Visit MPB Visit MPB Visit MPB

The difference between 10, 12 and 16?

Dr. Mhuni
Posted 08/12/2008 - 10:28 Link
I am probably going to get an ultra-wide angle zoom when I’m in the UK over Xmas. All the usual contenders have been considered – Pentax 10-17, 12-24 & Sigma 10-20 (Tamron 10-24 will come out too late). Initially was edging towards the Sigma, but as I’ve seen more images from the 12-24 I’ve tended to sway towards that. (Have just about ruled out the 10-17 principally because it doesn’t take filters and I use polarisers frequently). However, I’m beginning to wonder if it’s worth forking out £400+ to gain just 4mm on the 16-45 I have at present? (The 16-45 happens to be very good at 16 – much better than the kit lens wide). The 6mm increase represented by the Sigma is maybe more persuasive (though perhaps its performance from 10-12 detracts from its advantage over the Pentax?). On the other hand, the 4mm extra on the Pentax probably makes it a more practical zoom range once it’s on camera.

I’d welcome forum wisdom on this - and if anyone could post some shots at 10, 12, and 16 to give an impression of the how various fields of view impact on photos I’d be especially grateful.
Mhuni

500px
Edited by Dr. Mhuni: 08/12/2008 - 10:34
MattMatic
Posted 08/12/2008 - 11:21 Link
I have both the Pentax 12-24 and 16-45. The 16-45 is probably sharper, and certainly a more useful range. You can easily use Cokin P filters on the 16-45, which is a bit more difficult on the 12-24 (I bought Lee & Cokin Z-Pro series filters... could have bought another lens )

Although I use the 12-16 range a reasonable amount, on checking EXIF information it's surprising how many shots were in the 16-24 range (ie covered by the 16-45). I've found it's quite an art getting a good composition at 12mm

These days it is much, much easier to create a multi-shot panorama - so even with the 16-45 it's probably the case that two or four good shots at 16mm could exceed the angle of view of the 12mm alone.

The 10-17 is a completely different beast - it's a fisheye with 180 degree angle of view at 10mm (wider than the Sigma rectilinear at 10mm).

It's a tough call, but I hope that helps a bit!
Matt
http://www.mattmatic.co.uk
(For gallery, tips and links)
Edited by MattMatic: 08/12/2008 - 11:21
hefty1
Posted 08/12/2008 - 11:26 Link
I did a series of shots a couple of weeks ago while idly considering dumping my DA12-24 in favour of a DA21 and the new DA15 (decided against in the end). There's no 10mm shot as I don't own a 10mm lens, and I didn't take one at 16mm but there are 15mm and 18mm ones here so you can use a bit of imagination...

12mm

Comment Image


15mm

Comment Image


18mm

Comment Image


21mm

Comment Image


24mm

Comment Image


My kitchen's not the most interesting of subject matter but it's fairly typical of the indoor scenes I use this lens for.
Joining the Q
mikew
Posted 08/12/2008 - 11:39 Link
hefty1 wrote:
My kitchen's not the most interesting of subject matter but it's fairly typical of the indoor scenes I use this lens for.

Well you must have created a real niche market then
Edited by mikew: 08/12/2008 - 13:26
RichardDay
Posted 08/12/2008 - 12:43 Link
Dr. Mhuni wrote:
I am probably going to get an ultra-wide angle zoom when I’m in the UK over Xmas. All the usual contenders have been considered – Pentax 10-17, 12-24 & Sigma 10-20 (Tamron 10-24 will come out too late). Initially was edging towards the Sigma, but as I’ve seen more images from the 12-24 I’ve tended to sway towards that. (Have just about ruled out the 10-17 principally because it doesn’t take filters and I use polarisers frequently). However, I’m beginning to wonder if it’s worth forking out £400+ to gain just 4mm on the 16-45 I have at present? (The 16-45 happens to be very good at 16 – much better than the kit lens wide). The 6mm increase represented by the Sigma is maybe more persuasive (though perhaps its performance from 10-12 detracts from its advantage over the Pentax?). On the other hand, the 4mm extra on the Pentax probably makes it a more practical zoom range once it’s on camera.

