Pentax 10-17mm vs Sigma 10mm 2.8

schnitzer79 · 04-27-2014, 11:51 PM

Originally posted by cxdoo

That Curium photo came out really nice, considering the difficulty of the location. I'd say CP and a windy day are a must (to get rid of glare and dust/mist). Also, the dynamic range and saturation are great; was there much PP (or HDR) involved?

thanks man.no HDR in any one of the pics. I did do a fair bit of PP however . not a big fan of the HDR look, maybe its because i cant get the hang of it properly. I like it when its really subtle, otherwise it looks more like a painting instead of a picture.

zoolander · 05-01-2014, 06:03 AM

Originally posted by schnitzer79

i believe the sigma 10mm is 1.5-2 times more expensive than the pentax 10-17. if you are between those 2 i'd go with the pentax not only for the price but for its versatility. The sigma might be faster focusing but IQ difference is insignificant between the two. I was in the same boat as you but funds were limited and ended up with the samyang 8mm not too long ago. you also have that option if you want something cheaper. its a great lens in my opinion. heres some of my shots i took recently :

I can get the Pentax 10-17 for AUD $529 free postage, and Sigma 10mm 2.8 for $579 with free postage from the same online store - Ebay DCexpert in Australia. I bought my 10-20mm from them, it arrived two days later.

There's a $50 difference - what would you do ?

**ivanvernon** · 05-01-2014, 06:48 AM

I have the Pentax but not the Sigma, so cannot compare the two. However, I will say a few words in favor of the Pentax. I have found it to be sharp and quite versatile. You get both a fisheye with its interesting effects as well as a moderately good wide angle. If you hold the lens right at the 17 mm end, you can almost lose any distortion and use it as a true wide angle, but not of course as good as a true wide angle like say the 21 limited.

northcoastgreg · 05-01-2014, 07:24 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by zoolander

I also had a concern about CA's at the corners - any thoughts ?

The DA 10-17 is the worst fringing lens I have ever used. It may be the worst such lens currently available. Indeed, when it comes to measurable numerical specs, the DA 10-17 isn't at all impressive, as the photozone tests of the Tokina version demonstrate. The lens was designed by Jun Hirakawa (who also designed the FA 43 and FA 77), who once claimed he designed lenses to achieve aesthetic goals, rather than numerical spec targets. The DA 10-17 is the preeminent example of a lens that performs poorly on tests but delivers in terms of the aesthetics of human perception. Yes, it fringes quite a bit; but the fringes usually clean pretty easy in post. And yes, other fisheye lenses, like the sigma, are sharper. But the DA 10-17 is sharp enough and produces stunning images. And it has the best flare control of any zoom lens I've ever used.

schnitzer79 · 05-01-2014, 07:27 AM

Originally posted by zoolander

I can get the Pentax 10-17 for AUD $529 free postage, and Sigma 10mm 2.8 for $579 with free postage from the same online store - Ebay DCexpert in Australia. I bought my 10-20mm from them, it arrived two days later.

There's a $50 difference - what would you do ?

50 bucks ain't nothing.if u haven't got anything to cover you at the 17mm go for the Pentax,that way you have a true wide angle as well as a fish eye, otherwise go for the sigma. Especially if u plan to use it a lot in low light.the quicker AF and extra stop will come in handy

mikeSF · 05-01-2014, 07:36 AM

nice shots everyone!
I've used the DA10-17 for years and not nearly as much lately...gotta put it in the bag again after being inspired here.

last one I took was in a wine cave in Napa:

those two corridors are at 90 degree angles

zoolander · 05-02-2014, 01:47 AM

Originally posted by northcoastgreg

The DA 10-17 is the worst fringing lens I have ever used. It may be the worst such lens currently available. Indeed, when it comes to measurable numerical specs, the DA 10-17 isn't at all impressive, as the photozone tests of the Tokina version demonstrate. The lens was designed by Jun Hirakawa (who also designed the FA 43 and FA 77), who once claimed he designed lenses to achieve aesthetic goals, rather than numerical spec targets. The DA 10-17 is the preeminent example of a lens that performs poorly on tests but delivers in terms of the aesthetics of human perception. Yes, it fringes quite a bit; but the fringes usually clean pretty easy in post. And yes, other fisheye lenses, like the sigma, are sharper. But the DA 10-17 is sharp enough and produces stunning images. And it has the best flare control of any zoom lens I've ever used.

Thanks Greg, I did not know that about the lens. You described some of things which I thought I could see in images I've seen on Flickr and this forum.

kh1234567890 · 05-05-2014, 07:19 AM

Originally posted by zoolander

You described some of things which I thought I could see in images I've seen on Flickr and this forum.

