Sell me something wide...

Assistance needed, chaps and chapesses.

I feel the need for something wide, probably AF, and hopefully reasonably priced.
I've currently got a Sigma 18-125DC and a 30/1.4. I bought the 30 last year expecting it to excite me and remind me of the good old 50s, but super lens that it is, I don't find it that useful.
But I think replacing it with something a bit wider might give me a tool I'm missing. How much wider does one really need to go than 18mm- is a 16 noticeably different or do you need to be able to go the whole way to 10mm really?

I guess I'm mostly thinking landscapes here but wides are always "fun".

Advice, recommendations?

The Pentax 12-24mm is probably high on the list. It's more versatile than the fixed 15mm and certainly goes wider.

If you want fun then the 10-17mm fisheye is a great lens. How useful you would find it and for how long is something else.

At wide angles then every mm makes a big difference. The difference between 10 and 20mm is huge. I would recommend a zoom too. Pentax 12-24 for quality and the Sigma 10-20 for affordability and extra reach (still a good lens as well).

Get a Sigma 8-16, although it's supposed to be discontinued in K mount it is still available new from SRS (£499).

A few example, Linlithgow Palace and Sweetheart Abbey....

There was a thread on pentax forums showing the different fov for 18 and 15 (indoors in a theatre); unfortunately the images are no longer there
I did not find the difference in fov between 15 and 18 that massive (it's there and it can be a life saver though).

I still haven't made up my mind which one to buy but I would prefer the flexibility of a zoom over a prime as an UWA outside my normal needs.

For some comparitive reviews:
http://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/pentax-12-24mm-lens-comparison/introduction....
http://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/sigma-10-20-comparative-review/introduction....

The second one partially includes the first one (the 'bottom line' page gives a summary for five lenses).

I have the DA17-70/4 and wanted something wider, I looked at the DA15, which is slightly wider but couldn't justify spending £500 for the difference.

The problem with very wide angles is that you have to be careful to avoid perspective distortion unless you're after that specific effect (Brian's 4th shot above is an example). I reasoned that, if buying a wider lens, it had to be much wider (wide enough not to have to buy a wider one later) and that fish-eye distortion is not necessarily worse than the perspective distortion (in many situations I think it looks less 'wierd' to the eye).

I went for the DA10-17 fish-eye, when used with care the fish-eye effect can be reduced considerably. It's not an every-day lens, but neither are ultra-wide rectilinear lenses. This is an un-corrected shot at 17mm:



Up river #1 by John Halliwell, on Flickr

There are a few more here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/john-halliwell/sets/72157633351564323/

John.

Interesting stuff, thanks. The Siggy 10-20mm and Tamron 10-24 are certainly worthy of consideration.

I guess I wonder why all the manufacturers continually push the range of their hyperzooms at the long end- would there not be a market for (say)
a 15 or 16-200 rather than stretching the 18 out to 250-270-300?

I think it's more complex (optically), and adds more bulk, to push the FOV wider (past 18mm) than it is to push longer (past 200, say).

30seconds in LR5.3 with the Lens Correction Tab......
Vertical: -90
scale: 50
Aspect: -100




Lost some of the wideness near the camera but once I learn and remember how the images behave in LR5 I'll try to compensate when framing.

Just out of curiosity: is it possible to correct the first image? My (perceived) problem with UWAs is with the tiles in the foreground that don't look square. Just wondering if it's possible or that one has to learn to live with it?

Quick and dirty......
Rotate: +0.2
Scale: 50
Aspect: -100

the other fun thing about the 10-17 is the use of it to make cool panos

for example, one I did ...

https://www.360cities.net/image/bridge-ferry-meadows-peterborough-cambs

Nicely done, it works very well.

Thanks for that; maybe time to start saving.

I know that your first example can (mostly?) be prevented while shooting. The second one possibly as well.

Start saving by all means but I'd try to beg or borrow the lens of your choice before committing to buy one.

The effect they produce is very different but it is often not natural. Now you may well like the extreme distortion and even seek subject to exploit it but not everyone does and even a Sigma 10-20 is an expensive paper-weight.

I wanted a 10-20 very much but, through the kindness of s fellow forum member, was fortunate enough to have the use of one for a morning which cured me for ever.