[Rondec]

I find for landscape shots that 15mm is really wide. It takes more planning to figure out what you are going to do with an image because everything in the background ends up tiny in relation to the foreground. Probably best to use it for architecture and places like that.

Still, it can give a sense of perspective that you don't get otherwise.





All of that said, I do hope that Pentax eventually comes out with a "DA 15 limited for full frame." Basically a 20-ish mm f2.8 or f4 lens with excellent flare resistance. I think that would be about perfect.

[dave2k]

But if you've tasted blood, that is, used a 8-16 on APS-C, then you'd consider a 14-28 or a 15-30 a step backwards.

To each his own. I've used the Sigma 8-16 extensively with my K-3 and now use the 15-30 with my K-1. I have not missed the 8-16 capability at all. I find the IQ better with the 15-30 and I've not yet missed the loss in FOV (12mm versus 15mm on FF). I also have a Pentax FA 20 that is useful when I wish to travel light. At one time I did use the 8-16 on the K-1 at 16 mm prior to the addition of the 15-30. I'll be selling my K-3 and 8-16 as I see no reason to keep them.

[clackers]

That's an APS-C lens, as you write, useable above 17mm..

Your nitpicking isn't gonna save you from the lie you said earlier.

17mm is '20mm and below' ... it's ultrawide.

I was talking to one of our forum members who did a sightseeing and hiking trip to many countries with a K-1 and just three lenses ... the 28-105mm, DFA 50mm macro, and guess what? The DA12-24 was his ultrawide, shooting all over the place including Machu Piccu.

Here are *fifteen* AF ultrawides:
Full Frame Wide Angle Lens List--20mm and Under - Page 3 - PentaxForums.com

Here are *thirteen* Pentaxes alone including fisheyes:
<= 40mm Full Frame Lenses | PentaxForums.com

This is not even counting the modern Laowa 15mm f4 Macro and 12mm f2.8 lenses, the Samyang and the Irixes.

So your claim in Post 11 that there are only four ultrawides for the K-1 is false.

[interested_observer]

This quick day trip to Oak Creek Canyon and in particular the West Fork was to essentially re-acquaint myself with the surroundings - in particular, with the K1 and how the additional real-estate can be effectively used. I've shot a lot of wide angle in some off nominal situations which have turned out pretty well.

• Overall with the DA 12-24 I was extremely happy with and shot quite a few of my most favorite shots. But I asked and was granted the opportunity to shoot the USS Constitution at sunrise and sunset a few years ago and with a bit of math - determined that the 12-24 was not going to do it. So, I picked up the 8-16 so with a limited amount of space to work in (in a ship yard) was able to shoot a large square rigged sailing ship from waterline to the top of the main mast in a single frame (she moves a bit with the tide and breeze). I was also able to shoot the USS Constellation down in Baltimore in pretty much the same way. Also shot the Z bridge in Boston, where the only vantage point was a small foot bridge (unable to get a better vantage unless you go swimming). Bottom line, shooting big items with limited space - wide angle with possibly some stitching.

• Here in Arizona there are quite a few of large rocks/mountains, and even in a large desert, there are limitations from where you can shoot for various reasons. Two areas for example - Superstition Mountain (Lost Dutchman State Park) and Cathedral Rock up in Sedona. There are specific locations if say you are going to shoot the Milky Way over these, where the things are so massive, coupled with the location limitations (shot angles, time of the year, etc.) that force you into certain locations. Yes, you can stitch with longer focal lengths, but there are also reasons why shooting panels also works out a bit better.

i always say in my workshops, if you go TOO wide, you'll make a molehill out of a mountain. Use sparingly.
Similar with night sky shooting. A greater FOV captures more stars but they lose detail and become much less pronounced in the composition.

Yes - I agree and often observed here that wide angle lenses push back the center object in order to make room to pull in everything around the edges. A perfect example of this would be the Mittens in Monument Valley. Individually they are impressive, however as a group they are even grander. Telephoto stitching is really the only way to go. Essentially matching the lenses to the situation with a supporting technique.

Wider works for the situations where it works well. And - when it doesn't it fails miserably.

Going back to the West Fork, what I'm trying to do, that I didn't accomplish (failed) on this outing at all - was looking at the best way to capture the high narrow canyons (not really slot canyons like the upper & lower Antelope Canyons), but the narrow high wall (200 - 300 feet high, and perhaps 20 feet wide) canyons with the subway washouts that are located here in Arizona and up in Zion in Utah. I've seen a number of images where folks go just for the subway washouts (impressive in themselves) - which really does not capture the context of the canyon.

Stitchable with a longer lens, absolutely. However, wide angle lenses should work pretty effectively in this environment since the view that you are shooting is literately right in front of you - within a few feet (with plenty of foreground anchors). Couple that with the intense varying colors of the sandstone - up against the green of the trees and shrubs, and you should have a stunning shot. Then with Fall starting, you have the reds, oranges and yellow leaves for about a week or two. Then there is the onset of winter with the first snows here and the white of the snow on the trees (left over fall colors) against the layers of sandstone. With all the hikers and world class photographers hitting this spot, I would think that I would be seeing a lot of WA/UWA similar shots. But I don't. There is probably a reason, I'm thinking in that it just may not "work" well. The folks from Arizona Highways have been shooting this particular area for nearly 100 years.

What I am struggling with is evaluating what is going to work best - and what to acquire next. As I posted, I was really surprised with the width of the 20 on the K1. The 15-30 has a field of view of 111 degrees with the 8-16@8 on a crop sensor at a FoV of 114 degrees. Pretty equivalent, but the K1 increases the available resolution by a factor of 2. In thinking about this over the last few days, I think its just the difference of perception that I am seeing between the K1 and my K5 - and just being so use to a crop sensor. Anyway, I am going to try again and take more time. My wife was sitting in the car in the parking lot wanting to get on the road to Flagstaff for dinner - which didn't help.

[reh321]

Well, that I'd consider not a solution, but merely a temporary workaround.

No, if I were to purchase a K-1, I doubt if I would ever purchase another lens for under 20mm usage. Almost every time I mention that lens, somebody will respond "I love that lens".

But if you've tasted blood, that is, used a 8-16 on APS-C, then you'd consider a 14-28 or a 15-30 a step backwards.

8mm on APS-C is equivalent to 12mm on FF; 14mm isn't much narrower. I hardly ever use the 10mm setting, and most of the times I try it I end up narrowing a tad, so I can't image my ever pining for 12mm - but you can do whatever you want to do {however complaining gets old fast}

[funktionsfrei]

Your nitpicking isn't gonna save you from the lie you said earlier.

I doubt that that is a kind of tone I'd like to have in a forum. Even if I am wrong, I do not lie. Please reconsider your choice of words.

[5r82]

Well, that I'd consider not a solution, but merely a temporary workaround.<br />
<br />
Combined with a 1.4x rear teleconverter, the 10-20 does perform like a 14-28, and that apparently without vignetting, when I recall that correctly. Someone described the setup several months ago here on PF.<br />
<br />
But if you've tasted blood, that is, used a 8-16 on APS-C, then you'd consider a 14-28 or a 15-30 a step backwards.

<br />
<br />
Can anyone advise on where to buy this teleconverter that removes vignetting on Sigma 10-20 and makes it 14-28 on FF, please? Thank you.

[funktionsfrei]

Where to buy I can't answer, but I can point out the thread talking about that specific combination:
Anyone tried the Sigma 10-20mm f/4.5-5.6 + HD 1.4x Converter on K-1? - PentaxForums.com