The difference between 10, 12 and 16?

I have both the Sigma 10-20 and the Pentax 16-50DA* and both are great performers. I'm not technically expert like many contributors but I know I get results from both lenses that I find more than acceptable.
I bought the Sigma first, early last year, and was knocked out by the results when taking some of the pictures I like best, modern architecture. Early this year I got the Pentax 16-50 (from SRS) and was equally impressed by the quality. Like Mattmatic however, when I check the EXIF I find that relatively few pictures are taken at the 10mm end of the range, although I find those that are most effective. I think if I had bought the 16-50 first I might not have got the 10-20 as the longer zoom is used far more than the short one.
In the end it comes down to what sort of photography you will be doing, do you really need an ultra wide?
I have grandchildren and can send them into fits of giggles showing them close ups of the family with distorted features taken on the 10-20.

Yes, I was keeping track of how often I used the 12-24mm at 12mm and then ended up cropping the image.

Most of the uncropped 12mm shots have been very tight interiors where even 12mm was not quite enough.

Thanks again everyone for all the very useful feedback. The images you’ve posted Richard are particularly helpful and give an excellent impression of the perspective distortion.

I was expecting some dispute over the merits (or demerits) of the Sigma 10-20. It’s amazing how much debate there is over this lens vs. the DA12-24. And not just from users, but also in reviews. I’ve read about the 10-20 winning comparative tests in which the 12-24 has performed poorly; and others in which the 12-24’s performance is lauded in contrast to the 10-20. Which is all very confusing. Though – in the real world – while I’ve come across several unhappy 10-20 users, I’ve yet to read a bad word about the 12-24. Can the variation in opinion over the 10-20 be really put down to variations in quality? As I said, confusing. (To get an impression of how confusing, check out the lens performance surveys at Photozone, where the 12-24 performs very well and the Sigma really poorly; and, by contrast, at the Pentax Forums lens surveys – where the Sigma actually slightly outscores the Pentax, though both do very well).

Unexpectedly, after this post, I’d say I’m now inclining to the 10-17. I was thinking of getting the ultra-wide for both landscape shots and creative framing – but it seems wider landscapes (and 16mm is pretty wide to start with, in any case) might be covered by multiple shots with the 16-45 and as for creative framing the 10-17 probably excels here. I guess the main downside is that the 12-24 is perhaps a more practical lens (both in range and not being fishy) – which would be more likely to stay on the camera (a serious consideration in dusty Ethiopia). And it takes filters. Although the size of the 10-17 is certainly more practical. There is of course the consideration of image quality – how do the 10-17 and 12-24 compare on this score?

Before making a decision, I would be very interested to get feedback on one more thing. How do people use their lenses? When do owners of the 10-17 & 12-24 use one and not the other? Also, when do people opt for the ultra zoom (whether 12-24 or 10-20) as opposed to the wider end of their normal zoom (16 or 18 )? Not having had any experience with these focal lengths it would be very useful to get some further impression of how I might expect to utilize a new lens.

The 12-24mm is a rectilinear lens and IMHO has far more uses than the Fisheye 10-17mm, which bends lines as we would expect.

As a general lens the 12-24mm would be my choice - the 10-17mm is really a specialist lens with some practical but mainly crestive appplications.

Firstly, I've never considered my 12-24 as a "landscape" lens - I much prefer the angle of my FA43 for those sorts of shots. So this is it's least-used function (although I have used it for landscapes on rare occassions and its edge-to-edge sharpness never fails to impress).

It does get quite a bit of use as an "event" lens, whether walking round the village fete or the London Motor Show it's pretty much perfect for shooting things where you're forced into being up close to your subjects (take the Motor Show as an example; I wanted a side profile shot of the cutaway of the new Nissan Skyline that was on display, the only way to get a clear line of sight was to press up to the barrier - around 5 feet from the car - so the 12mm end was a lifesaver, 18mm just wouldn't have cut it). Similarly, it's a great street shooter as you can get quite a bit of the scene into the photo and the wide angle of view means people to the side of the frame are unaware they've even got a camera pointed at them - handy for candids!

It's a great "party" lens as it allows you to capture interaction between larger groups of people indoors. This makes storyboarding easier to achieve when the shots (inevitably) get posted on Facebook or similar the following week.

