Is width everything?

Apologies for the long post, but here goes;
Over the last few months i have decided that landscape is where i am at.
Already have the 16-45 f4 and am generally happy with this, however i am now ready to invest in a new lens. I feel i need to go wider, but do not want a fisheye. I am aware of the usual suspects and am currently leaning towards the Sigma 10-20,the Pentax 12-24 is just too expensive for me. Question is should I also be considering the Pentax 14mm : The larger aperture does not come into it for my aplication but would the ( presumably ) higher IQ allow more freedom in cropping etc : Also, would the extra 2mm over my 16-45 be noticable
All thoughts welcome.

Davex.

With a bit of Internet searching you might find a reasonably priced 12-24mm Pentax lens, or maybe a second hand one?

That would be my choice anyway.

A few mm difference makes more of a noticeable change at wider angles, so the 14mm f2.8 might be more of a contender now. It seems to be available at lower prices than the 12-24mm, by a comfortable margin.

Have you thought of looking at the Tamron 11-16mm or 10-24mm lenses?

Find a second-hand 12-24. If you buy something else, you'll lie awake thinking: "wish I'd got a 12-24".

It's absolutely the best option; all you have to do is find one for the right price.

G

JR and I operate as a team in these matters. Bit like synchronised swimmers.

G

That was a quite remarkable meeting of minds...

Not landscapes, but these were all shot with the SMCP-DA 12-24mm at (or very close to) 12mm.
Some of the images display perspective issues but on the whole I'm quite pleased with them. PP'd only in Lightroom (which has no perspective adjustment :evil

These images were taken for a dutch holiday letting web site. The biggest problem I had was keeping the verticals vertical. I haven't achieved it 100%.

For landscapes, I'm not convinced that the extra 2mm of the Sigma 10-20mm is at all useful. Some here have gone through more than 2 copies to get a good one.

Or a meeting of quite remarkable minds.

G

TBH was not even aware of a Tamron 11-16mm John, think Tokina do one but have not seen it in PK mount. Not sure about a 10-24 zoom, i wonder if it`s asking a bit too much in terms of IQ?

Davex.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Care to expand on it? If you mean the 2.4 zoom ratio, it shouldn't be a problem at all, but I've no personal experience of this lens.

Sorry, Tokina 11-16mm is what I meant.

The AP review of the Tamron 10-24mm was reasonably encouraging, at least as good as the Sigma 10-20mm.

Thanks for the link Peter, very helpfull.

I may be wrong but at the wider end of focal lengths i think compromises in IQ are being made with any zoom, then add on a further compromise for a 2.4 x zoom and IQ must start to suffer : off course i am still quite new to this, so if i am talking (sorry George: writing)a load of c**p please let me know.

Davex.
edit: typo

Well, zooms do tend to suffer when the focal length ratio is high, say five times or more. But 2.4 should be fine, even at extreme wide-angles.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Most owners reckon that the performance of the 12-24 is excellent. And its competitors aren't dogs.

G

I went through this process a while back - see the following thread, which has some very useful feedback in it: link

As you'll see from my last comment in that thread, I went for the DA12-24 and haven't regreted it. It's a superb lens. Good as the Sigma might be - and many swear by it - I find it hard to believe it could perform as well as the Pentax. Take a look at the reviews of the Tokina version of the 12-24 (basically the same lens), the Sigma, and the Tamron 10-24 in the dpreview lens review section for an independent view.

On the down side, the current price is loopy (particularly when you can get the Tokina version in Canikon mounts for almost half the price). However, you should be able to get a reasonably priced copy with the Samsung badge. Also, both the Pentax and Samsung versions have of late appeared quite often in the classified section on this website - so you might check there first.

Aren't these all a little wide for landscapes unless you're looking for the ultra wide skies?

Mike

I think so. I prefer my 16-50mm and use the 12-24mm either when space is tight or the scale of the subject (large building) requires it.