sharp already @ f4--10mm.
copy variation perhaps?
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!
da, da 12-24 f4, f4, k-mount, pentax, pentax da, pentax lens, people, slr lens, tamron
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Tamron 90mm, Tamron 18-250mm, Pentax AF-540 Flash jumbuc Sold Items 5 04-21-2010 12:49 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax K100d + 18-55mm + Tamron 70-300mm; Tamron 90mm Macro jake123 Sold Items 4 11-09-2009 12:51 PM
For Sale - Sold: Tamron SP 70-210mm f/3.5, Tamron SP 28-135mm f/4.0-4.5 28A, Tamron pk/a adapta hinman Sold Items 14 05-08-2009 05:35 PM
Tamron Di II 18-200mm vs. Tamron or Pentax 18-250mm vs. ??? PaddyB Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 3 08-23-2008 09:33 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:06 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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