[GingerBeer]

I just picked up a DA 14mm but was torn between it, the DA 15mm Ltd and the DA 12-24mm. Depending on how you use it there are strong arguments for each one over the other two. I'm ecstatic with the DA 14mm, would love to own the others too but realistically will only ever own one of them at any one point in time. It's a really tough choice and comes down to a combination of which features you value most and then price.

[interested_observer]

I have the 12-24. I have seen images from the Sigma and it too is wonderful. There is always going to be the eternal argument that 12 is not wide enough, you need the 10. There too is the position that there are only so many pixels on the sensor, and by drawing in additional image from the edges, you are diminishing the IQ to some degree. The FOV between the 10 and 12 end is several degrees. The other point in differentiation is that the Sigma is a bit softer in the corners from what I have observed and read - not having the lens.

Also, price between the Pentax and Sigma is not inconsequential.

I, over a couple of years, have acquired the 12-24 and 10-17 FE. Their respective FOVs complement each other 180-100 degrees (10-17) and 100-60 degrees (12-24). With the 12-24, if I need wider, I can go portrait orientation and stitch a panorama, of switch to the 10-17.

Everything hinges on what you want to do with it and how you are going to use the lens. Bottom line - between the Pentax and Sigma, its difficult to go wrong.

[Jewelltrail]

rparmar: Now you are grasping at straws. How is comparing rectilinear to fisheye even relevant?

No straws here, just pure relevancy.

jewelltrail: This is most preferable, and not to knock Pentax in particular, to me than is the overwhelming distortion on, say, a fisheye lens.

In other words, I'll take the mild distortion of 10mm on the Sigma over the severe distortion of the Pentax fisheye, any day. My point is relevant--I want 10mm in my UWA & Sigma offers it.

rparmar: Exactly so. I prefer the build of the Pentax lens, the IQ, the colour rendering and the lack of distortion.

That is fine, no one is trying to take this away from you. I, and many others, prefer the build quality, IQ, color rendering and 10mm of the Sigma. I also prefer the Ca control of the Sigma, in a big way, over the Pentax.

But, very importantly, I like the fact I am not penalized for shooting Pentax, by Sigma, in the price of the lens. The Sigma 10-20 is the same price in P, N & C mounts. I can't say that for Pentax shooters of the Tokina 12-24 though.

rparmar: That is a poor justification for using a lens. I can introduce imperfections when I want them, but I do not want a lens doing it for me all the time. By this logic we would all get a bad lens and be happy that it introduced its own character on every shot.

You are not my teacher--the only person to whom I have to justify anything is myself.

[axl]

pfft LOL ! I'm sure it would be worth it....

I would settle for a 12-24/2.8 tho... but on a second thought i am not selling my kidney.

I wouldn't settle for that one. Why? 10mm is 10mm!
Absolute heaven (for me at least) would be if Pentax released 10 or 11mm f3.5 or f4. That's the lens I really want!!!
It wouldn't be big and it would be fast enough (at 3.5) And I would love it....

Exactly so. I prefer the build of the Pentax lens, the IQ, the colour rendering and the lack of distortion.

....
snip
....

Robin, are you sure DA12-24 is better built than Sigma 10-20?!?
I wouldn't bet on it.
Being and EX range, the 10-20 is exceptionally well built! No wiggles, movements or anything like that. I have my for 2.5 years and I took it on many trips, still looks like new.....
IQ? well, yeah Pentax's DA line has very typical rendering to them And wouldn't mind it in terms of colours. Having said that, Sigma can produce images just as stunning, but I understand personal preference plays a big role here...
One thing where Sigma beats Pentax though is PF IMO. It's practically non existent with Sigma to be honest.
Other CAs, well, in extreme corners and harsh light transitions you'll find them with Sigma for sure but show one other lens at 10 or 12 mm where you won't, plus it's fixable in PPing...
anyway, I think there is no point arguing, if somebody is willing to spend 2x as much for loosing 2mm in FOV and gaining a slight margin in IQ and warmer colours.... who the cap fits, let them wear it...
I don't have £950 for DA12-24 and didn't have the money even when it was going for ~£500. I got Sigma for £330 new and the only thing I regret is, that it's not a prime....