It truly excells as an "architectural" lens, both indoors and outdoors and you can see why ultra-wides are an estate agent's best friend; they make the smallest of living spaces appear like cavernous mansions and are particularly good for shooting in confined spaces such as bathrooms and utility rooms. The very low levels of distortion also make the 12-24 a great lens for QuickTime VR panoramas where there's always a degree of overlap involved (although you'll need a specialist panoramic head for this sort of work).

Finally, as someone who sells the odd car (or three) on eBay I can't imagine how I used to get on without the 12-24! It's amazing just how much impressions of space in (again) interior shots can capture the eye of potential buyers. I also start with my standard 3/4 angle shot from the front of the car, taken with the 12-24 perched at the very top of the tripod (about 6'6" up) and looking down over the bonnet in portrait format. I have to use a mini step ladder to see through the viewfinder but I can make the ugliest motor look glamourous with this trick.

When do I change to the kit lens? I don't. In fact I don't tend to carry the kit lens unless I suspect rain in which case it becomes my non-weathersealed-sacrificial-lamb-lens. The only lenses that are in my bag on a full-time basis are the 12-24/43/77/100 and each has a particular job (or jobs) to do. The 12-24 has certainly earned its place on merit!

I don't know what gives you that impression.

While Photozone.de always rightly finds things to criticise with any lens, they also have lots of good things to say about this Sigma lens, and conclude: "All in all a good alternative to the native Pentax lens".

The distortion and the MTF charts look alright to me too. I would not have bought the lens otherwise.

For Dr Mhuni if you visit my flikr page at link then you'll see three pairs at 10 & 12 which was after all your original question I think!

They're no works of art and in a funny order but hey I tried. No post processing at all.

Mike

Perhaps you should have gone for the Sigma.

Dan

P.S. I'm surprised nobody's commented on the pic I uploaded, especially in comparison to Richard Day's example.

Dan I would have done but I'm trying to be on my best behaviour as I know I've been a little inept with some comments in the past and this thread seemed to be getting a little tense.

I thought it was a very good demonstration of what the lens can do. You can read the notes on that sign. I find it's an excellent lens but as I said everyone has different standards. I also find it rewards careful use and punishes a casual attitude to focus.

All I've done is show the difference between 10 and 12 mm and I don't think mine really show off its capabilities at all.

I think if I were buying again I'd get the 12-24 for the 24 end and I suspect a higher quality. I'd also look long and hard at the Tamron offering as the 17-50 seems a very good lens indeed.

Mike

Does anyone have both the 10-17 & 12-24. I'd like to see the fisheye set at 17mm versus the 12-24 set at 12mm, to see the difference in FOV. obviously the shots would need to be taken in the same place to really compare.

- THIS COMPARISON - got me thinking, I know the 10-17 is less fishy at the long end, but does it still retain the greater FOV in comparison to rectilinear super wides ?

Pete,

It's not the review I'm referring to it's the Lens Performance Survey that they have on their website (sorry, don't have link handy) in which users give feedback on lenses. I tend to place slightly more emphasis on user experience than reviews and that is what is so confusing about this lens - people have such divergent opinions on it as evidenced by this survey (where it gets a pretty dire appraisal) and the Pentax Forum one (where it scores 9/10).

John, I take your point about the practicality of rectilinear over fish eye (which was why I'd originally ruled out the 10-17), but I'm beginning to wonder whether the principle way I might use an ultra-wide lens is creatively. Meanwhile, getting back to my original quandary re. 12 & 16 - your observation that there are few 12mm shots you don't crop (and Matt's that he tends to use 16-24 more than 12-15) make me wonder how much value I'd get from the extra 4mm.

On the other hand, Hefty does make some good points and Richard's FOV chart does demostrate that 12 really does encompass substantially more than 16.

Decisions, decisions. I'll probably only real come to a conclusion after visiting SRS and trying them out, but all the feedback here has certainly given me useful food for thought.

The connection's so rubbish here my computer gave up halfway through downloading it!

And thanks Mike - will take a look at those tomorrow when the connection might be faster.

Dan

My only advice when choosing your wide angle that suits you, do not consider a Sigma. I did and have regretted when I saw images from the Pentax. The clarity, definition and sharpness of the image taken by the Pentax was so superior to the Sigma. My Sigma is for sale, but I would be too embarrassed to offer it to a Pentax member.