12-24mm or 15mm
3,062 posts
Link
Posted 05/06/2011 - 21:38
After reading many reviews(I was in the same situation!).....I would go for the 12/24!....A wider range for 1....and the 15mm seems to be weak on overall sharpness,reported "soft " corners.....good luck...Ken
K20D...ist DS ,DA18/55,DA16/45.DA* 50/135,"A"1.7 50MM..."A" 70/210..M 50mm f2...Tamron 90mm macro,28/300 Tamron,200/500 Tamron 6.9....A Pentax DA*300... Sigma10/20,FA31mm 1.8 Ltd*********,FA 77mm Ltd!
K20D...ist DS ,DA18/55,DA16/45.DA* 50/135,"A"1.7 50MM..."A" 70/210..M 50mm f2...Tamron 90mm macro,28/300 Tamron,200/500 Tamron 6.9....A Pentax DA*300... Sigma10/20,FA31mm 1.8 Ltd*********,FA 77mm Ltd!
Link
Posted 05/06/2011 - 21:39
The 12-24 is fantastic, It is the only lens I have never considered selling or trading. Am sure the 15mm has its fans but while its IQ can compete with the 12-25 it cannot compete on flexibility.
Just noticed there is a Samsung 12-24 in the classified (same as Pentax 12-24) for £400 odd, a bargain IMHO.
If you want to see some sample images with the 12-24, say the word.
Davex.
K5 + 8mm-500mm zooms and primes
Please feel free to play with any images I post.
My flickr: link
Just noticed there is a Samsung 12-24 in the classified (same as Pentax 12-24) for £400 odd, a bargain IMHO.
If you want to see some sample images with the 12-24, say the word.
Davex.
K5 + 8mm-500mm zooms and primes
Please feel free to play with any images I post.
My flickr: link
Link
Posted 05/06/2011 - 21:51
For me it would be the 12-24. Apart from the size, the 15 doesn't hold any advantage for me either in IQ or speed.
If IQ or speed are a requirement for you, then I would think about the 14mm.
Kim
If IQ or speed are a requirement for you, then I would think about the 14mm.
Kim
Link
Posted 05/06/2011 - 22:27
Richard there's a Samsung 12-24 for sale on here at the moment for a good price. See Duncanm's post.
.........all the gear, no idea!
Me super, MX, LX, K5,DA 18-55WR, DA 17-70, DA 55-300, DA40 Ltd, FA50 1.4, Samsung D-Xenon 12-24,Samsung 100mm macro M50 1.7(x3), M28 3.5, M35 2.8, M100macro f4, M135 3.5(+others)
.........all the gear, no idea!
Me super, MX, LX, K5,DA 18-55WR, DA 17-70, DA 55-300, DA40 Ltd, FA50 1.4, Samsung D-Xenon 12-24,Samsung 100mm macro M50 1.7(x3), M28 3.5, M35 2.8, M100macro f4, M135 3.5(+others)
Link
Posted 05/06/2011 - 23:24
I went through the same thought process and the only advantage I could see to the 15mm was the smaller size - I bought the 12-24 (Samsung version) and it's a terrific lens
Simon
My website http://www.landscapephotographyuk.com
My Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/landscapephotographyuk
Find me on Google+ link
Simon
My website http://www.landscapephotographyuk.com
My Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/landscapephotographyuk
Find me on Google+ link
Link
Posted 06/06/2011 - 08:36
the 12-24 is just lovely, the Sigma 10-20 is like all sigmas in comparison - cheap, nasty, and distorted. My 12-24 was the first "proper" lens I bought, and I've never regretted it once, it continues to be my favourite and default pentax lens.
Still shooting in the dark (literally and metaphorically)...
Still shooting in the dark (literally and metaphorically)...
Link
Posted 06/06/2011 - 08:48
aliengrove wrote:
I would go for the Sigma 10-20
I would go for the Sigma 10-20
I agree, better bang for buck than the 12-24mm! At 12mm it is pretty distortion free and plenty sharp. Most comparisons compare the Sigma at 10mm to the Pentax at 12mm, which is unfair! I was satisfied enough with the Sigma at 15mm to banish all thoughts of the DA15mm!
The new 8-16mm bests both lenses though, if you don't mind a bulbous front element. A while back it was available for £380 new from SRS!