I’d welcome forum wisdom on this - and if anyone could post some shots at 10, 12, and 16 to give an impression of the how various fields of view impact on photos I’d be especially grateful.

I had the Sigma 10-20 and found the rendering fairly poor in comparison with my Pentax lenses, the colour was always muted, it seemed as though the colour gamut was limited in comparison, so even shooting in Raw didn't help much. They, I had 2 examples, exhibited severe focussing issues at the wide end, probably due to poor field curvature and also needed to be stopped down significantly to get good sharpness and then diffraction took it's toll. I ended up not using them very much and reverted back to my 16-45 which, whenever I wanted a wider FOV, I just took 2 or 3 shots and stitched them.

I also had the opportunity to try the DA 12-24 and 10-17 over a couple of weeks and they were significantly better IMO. Obviously the 10-17 is a fisheye, but for creative photography it's brilliant. The 12-24 is a fine lens, sharp wide open and has very low distortion as well, especially from 14mm upwards. The range up to 24 is also really useful as a street lens, I found that I needed a lot less lens swapping than with the Sigmas. Nevertheless I still haven't opted to buy either because, as I said above, I find stitching enough of a solution to my wide FOV needs and, as you say, £400 is a significant sum, but friends who have the 12-24 say they would never be without it.

Tough call!

Richard
Best regards
Richard Day

Profile - link - (click on About for equipment profile) - My Flickr site - link
womble
Posted 08/12/2008 - 13:43 Link
I have only just purchased the 12-24mm zoom (from SRS on Saturday afternoon) and am very impressed with it although as Matt says, composing pictures at 12mm is a bit of an art (one I am hoping to learn!). The one issue is the massive 77mm front element which is going to knock another hole in my wallet when I cough up for a polariser.

HTH. Kris.

BTW SRS is a very dangerous shop to visit. So many new toys just there, on the other side of counter, almost in reach, if only......
Kris Lockyear
It is an illusion that photos are made with the camera… they are made with the eye, heart and head. Henri Cartier-Bresson
Lots of film bodies, a couple of digital ones, too many lenses (mainly older glass) and a Horseman LE 5x4.

My website
johnriley
Posted 08/12/2008 - 15:08 Link
Polarisers are very tricky to use with ultra-wide lenses because the polarisation of light in the sky is not even. Bands of different gegrees of polarisation become visible and it's not a pleasant effect.

The natural vignetting that occurs with lenses as wide as the 12-24mm can be enough to darken skies slightly anyway, so maybe you can save the cost of that filter after all.
Best regards, John
Dr. Mhuni
Posted 09/12/2008 - 12:04 Link
Thanks for all the feedback - and special thanks to Hefty for posting the images.

I think my quandary is deepening further. On the one hand, the 12-24 seems to be an excellent lens, though - judging by your comments, Matt and Richard - for many shots I could get equally good results from multiple shots on the 16-45. I guess this would apply to landscapes especially - but not so much to interior shots, or creative framing where you're using the width to include different elements in a picture.

If anyone's got the Sigma, I'm still curious about the difference between 10 & 12.

Richard, with your two 10-20s do you think it was a case of getting duff copies? I understand that QC variations can be quite dramatic with the 10-20.
Mhuni

500px
RichardDay
Posted 09/12/2008 - 18:15 Link
Dr. Mhuni wrote:
Thanks for all the feedback - and special thanks to Hefty for posting the images.

I think my quandary is deepening further. On the one hand, the 12-24 seems to be an excellent lens, though - judging by your comments, Matt and Richard - for many shots I could get equally good results from multiple shots on the 16-45. I guess this would apply to landscapes especially - but not so much to interior shots, or creative framing where you're using the width to include different elements in a picture.

If anyone's got the Sigma, I'm still curious about the difference between 10 & 12.

Richard, with your two 10-20s do you think it was a case of getting duff copies? I understand that QC variations can be quite dramatic with the 10-20.

Firstly, I apologise for the width of this post, but I wanted to demonstrate some wide panoramas shown further down in my response.