The DA10-17 is not that bad - as a fisheye. But the Samyang 8mm is a better fisheye. The problem is when you try using the DA10-17 on the 17mm end. It is not all that sharp and there is a fair amount of fringing and distortion. Actually the kit DA18-55 is better at 18mm than the DA10-17 at 17mm.

DSims · 05-06-2014, 12:16 AM

Originally posted by kh1234567890

The DA10-17 is not that bad - as a fisheye. But the Samyang 8mm is a better fisheye. The problem is when you try using the DA10-17 on the 17mm end. It is not all that sharp and there is a fair amount of fringing and distortion. Actually the kit DA18-55 is better at 18mm than the DA10-17 at 17mm.

It's ironic, I suppose. I shoot with primes more often. I generally don't need a zoom.

But when it comes to fisheye, I suddenly think the zoom of the DA10-17 is a huge advantage. I guess that's because being able to control the amount of fisheye distortion is a huge part of the process - you're not just changing the angle of view.

I suppose it's also because (to me) the concept of wanting the technically sharpest image when you have all that fisheye distortion seems absurd (or at least unnecessary). I'm sure there's a use case (there nearly always is), but I just don't see it.

Clavius · 05-06-2014, 01:23 AM - **1 Like**

I love the DA 10-17mm because of its versatility. The occasions on which we can use fisheyes are sparse. However, the focal range of the DA causes it to be used much more often. Then there's the very close focussing distance, which is another unique feature amongst fisheye lenses. Getting very close to your subject plus the fisheye effect creates some very special images. Funny that it is never mentioned.

So, I don't really see how that little extra light and extra sharpness of the Sigma wheigh up against that. But everybodies preferences are different of course.

05-01-2014, 06:48 AM	#18
ivanvernon Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Medina, OH Photos: Albums Posts: 7,224	Pentax vs Sigma I have the Pentax but not the Sigma, so cannot compare the two. However, I will say a few words in favor of the Pentax. I have found it to be sharp and quite versatile. You get both a fisheye with its interesting effects as well as a moderately good wide angle. If you hold the lens right at the 17 mm end, you can almost lose any distortion and use it as a true wide angle, but not of course as good as a true wide angle like say the 21 limited.

05-01-2014, 07:36 AM	#21
mikeSF Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: East Bay Area, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,620	nice shots everyone! I've used the DA10-17 for years and not nearly as much lately...gotta put it in the bag again after being inspired here. last one I took was in a wine cave in Napa: those two corridors are at 90 degree angles Last edited by mikeSF; 05-01-2014 at 12:17 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Do Pentax 10-17mm, Sigma 10-20, and Tamron 10-24 have a physical aperture control?	torontoem4o	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	3	11-29-2013 10:04 AM
For Sale - Sold: Sigma 10mm f. 2.8 EX DC HSM Fisheye lens	giofi	Sold Items	8	11-22-2013 08:46 AM
17mm vs 18mm (Tamron vs Sigma f/2.8 zooms)	Eruditass	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	12	09-22-2010 11:05 AM
Sigma 15mm vs Zenitar vs Pentax 10-17mm	HogRider	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	10	01-29-2007 12:30 PM

04-27-2014, 11:51 PM	#16
schnitzer79 Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Photos: Albums Posts: 1,248	Originally posted by cxdoo That Curium photo came out really nice, considering the difficulty of the location. I'd say CP and a windy day are a must (to get rid of glare and dust/mist). Also, the dynamic range and saturation are great; was there much PP (or HDR) involved? thanks man.no HDR in any one of the pics. I did do a fair bit of PP however . not a big fan of the HDR look, maybe its because i cant get the hang of it properly. I like it when its really subtle, otherwise it looks more like a painting instead of a picture.

05-01-2014, 06:03 AM	#17
zoolander Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Gold Coast Photos: Albums Posts: 351 Original Poster	Originally posted by schnitzer79 i believe the sigma 10mm is 1.5-2 times more expensive than the pentax 10-17. if you are between those 2 i'd go with the pentax not only for the price but for its versatility. The sigma might be faster focusing but IQ difference is insignificant between the two. I was in the same boat as you but funds were limited and ended up with the samyang 8mm not too long ago. you also have that option if you want something cheaper. its a great lens in my opinion. heres some of my shots i took recently : I can get the Pentax 10-17 for AUD $529 free postage, and Sigma 10mm 2.8 for $579 with free postage from the same online store - Ebay DCexpert in Australia. I bought my 10-20mm from them, it arrived two days later. There's a $50 difference - what would you do ?

