The difference between 10, 12 and 16?

related to this topic I am curious about how much extra width can be achieved when comparing the 18-55mm kit lens at 18mm with the 16-45mm at 16mm. I am shooting local chapels at as sheer an angle as possible and am wondering how much closer I can get with the 16-45. It's a lens that doesn't break the bank too.

If you look at my post on the first page of this thread (third one down from the top) I've done a omparison between 15mm and 18mm - not quite what you're asking for I know, but it should be close enough to give you some idea.

Just from the point of view of normal usage (I haven't really done any tests - beyond playing with both when I got the 16-45) I've noticed quite a difference between 16 & 18. I find myself wanting more width a lot less frequently now. But more significant for me is the jump in quality. The 16-45 produces substantially better results, particularly at the wide end. I'd thoroughly recommend it - particularly with the £25 rebate, which makes it a snip (not so long ago people were happy to pay over £300 for this lens).

Go on, treat yourself!

I did £325, IIRC. Still worth it though
The current price is a steal! (Though I'm still fairly tempted by the newer SMC-DA 17-70...)
Matt

Matt

17-70 test for info

http://www.photozone.de/pentax/408-pentax_1770_4

Jim

Thanks Jim - I checked on Monday and that wasn't there.
Certainly looks a fine replacement for the 16-45... doesn't help my LBA and wallet one bit!!
Matt

We are not here to help with that problem.!!
I have just purchased this lens and must say that I do like the SDM focusing, it does feel like a quality product, not had much opportunity to try it yet as work is getting in the way, ho the joys of being self-employed.

Jim

About the long debate between Pentax 12-24 and Sigma 10-20...

1-The Pentax seems better, but having a 17-70, how much value I'd get from only 5 mm extra lenght? So maybe the 10-20 would be better.

2-About the Sigma: there are opposite opinion, also between good review sites: dpreview : Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM Comparison to other wideangle zooms we've tested recently suggests the Sigma's class-leading days may be numbered. On APS-C, it simply can't match the biting central sharpness of the Tamron 10-24mm F3.5-4.5 Di-II in the 10-18mm range (for which, we suspect, users will mainly be buying this type of lens), and has more problematic distortion characteristics. However in a typical case of swings and roundabouts, the Sigma shows superior sharpness when shot wide open, and is better in the corners of the frame at all settings; it also has lower chromatic aberration, is better built and uses a superior focusing system."

while on photozone "The Sigma AF 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC showed an pretty impressive performance with a few bugs. The resolution characteristic is generally very good to excellent except in the extreme corners at 10mm which are a bit soft at large aperture settings. A weak aspect of the Sigma is very high vignetting at large apertures - to be fair this is relatively normal regarding the extreme ultra-wide focal-length range. The CA characteristic (color shadows at the image borders) is generally pretty good except in the extreme corners at 10mm. The build quality of the lens is very high and leaves nothing to be desired. All in all a good alternative to the native Pentax lens"

3-what about a fixed focal lens? The only one I found is the 14mm (I would have liked wider) that has the same price of the 12-24 at the moment. Any opinion?

what I found is: "that the differences between the 14 and the 12-24 in terms of quality are very small, and therefore they prefer the latter for the flexibility"
"The DA14 focuses a lot closer than the 12-24"
"the 14mm is faster at 2.8 and has no vignetting problems at all. A great lens"

Cheers
Max

Remember that 4mm is significant when it comes to ultra wide angle.

Here is a little tool were you can compare focal lengths. link
It only goes to 11mm but you clearly see the difference between 11mm and 17mm, it's about two/three steps back.

You are right

I would had to my reasoning:
-5 mm (DA 12-24mm) are better than 3 (DA 14mm), but less than 7 (Sigma 10-20)

And with the DA 14 mm I would lose the flexibility.

So the main question is:
-renounce to 2 mm for a better quality (DA 12-24)
or better having 2 mm more and not as good images? (sigma)

It is shame there is not the Tamron 10-24mm for Pentax

That link is fantasticly useful! (and shows FLorence!)

yes there is big difference beteween 12 and 17 and less between 12 and 10.

(and a small between 200 and 300 that I had read)

Yes the diffrence is exponential (is that the right word?)
The diffrence between 10mm and 20mm is the same as 150mm and 300mm.

I ended up getting the DA12-24 at Xmas - thanks to some SRS advice I was initially inclined to go for the Sigma, but in the end decided the £50 rebate and potential resale value made the Pentax a smarter choice. And I certainly haven't regreted it.

In my view it really is an amazing lens producing images of superb sharpness and clarity (see eg. my [handheld] competition entry this week, which - whatever you might think of it - is certainly sharp and clear). The DA12-24 is also an excellent low light performer.

Regarding the difference between 12 and 16, it is significant. As for the extra 2mm I very occasionally wonder what the 10mm view might be like - but don't miss it at all really, and have reflected that the additional distortion resulting from the wider angle might often complicate things in any case. Moreover, once the lens is on the camera I reckon the extra 4mm at the long end is more useful.

Not having (properly) used the Sigma and the Tamron, I'm not sure how they compare - but my instincts tell me the DA12-24 is the superior lens. Quite possibly by a distance.

The DA12-24 is certainly better controlled than the DA17-70. As much as the 17-70 is great for walkabout, it does have some distortion and vignetting at the wide end. The 12-24 is superb
You can push the 12-24 to the limit (photographically) - shooting directly into sun, etc, etc - and it just handles it wonderfully. (Although it's been said before that composition at 12mm can be tricky, and requires some creative thinking!)

Both the 12-24 and 17-70 are in the bag all the time, along with the DA*50-135... and that pretty much covers it all for me

Matt