Pentax 12-24

There has been some discussion lately on the quality of the Sigma 10-20 and from what i have seen it looks like a superb lens.

Why i ask is i am planning on getting this lens and what i would like too know is why the Pentax 12-24 is around 25% more expensive than the Sigma :

Is the Pentax a better lens : or are we just paying for the Pentax badge.

I know the Pentax has a constant aperture and would probably resale better than the Sigma but what about the picture quality : anyone done a comparison. Thanks

Not a comparison, but I can tell you that the Pentax 12-24mm is a cracking good lens with outstanding optical properties. It also has very, very low distortion making it suitable for architecture. £489 will get you one compared to £429 for the Sigma.

Is the £60 difference worth it for Pentax coatings, construction quality, ergonomic compatibility, low distortion, high resolution and constant aperture? Not to mention an enhanced second hand value if you change your mind later on.

I've yet to hear a bad word about either lens, which makes it unlikely that you'll find anybody who's bought one of them and then moved on to the other. This means you'll struggle to find anyone who can give you a meaningful comparison between the two unfortunately...

For what it's worth, before parting with my money I spent many hours comparing photos taken with each lens on web sites such as pbase and flickr (among others) - even Ken Rockwell provided some useful insight (for once) as he conducted a 4-way test that included the Sigma 10-20 and the Tokina 12-24 (same basic design as the Pentax) on a Nikon D200. What I saw convinced me of two things; the Sigma was capable of taking very good photos and the Pentax was capable of taking exceptional photos (with visibly less wavy distortion).

By the time I'd taken into consideration the quick-shift focus of the Pentax (which I love!) there was no competition as far as I was concerned. I fully understand that the Sigma is a better proposition for those on a budget or those that really need the extra 2mm at the wide end, however, I wouldn't hesitate to wholeheartedly recommend the Pentax 12-24 if you simply want the best ultra-wide zoom for your Pentax DSLR.

My only complaint about the lens doesn't concern its performance in any way, but rather its size. It's a chunky little fellow and with its hood reverse-mounted it can seem to monopolise space in the camera bag. A fairly minor complaint but a factor worth considering nonetheless. I don't know how the Sigma compares in this respect as I've never seen one in the flesh.

From the comments made here and elsewhere, neither lens would be a disappointment...

£429 would be very expensive for the Sigma - warehouse express sell it for £289 (and they list the Pentax 12-24 at £629).

If the Pentax were only slightly more expensive than the Sigma, as John indicated in the prices quoted, then the higher re-sale of the Pentax would make it worthy of consideration (although I'd still be tempted by the extra width of the Sigma) - but with a difference really more like £200 in the UK it's a very easy choice IMHO.

I'm sure I'd have been more than happy with either lens though. I had the option of getting a DA 12-24 for £350 when my wife was in Singapore a year or so back but eventually I decided to stick with the Sigma I already had and get her to bring me back a DA10-17 instead.

Some pretty convincing arguments for the Pentax lens there guys. I'm also considering some new glass so thanks for that!

consider the used value of your lens in three years vs the value of your dslr...
I'd say for the short term, buy good quality brand name glass, and consider the dslr body...disposable.

The photodo web site has reviews of both lenses in a Pentax mount and their test numbers show the Sigma as actually having less distortion across the frame at 10mm than the Pentax has at 12mm, with the Pentax being a little better at the longer focal lengths. Both are pretty good for such wide angles though. Both lenses are also closely matched for resolution, the Pentax is better for vignetting (both are pretty good) but noticeably worse for CA. Such test results always have to be taken with a grain of salt given they're only based on a single sample of each, however what they do seem to indicate is that the lenses are very well matched, and both very good, optically and therefore the purchasing decision comes down to how much value you (and the re-sale market) put on the Pentax brand compared to a 3rd party one (given the Pentax lens is a joint venture with Tokina anyway) and whether than, plus the handling differences and the constant F4 aperture (certainly worth having although less so in an ultra-wide) offet the lower price and additional width of the Sigma.

When I bought my Sigma I could (and eventually did) get it and the DA16-45 for less than the cost of a DA12-24 and that made the decision a lot easier for me.

The Sigma is also a reasonably bulky lens - it's inevitable given the focal length range etc.

If you're considering selling the lens in 3 years then I'd suggest you've bought the wrong lens anyway! The difference in eventual re-sale over that sort of period isn't likely to offset the difference in initial purchase costs anyway - unless you can find a way to purchase the DA12-24 for under say £400.

Resale value tends to really tell later on. Just look at the price of A series Pentax lenses on eBay and compare it independent ones...

The price levels of the more exotic lenses hold up even better, and in future years the 12-24mm might well be one of more sought after lenses.

well i'm in business, and my net worth does matter.
If a $1200.00 body, and a $650.00 lens, at the end of three years, are both worth about $3-400.00, then how does that affect me if I sell my company or go public ( I am incorporating this year)?

I think that given the volatility and rate of progress in the digital camera market it'd be unwise to assume that any of the current APS-C sensor size lenses will necessarily be all that valuable in say 10 years time.

If larger sensors drop in price then that could make the APS-C lenses redundant, and going the other way if sensor technology improves to make smaller sensors viable for serious photography then the ultra-wides would then become more like standard zooms (or merely wide).

I buy DSLR bodies and APS-C lenses on the basis of the use I'll get out of them in the next 3 or 4 years, but with the assumption that they'll be worth little after that period (almost certainly that'll be true for the bodies, maybe not for the lenses).

Not very much unless it's a very, very small company!

I suspect most pro's will write their kit down over something like a 3-year period - even if the general re-sale is still reasonable for such kit 3-years of professional use will erode that considerably.

I'm also in business, although IT rather than photography, and we account for computer equipment purchases on the basis that they're more or less worth nothing after a 3 or 5 year period.

Photozone has extensively tested both lenses:

www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_1020_456_pentax/index.htm

www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/pentax_1224_4/index.htm

I bought the Sigma because I couldn't afford the Pentax and because the reviews were impressive. I think it will hold its value reasonably well.

depreciation is the acccounting thing...but we do sell off our used gear, (computer and photo/video) and replace on a regular basis....so resale affects bottom line. We are small. Incorporating is due to multimedia content creation, not family portraits...Heck if it was feasable, I'd rather rent everything when needed. The financial losses on computer/digital cameras, plus the travel risks, airline restrictions, make rentals look better and better...there's just not enough services to meet the growing demand.
sorry for hijacking this thread...back to the topic...get the brand name glass if you want your kit to hold some value...don't bother, if your budget is limited, and you just want to get nice photos, they are both good lenses.

The second hand value of camera lenses is more to do with simple supply and demand than any writing down. Maybe a lens will have no book value to a company, but it could still be sold on eBay or elsewhere, perhaps for quite a bit of money.

These days there is a high demand for good A series lenses, and the prices reflect this.

The future can only be guessed at!