[Rondec]

I can't imagine that many people would buy the 12-24 instead of the 11-18 unless it's for cost reasons. 18mm is a perfect spot to change lenses to something else that covers about that point out to something longer. This isn't to say the 12-24 isn't without merit, it's just not a star lens, and Pentax usually does very nice things when they stick that label on the side.

My guess would be that the 11-18 will be considerably bigger and require bigger filters. The 12-24 already requires 77mm filters. If you don't need f2.8 aperture, then you save money (both with regard to filters and the lens itself) and have a little smaller lens with the 12-24.

The biggest negative with the 12-24 is fringing.

The question is WHY?, when you have the 15-30 that cover full frame.

I think the reasons would be smaller size and the ability to use (albeit expensive) screw in filters.

[normhead]

the ability to use (albeit expensive) screw in filters.

There's another reason.

[pres589]

Yeah, I'm not buying the 11-18 unless I have a business case to do so, and right now I make no money from photog shenanigans. I'm very happy with my DA 15.

[northcoastgreg]

I can't imagine that many people would buy the 12-24 instead of the 11-18 unless it's for cost reasons. 18mm is a perfect spot to change lenses to something else that covers about that point out to something longer. This isn't to say the 12-24 isn't without merit, it's just not a star lens,

I shoot zooms precisely to avoid making a lot of lens changes, so the extra 19-24 is a big deal for me, since it means the lens will stay on the camera longer. And while star quality is exceptional, the DA 12-24, in terms of IQ, is hardly chopped liver. While not quite matching star quality, it comes very close.

The DA* 11-18 will be awesome for those who need f2.8 or AW. Some of us, however, don't need either. I personally don't find AW to be all that useful in a WA lens (can't keep water off the front element in any case), and I'm really not a fan of f2.8 zooms. Slower aperture zooms are lighter and less expensive and often have greater focal ranges, and have absolutely no use for f2.8.

The DA 12-24 and this new DA* 11-18 are different lenses serving different needs. It would be preferable that the DA lineup include both zooms.

I've not used the DA 14 or 12-24, so, grain of salt with this next bit; I have my doubts that the 12-24, at 15mm, is any better at being a lens than the DA 15.

I have both lenses. Yes, the DA 15, in a number of subtle ways, is better than the DA 12-24, but it's not better in all respects. The DA 12-24 features significantly less field curvature, so it's easier to get sharp edges with it. The DA 15 has a bit more contrast and slightly better color rendition than the 12-24. It also features that limited rendering, which the 12-24 entirely lacks. At its sweet spot, the DA 15 will produce nicer images than the 12-24. But with some types of light and textures, it will take a sharp eye to notice the difference.

[pres589]

Good information, thank-you for your feedback on those lenses, and it all makes sense to me.

[house]

I'm looking for an alternative to the da 15 ltd as it's not sharp enough across the frame when photographing buildings. The top of buildings tend to become very blurry and when doing flat facades you see the field curvature and uneven sharpness way to clearly even for relatively small images printed in magazines.

The 15 ltd is great for documentary photography, showing people doing stuff in context. Makes really gorgeous images for that type of stuff. I'm also not happy with how it renders in overcast light, it's beautiful when the colours and light is strong not so much when the light i even and subtle (overcast is usually ideal for architecture photography, depending on school of course.)

So I don't need the zoom and I don't need the fast aperture but if it's great across the frame at slower apertures I doubt I can resist.

[acoufap]

I'm looking for an alternative to the da 15 ltd as it's not sharp enough across the frame when photographing buildings. The top of buildings tend to become very blurry and when doing flat facades you see the field curvature and uneven sharpness way to clearly even for relatively small images printed in magazines.

The 15 ltd is great for documentary photography, showing people doing stuff in context. Makes really gorgeous images for that type of stuff. I'm also not happy with how it renders in overcast light, it's beautiful when the colours and light is strong not so much when the light i even and subtle (overcast is usually ideal for architecture photography, depending on school of course.)

So I don't need the zoom and I don't need the fast aperture but if it's great across the frame at slower apertures I doubt I can resist.

The Irix 15 could fit your needs and be what you're looking for.

In size and weight I guess the two, DA*11-18 and Irix 15, will be similar. So I expect it to be much heavier than the DA15. But both WR/AW. An advantage compared to the DA15.

The Irix seems to be a great FF compatible but manual focusing lens. Using it in FF mode on the K-1, 3:2 crops between FF and APSC sensor area will offer an equivalent field of view of an FF 15-23mm "digital zoom" - of course with descending pixel count. That's not bad. In APSC mode it shows what the DA15 shows. But I suspect with significant better border and corner performance.

Until the new DA*11-18 was announced I thought I'd buy the Irix.

At the moment I'm really undecided if I should wait for the Pentax DA*11-18 or buy the Irix. It boils down to the question if I want / need the angle of view of an 11 - 14 mm lens on the K-5 or a follower and if I like to pass on experiments and opportunities with DA*11-18 in K-1 FF mode. And of course price also plays a role.

[pres589]

I wonder if the old Sigma 8-16 would be a good building photog lens. I think the DA 15 is okay in this respect but I'm only doing this as a hobbyist. I can see where the 15 isn't probably the best tool if this is something serious.

If I was doing a lot of building stuff I would want a zoom, I think, to afford more flexibility in shooting.

[Cambo]

It's too bad they are, or I would buy that. I wonder if this is a 'de-fished' 10-17? Time will tell. And does the tape on the focal scale window mean they have FINALLY implemented my 20+ year old idea of a wide zoom having a digital hyper-focal scale that reacts to the zoom focal length? I hope so, and if so, Ricoh, please send your royalty cheques to stave off the impending lawsuit to Cameron Hood...

Nice lens, Pentax; yay for APSC!

It's to bad my K3ii is SOO noisy at ISO 52,000...

Cheers,
Cameron

[normhead]

I wonder if the old Sigma 8-16 would be a good building photog lens.

It is an excellent building lens.

[robiles]

It is an excellent building lens.

I have a coleague that has one and tried it shortly. seemed nice, but i did not like the fact that is looong, and does not dit well in my camera bags. that is the reason i do not own one. hope this one is shorter; i do not mind fat

[house]

I was looking at the laowa 12mm over the irix. Since I'm shooting crop a bit wider than 15mm would be useful.

The sigma has complex distortions no? Wavy walls are even worse than blurry corners imho.

So I'm quite keen to see some tests with this new 11-18

[BrianR]

I personally don't find AW to be all that useful in a WA lens (can't keep water off the front element in any case)

I was thinking the same thing - frustration of trying to keep the front element clean on my da14mm or fish eye usually makes me quit before my concern for rain or snow damage. However, it is also useful for accidental splashes, shooting near waves or in swamps, etc. I'd always take WR over not-WR, but I wouldn't go out of my way for it on a wide angle.

I have a coleague that has one and tried it shortly. seemed nice, but i did not like the fact that is looong, and does not dit well in my camera bags. that is the reason i do not own one. hope this one is shorter; i do not mind fat

My estimate from the photo using the lens mount as a reference is about 9.4cm (or ~3.7inches). The sigma lists 10.6cm, so a little shorter. Prototype may change and my measruring may be off

[sculptor666]

i don't think any of the laowa lenses have an aperture lever or any contacts.

[mellenby]

will this fisheye or will it be a standard lens ?