Recommend a wide prime

I posted a similar topic on the DPReview Pentax SLR forum around January. I had in the region of £400 to spend on a lens, with the missus's blessing, and wanted recommendations. In the end I bought a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 because it was a desirable object and well priced here on the forum. Having used it for a couple of months I have decided that it's simply not me.

I want to sell the big Sigma and replace it with either the DA21 and the DA35/2.4, or the DA15 alone. I would post my current kit list, except that it's detailed clearly in my signature below!

Advantages of the DA21 and DA35 pairing are that it's versatile, likely to get use, and would give me lots of opportunity not to use the 18-55.

Advantages of the DA15 are that it is a focal length not already covered by my current lenses. I'm not keen on the Sigma 10-20, even though it's within my budget. Aesthetics, I think, but I can't put my finger on it.

I used to take mostly landscapes about four times a year when I can get somewhere interesting. I also shoot closeups and abstract pattern pictures. Nowadays I take a lot of photos of my 1 year old son, and lots of movies too, using mainly the F50/1.4.

What lens would be the best use of the proceeds from selling the Sigma? Any different ideas? Sigma 30/1.4 would be great as a standard prime. DA70 would be good for portraits.

The 15mm isn't really sharp until stopped down until f8, as I found and the reviews confirmed. I found my Pentax 12-24mm so much sharper that I preferred to use that to the 15 though it is a very nice little lens to use.

The 70mm is a superb lens, as sharp as any I've used.

I can vouch for the DA21 and the DA70 - both very useable, quality lenses.

There's some recent discussion on the merits of the DA15 in another thread, elsewhere on this forum. It's a lens I'd like to have. There are others here who sing its praises even at wide open apertures, so don't discount it.

The Sigma 30/1.4 seems to be coming up in quite a few topics recently and it's a lense I would heartily recommend, as do others on here who praise it's qualities and incredible sharpness. I also find the bokeh to be very nice - even though I've seen others mention it's not so hot, it's probably that they don't own it and are simply repeating hearsay. It's a wonderful walkaround lense offering creative possibilities that many other lenses simply can't. Never leave it out of my bag.

I had a fellow forumite from PF visit Shanghai last week and I was honoured to be able to take him off his tour group for an afternoon and show him places he wouldn't otherwise have seen, a water-town and a quiet buddhist temple. His most used lense was his DA15 - perfect for landscapes, tall buildings, courtyards and small alleyways alike.

I'm looking at the 21mm to partner the 35/2.4 and DA* 50-135mm f2.8. That should give me something equivalent to the '80s film setup of 50mm and 28mm primes with an 80-200mm zoom. Plus it's a tiny lens which will mean I can stuff my camera in a pocket should it rain!

Dangermouse, I think I'm veering that way.

Though the 15mm is tempting, I remember once borrowing a Sigma 10-20mm on a Canon body for some dawn beach shots (equivalent to 11-21 on Pentax, for what it's worth) and found that it was too wide for the pictures I was taking that day. I stuck with my *ist DS and 18-55mm.

So although I'm not much of a street photographer I think I'm going to head in the direction of a DA 21 and DA 35, and use my budget 70-210 and 28-200 lenses for the rare occasions when I need telephoto, or until I can afford or justify the DA* 50-135. Additionally I've been pleasantly surprised by DA 70 second hand prices now that I've been looking in more detail.

The Plan:
DA 21 shop for now
DA 35 shop for now

DA 70 on the wish list
Sigma 30/1.4 on the upgrade wishlist if I don't get on with the DA 35

DA 50-135 on the distant wishlist

Thanks to all for comments so far.

I'm not fond of ultrawide lenses, as I always find them too short. I also think they're getting a bit over-used, especially in the "stuff something/someone in the foreground to make it interesting" style of photography which seems to be popular at the moment.

My interest in the 21mm would be as an ultra-compact walkabout lens. I have tried 40mm and found it too long for digital (the M 40mm now turns up on various film bodies as I find it perfect there) so the DA 40mm won't suit me, but my theory is that the ideal digital standard prime needs to be somewhere between 20mm and 30mm.