[link=https://500px.com/will_brealey/[/link]
Last Edited by Pentaxophile on 06/06/2011 - 08:55
Link
Posted 06/06/2011 - 09:19
I also agree, the Sigma 10-20 is well worth a look. I bought mine after much research back when the 12-24 didn't cost a million pounds. Now the 12-24 is so much more expensive it should be an even easier decision
Not sure what Flossie is referring to, the 10-20 seems pretty well built to me, and the distortion is something lots of people talk about but very few can demonstrate. One of the regulars here posted the definitive shot of the peculiar distortion a while back, Daniel Bridge I think (or was it MattMatic?). It's really nothing to get worried about as it only appears at 10 and 11mm, and is really only noticeable if you have a completely flat horizon like in a seascape.
Tim
AF - Pentax K5, Sigma 10-20/4-5.6, Tamron 17-50/2.8, Sigma 30/1.4, Sigma 70-200/2.8, Tamron 70-300/4-5.6
MF - Vivitar CF 28/2.8, Tamron AD2 90/2.5, MTO 1000/11
Stuff - Metz 58 AF1, Cactus v4, Nikon SB24, Raynox 150, Sigma 1.4x TC, Sigma 2x TC, Kenko 2x macro TC, Redsnapper 283 tripod, iMac 27”, Macbook Pro 17”, iPad, iPhone 3G
Flickr • Fluidr • PPG • Street • Portfolio site
Feel free to edit any of my posted photos! If I post a photo for critique, I want brutal honesty. If you don't like it, please say so and tell me why!
Not sure what Flossie is referring to, the 10-20 seems pretty well built to me, and the distortion is something lots of people talk about but very few can demonstrate. One of the regulars here posted the definitive shot of the peculiar distortion a while back, Daniel Bridge I think (or was it MattMatic?). It's really nothing to get worried about as it only appears at 10 and 11mm, and is really only noticeable if you have a completely flat horizon like in a seascape.
Tim
AF - Pentax K5, Sigma 10-20/4-5.6, Tamron 17-50/2.8, Sigma 30/1.4, Sigma 70-200/2.8, Tamron 70-300/4-5.6
MF - Vivitar CF 28/2.8, Tamron AD2 90/2.5, MTO 1000/11
Stuff - Metz 58 AF1, Cactus v4, Nikon SB24, Raynox 150, Sigma 1.4x TC, Sigma 2x TC, Kenko 2x macro TC, Redsnapper 283 tripod, iMac 27”, Macbook Pro 17”, iPad, iPhone 3G
Flickr • Fluidr • PPG • Street • Portfolio site
Feel free to edit any of my posted photos! If I post a photo for critique, I want brutal honesty. If you don't like it, please say so and tell me why!
Last Edited by thoughton on 06/06/2011 - 09:20
Link
Posted 06/06/2011 - 09:44
I must admit I couldn't get on with the Sigma, I owned the 10-20 for a few months but didn't like the distortion (wasn't too impressed with colour rendition either) and sold it to fund the 12-24mm which personally I think is a far better lens - it should be for the money difference though!!
Simon
My website http://www.landscapephotographyuk.com
My Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/landscapephotographyuk
Find me on Google+ link
Simon
My website http://www.landscapephotographyuk.com
My Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/landscapephotographyuk
Find me on Google+ link
Link
Posted 06/06/2011 - 11:03
Seem's like everybody favours the 12-24mm then over the straight 15mm. Used a 28mm over the weekend at Kew Gardens and also had a 12-24mm with me on hire from SRS. Was amazed at the difference between the two of them. Couldn't get over how far away things looked and how much you fit in with the 12-24 if that makes any sense
PPGlink
Pentax K-5 with 18-50mm & 50-200mm Kit Lenses, Pentax 55mm f1.4 SMC DA* SDM Lens, Pentax DA 12-24mm , Pentax DA 35mm macro, Pentax SMC FA 77mm Limited, Pentax SMC FA 43mm Ltd, Pentax SMC F 50mm, Sigma 24-70mm, Metz 58 af-2
PPGlink
Pentax K-5 with 18-50mm & 50-200mm Kit Lenses, Pentax 55mm f1.4 SMC DA* SDM Lens, Pentax DA 12-24mm , Pentax DA 35mm macro, Pentax SMC FA 77mm Limited, Pentax SMC FA 43mm Ltd, Pentax SMC F 50mm, Sigma 24-70mm, Metz 58 af-2
Link
Posted 06/06/2011 - 16:14
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.
richardhurst
Member
Just about to make a purchase and cannot decide between the Pentax 12-24mm or the 15mm ED AL. What would you guys go for??
PPGlink
Pentax K-5 with 18-50mm & 50-200mm Kit Lenses, Pentax 55mm f1.4 SMC DA* SDM Lens, Pentax DA 12-24mm , Pentax DA 35mm macro, Pentax SMC FA 77mm Limited, Pentax SMC FA 43mm Ltd, Pentax SMC F 50mm, Sigma 24-70mm, Metz 58 af-2