[KjetilH]

I wouldn't settle for that one. Why? 10mm is 10mm!
anyway, I think there is no point arguing, if somebody is willing to spend 2x as much for loosing 2mm in FOV and gaining a slight margin in IQ and warmer colours.... who the cap fits, let them wear it...

A very good point. I recently was on the look for something wide, and pretty much decided in store on the 10-20/3.5, as it was cheaper DA12-24 (and about the same as the DA15 and DA14). The Sigma was about NOK6500, while the 12-24 was nearly NOK11000*. It's just too extreme. The difference for other lenses isn't too bad, though.

(*That is USD1106 and USD1872)

[rparmar]

You are not my teacher--the only person to whom I have to justify anything is myself.

Well, if you cannot justify an argument to others, be prepared to have it ignored.

[axl]

A very good point. I recently was on the look for something wide, and pretty much decided in store on the 10-20/3.5, as it was cheaper DA12-24 (and about the same as the DA15 and DA14). The Sigma was about NOK6500, while the 12-24 was nearly NOK11000*. It's just too extreme. The difference for other lenses isn't too bad, though.

(*That is USD1106 and USD1872)

go for 4-5.6 version...
as far as I have seen, it's better (and quite a bit) in the corners than the new f3.5 version.

BR
Peter

[Tuner571]

When I wanted a wide angle I decided to go with the DA16-45mm lens. I bought it 3 years ago and have never looked back, it is a great lens and it performs very well for the price. However, as a f/4 lens it is not the fastest lens out there but if definitely gets the job done.

[Jewelltrail]

rparmar: Well, if you cannot justify an argument to others, be prepared to have it ignored.

Wow, using your logic, I just got revelatory feelings, with goose bumps: You can't seem to ignore the argument, therefore, I must be deeply justifying for you. BTW, the only one arguing here is you.

axl: anyway, I think there is no point arguing, if somebody is willing to spend 2x as much for loosing 2mm in FOV and gaining a slight margin in IQ and warmer colours.... who the cap fits, let them wear it...

B I N G O

[Jewelltrail]

Tuner571: When I wanted a wide angle I decided to go with the DA16-45mm lens. I bought it 3 years ago and have never looked back, it is a great lens and it performs very well for the price. However, as a f/4 lens it is not the fastest lens out there but if definitely gets the job done.

Yes, I considered this lens as well--it is a fine lens. It was narrowed down in my field of 4 possible choices: Da 16-50 2.8, Da 16-45 4, Tamron 17-50 2.8, Sigma 18-50 2.8.

But after I made that choice, I felt impelled to go super side--which left me at Sigma's doorstep. I already had the 17-24mm range covered with the above choice, so the 12-24's advantage at longer focal lengths was negated for me and I went as wide as I could.

[Jewelltrail]

rparmar: But, though I am a prime junky, I would hate to be limited to just one focal length in the wide end of the spectrum, where every 1mm means a huge difference in FOV.

Yes, I agree +1 here.

[mtroute]

Well, if you cannot justify an argument to others, be prepared to have it ignored.

jeez man, chill out

[rparmar]

jeez man, chill out

I am chilled, actually. Disagreement does not mean I'm all excited. And ask yourself what purpose did your post serve, exactly? Is it not just there to antagonise?

You might want to view my statement in context to get more meaning from it. Jewelltrail wrote "the only person to whom I have to justify anything is myself", which is a pretty odd thing to say on a forum. Because if you live in a solipsistic universe in which all you care about is yourself, why are you trying to communicate?

I then wrote "Well, if you cannot justify an argument to others, be prepared to have it ignored", which is a simple statement of fact, really. It is certainly not meant to be insulting, which is rather implied by your response.

BTW, the only one arguing here is you.

You do know I am not using the word argument to mean a fight, but rather to mean a coherent series of facts, right?

[SpecialK]

I'll take the mild distortion of 10mm on the Sigma over the severe distortion of the Pentax fisheye, any day.

The distortion on the fisheye is why people like it. Of course, you need to know how to use it judiciously.

[Jewelltrail]

SpecialK:The distortion on the fisheye is why people like it. Of course, you need to know how to use it judiciously.

Yes, I would agree with that--I just do not like, in any way, shape or form, the distortion on a fisheye, but realize some people do.