If you can stretch to the DA 40mm and 70mm you'll have the full set of Pentax pancakes. That said, I think I'd go for the 50-135mm over the 70mm for the flexibility. It may be f2.8 rather than f2.4 but I doubt there's much able to match it from any brand.

I went for the 50-135mm now as SRS seem to have them for about half RRP at the moment. It was actually cheaper than the used example they also had for sale!

When you talk of the Sigma 10-20 you're talking of a lense that's 50% wider than the DA15 at the wide end !

That's a HUGE difference to the DA15. The DA15 is a tiny lense too. I'd go and get them both (15+21) on your camera before you decide.

The DA15mm does exert a certain pull on my wallet, although I don't think it outperforms my Sigma 10-20mm enough and it would be a luxury which exceeds my lowly skills as a photographer ;P I have tried the 21mm and decided the focal length wasn't quite for me, not quite wide enough to feel properly wide angle, not quite as concise a FOV as my (much cheaper) 24mm MF prime. I also struggled a bit with the pancake design. It had wonderful contrast and colour to it though, and if wide angle isn't your thing, go for it!

£640 is well over my budget for what would have to be an occasional use lens, so I'd be looking at second hand (as with all of the purchases suggested above).

I used to have the M40/2.8, but didn't find it a great focal length for digital. My F50/1.7 is a lot more usable. Bought it from eBay on a K1000 in a poorly listed auction, and made a tidy profit by selling them separately a year later, which then funded my Sigma 105/2.8 with cash to spare. Which was nice.

Frogfish, I meant that it was even too wide, on that day, at 20mm. Still, I remember fondly how useful my Miranda 24mm used to be in film days when out fell walking, so maybe I was wrong to be dismissive of the 10-20. And in fact the Sigma was extremely useful for some wedding shots too. You have a good point in suggesting I get them both on the camera, but as I'm fairly strictly a second hand buyer it's either difficult or dishonest to try them out, depending on method chosen.

Very valid point, 15mm on a cropped body is not all that wide. If you want something really wide a 8-16,10-20 is a much better bet, I found even my Nikkor 12-24 not as wide as I would have liked. What I am trying to get at is that if 18 at your 18-55 is not good enough the 15 might not be enough either so I'd go for a 10-20 / 8 -16 personally

The Sigma 10-20 is a fabulous lens - sharp (except the corners wide open, but that's true of most lenses), but also quite bulky. The newer version (constant f3.5) is faster but inferior in IQ to the older version (f4-5.6).

The 8-16 is supposed to be sharper than the 10-20, and is also (obviously) wider. However although it is a rectilinear lens it does have a 'fisheye-style' bulbous front element, which means no filters and a greater risk of damage/rain on front element/etc.

I think I'll have to try going out with the 18-55mm set to 21mm and see whether I get on with it. I bought the 50-135mm because I wanted a decent telephoto and felt it'd be more useful to me than the 70-200mm f2.8s I was also looking at. The Pentax lens is much smaller and lighter than the Sigma or Tamron lenses, which is helpful when you're going to be carrying it for long periods.

I have both the 15mm and the 21mm and am very happy with both of them. However I prefer the 21mm as a walk around lens, it is such an easy lens to use, useful FOV without shouting 'wide angle'. The 15mm is great but not as versatile.

I've an M42 Tokina 21/3.8 that's great as a grab-everything lens at f/5.6-11, but not outstandingly better than the DA18-55 at 21/8. I take it out for a walk every now and then anyway. My fast wide prime until a few months ago was the Zenitar 16/2.8, whose bit of fishiness can be nicely exploited.

Then I got a Tamron 10-24, discounted down to US$375 shipped. The Zen is so lonely now! I was put off by Sigma's build issues, and I could afford the Tamron. I'm quite happy with jumping from ultra to moderately wide as conditions dictate. Faster would be nicer, but I can live with it, just pump the ISO some.

I can't recommend a wide prime. Good luck.