05-01-2014, 07:24 AM - 1 Like	#19
northcoastgreg Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Northern Michigan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,173	Originally posted by zoolander I also had a concern about CA's at the corners - any thoughts ? The DA 10-17 is the worst fringing lens I have ever used. It may be the worst such lens currently available. Indeed, when it comes to measurable numerical specs, the DA 10-17 isn't at all impressive, as the photozone tests of the Tokina version demonstrate. The lens was designed by Jun Hirakawa (who also designed the FA 43 and FA 77), who once claimed he designed lenses to achieve aesthetic goals, rather than numerical spec targets. The DA 10-17 is the preeminent example of a lens that performs poorly on tests but delivers in terms of the aesthetics of human perception. Yes, it fringes quite a bit; but the fringes usually clean pretty easy in post. And yes, other fisheye lenses, like the sigma, are sharper. But the DA 10-17 is sharp enough and produces stunning images. And it has the best flare control of any zoom lens I've ever used.

05-01-2014, 07:27 AM	#20
schnitzer79 Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Photos: Albums Posts: 1,248	Originally posted by zoolander I can get the Pentax 10-17 for AUD $529 free postage, and Sigma 10mm 2.8 for $579 with free postage from the same online store - Ebay DCexpert in Australia. I bought my 10-20mm from them, it arrived two days later. There's a $50 difference - what would you do ? 50 bucks ain't nothing.if u haven't got anything to cover you at the 17mm go for the Pentax,that way you have a true wide angle as well as a fish eye, otherwise go for the sigma. Especially if u plan to use it a lot in low light.the quicker AF and extra stop will come in handy

05-02-2014, 01:47 AM	#22
zoolander Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Gold Coast Photos: Albums Posts: 351 Original Poster	Originally posted by northcoastgreg The DA 10-17 is the worst fringing lens I have ever used. It may be the worst such lens currently available. Indeed, when it comes to measurable numerical specs, the DA 10-17 isn't at all impressive, as the photozone tests of the Tokina version demonstrate. The lens was designed by Jun Hirakawa (who also designed the FA 43 and FA 77), who once claimed he designed lenses to achieve aesthetic goals, rather than numerical spec targets. The DA 10-17 is the preeminent example of a lens that performs poorly on tests but delivers in terms of the aesthetics of human perception. Yes, it fringes quite a bit; but the fringes usually clean pretty easy in post. And yes, other fisheye lenses, like the sigma, are sharper. But the DA 10-17 is sharp enough and produces stunning images. And it has the best flare control of any zoom lens I've ever used. Thanks Greg, I did not know that about the lens. You described some of things which I thought I could see in images I've seen on Flickr and this forum.

05-05-2014, 07:19 AM	#23
kh1234567890 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Manchester, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,653	Originally posted by zoolander You described some of things which I thought I could see in images I've seen on Flickr and this forum. The DA10-17 is not that bad - as a fisheye. But the Samyang 8mm is a better fisheye. The problem is when you try using the DA10-17 on the 17mm end. It is not all that sharp and there is a fair amount of fringing and distortion. Actually the kit DA18-55 is better at 18mm than the DA10-17 at 17mm.

05-06-2014, 12:16 AM	#24
DSims Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Southern California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,236	Originally posted by kh1234567890 The DA10-17 is not that bad - as a fisheye. But the Samyang 8mm is a better fisheye. The problem is when you try using the DA10-17 on the 17mm end. It is not all that sharp and there is a fair amount of fringing and distortion. Actually the kit DA18-55 is better at 18mm than the DA10-17 at 17mm. It's ironic, I suppose. I shoot with primes more often. I generally don't need a zoom. But when it comes to fisheye, I suddenly think the zoom of the DA10-17 is a huge advantage. I guess that's because being able to control the amount of fisheye distortion is a huge part of the process - you're not just changing the angle of view. I suppose it's also because (to me) the concept of wanting the technically sharpest image when you have all that fisheye distortion seems absurd (or at least unnecessary). I'm sure there's a use case (there nearly always is), but I just don't see it.

05-06-2014, 01:23 AM - 1 Like	#25
Clavius Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: De Klundert Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,150	I love the DA 10-17mm because of its versatility. The occasions on which we can use fisheyes are sparse. However, the focal range of the DA causes it to be used much more often. Then there's the very close focussing distance, which is another unique feature amongst fisheye lenses. Getting very close to your subject plus the fisheye effect creates some very special images. Funny that it is never mentioned. So, I don't really see how that little extra light and extra sharpness of the Sigma wheigh up against that. But everybodies preferences are different of course.