Decent wide angle lens

As the title sugests I am looking at possibly getting a wide abgle (ANGLE can't edit the title) lense. If I don't upgrade to a K-5 or K-7 (doubt I'll be able to afford the K-30)I should have a decent amount to spend, but but as I live in the flattest part of the country where the skyline is rarely changable (every direction is flat)I do not want to spend mega money on something that might see daylight once in a while. But to have one in my bag just in case I suppose I would be looking at a budget range, but once again I am being blinded by science and baffled by bull**** in the reviews. And suprisingly could not find a thread on here about this.

Any ideas of make and price would be very welcome (no science please)
also any links to photo's you have taken with wide angle lenses would be a help too.

I've sorted the title for you.

Good wide angles don'y come cheap, so the most versatile high quality lens may well be the SMC Pentax-DA 12-24mm f4.

There are also some primes, but they aren't cheap either.

My favourite wide angle is my DA14mm/2.8 Actually that's not stictly true, my real favourite is the DA10-17, but I'm guessing you're not including a "fish eye->very wide" in your agenda?

Sigma's 10-20 gets rave reviews

The 12-24 is a lovely lens (clunky AF but I'm not bothered about AF for these focal lengths) but it's now £800 which I think makes the Sigma 10-20 a better option.

I've seen pics taken with the Siggy 10-20 and I would agree that's an excellent suggestion and a better choice than the 12-24

sigma 10-20 ok cheers peeps

Hi John, SRS are doing the Sigma 10-20 for £330 which is a good price for a good lens, I have one and I like it. I am sure the Pentax is a better lens but at £700+ it should be.

Just to confuse the issue, I've owned the Sigma 10-20 before and to be honest didn't like it much at all...the colour rendition wasn't as pleasant as the 12-24 & I hated the levels of distortion which despite several attempts I found were not always correctable (if that's a word) It wasn't as sharp as the 12-24 either

I'd go with the 12-24 everytime although i do hear good things about the Sigma 8-16 which is supposed to be better than the 10-20

Simon

They're my thoughts too on the merits of the Sigma 10-20 v Pentax 12-24. The Sigma 8-16 is a good lens too and somewhat of a bargain given nothing else covers the range and actually compliments the 12-24 quite well. It's too wide to make using filters practicable though at the wide end.

John

You should also sort your spelling.

Just couldn't resist that one.

Just my aim, Yves, just my aim....

Hi John

I have the Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 and love the lens, but I recently bought the DA15 and have found the lower weight to suit me if I'm walking around a hot city all day.

If weight isn't an issue (470g vs 212g) then the Sigma gives the possibility of a wider field of view at a much lower purchase price.

Personally I find the DA15 to suit me better and may have to sadly sell the Sigma...

If you would like to see some photo's I've taken with both lenses, you can see them here. Each photo will tell you which lens.

Good luck!

Personally I don't think you need 10/12mm.
I have a Sigma 12-24mm but it very rarely gets used as I always found 16mm on the 16-45mm (and now 17mm on the 17-70mm) more than adequate for landscapes

I'd second that, about the DA15. it is one of my favourites, so versatile, and such rendition. I was thinking of buying the 12-24, despite the duplication, and I know at least one other member had both and sold his 15 because he found the zoom fittled more occasions. But the price of the 12-24 in relation to what it was in the not so distant past is hard (for me) to come to terms with. Perhaps in 10 years' time I'll be reconciled to it, and in the meantime with the DA15 and DA17-70 I don't feel too impoverished at the wider angles.