I made a pdf that shows the difference in FOV for different focal lengths, you can find it here:
http://www.bitz4.co.uk/richard/photog/FOV_Nov_05.pdf

Regarding the 10-20, it may be that I had 2 bad examples, but I have tried 3 more samples since and they appeared much the same and one was even worse.

Personally, I feel the design is compromised as the field curvature is pretty poor and that leads to AF problems especially at the wide end. My standards for lens performance is pretty high and they didn't live up to my expectation, for some people they may be fine. Here is an example of the poor field curvature, it was taken at f8 and 10mm, see how badly the edge performance is compared to the very centre, the DOF at that focal length should be from around 1m to infinity.
(This is a full size image):
http://www.bitz4.co.uk/richard/photog/wa_lenses/IMGP9017.jpg

The 12-24 is IMO in a class above. It's sharp wide open and has what appears to be a much wider colour gamut, which is a feature of Pentax's best lenses.

Another problem with wide FOV lenses is that below 14mm (over 90 deg FOV) the perspective stretch becomes quite severe, here's an example (my wife is not that wide!)

Comment Image


As a comparison here is a shot taken with the DA 10-17 fisheye at 10mm and a de-fished version so you can see the differences!

Comment Image

Comment Image


This is why I'm not that enamoured with 10mm rectilinear lenses, the perspective stretch at even 12mm is noticeable. I think I would prefer a fisheye below 14mm as I find the fisheye effect less disconcerting than the perspective stretch.

Regarding my statements about stitched images, I took shots from an identical position using the 10-20 and 3 shots taken with my DA 16-45 and stitched. I think you will notice the difference even at this reduced for web size. When printed, the difference is enormous!

Even though the field of view is the same, the distance perspective of the stitched shot is much more realistic, the 10mm shot has exaggerated the distance perspective.

The 10-20

Comment Image


The 3 stiched shots

Comment Image


I hope this goes some way to answer your questions.

Regards
Best regards
Richard Day

Profile - link - (click on About for equipment profile) - My Flickr site - link
mikew
Posted 09/12/2008 - 18:25 Link
DR Mhuni I have a Sigma 10-20 and I'm happy with it although you have to be careful with it to get good results.

On balance I think I'd rather have the 12-24 as I suspect it might be better quality and the 24 end is much more useful than the 10 end if you see what I mean. I bought it in part because when younger and poorer I always wanted a very wide angle.

I'll try and get out tomorrow and take a shot at 10 and 12 for you.

I wouldn't use 10mm for a landscape for the reasons Richard outlines although if I wanted to get a dramatic sky to look even more dramatic I might. But for the panoramic shot above I don't think 10mm would be at all easy to use.

The Sigma is a big lens and heavy but when on the camera it's not unwieldy.

Mike
Daniel Bridge
Posted 09/12/2008 - 18:45 Link
RichardDay wrote:
Personally, I feel the design is compromised as the field curvature is pretty poor and that leads to AF problems especially at the wide end. My standards for lens performance is pretty high and they didn't live up to my expectation, for some people they may be fine. Here is an example of the poor field curvature, it was taken at f8 and 10mm, see how badly the edge performance is compared to the very centre, the DOF at that focal length should be from around 1m to infinity.
(This is a full size image):
http://www.bitz4.co.uk/richard/photog/wa_lenses/IMGP9017.jpg

Well, I'm happy to say my copy of this lens produces far better results than that! Are you sure it wasn't shot with a lensbaby?

I would say that my 10-20 is equal in image quality to my 16-45.

I'll have a look to see what shots I have to compare. Thinking of a view out over Edinburgh from the castle...

I've also posted examples on here before, I'll have a search for them.

Dan

P.S. Will also put in bug report for the way this deals with links seeping out of the quote box.
K-3, a macro lens and a DA*300mm...
iceblinker
Posted 09/12/2008 - 19:57 Link
If anyone is put off the Sigma 10-20mm by the above comments, find example images from people who are happy with the lens:

http://images.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&q=sigma%2010-20mm&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab...

Also see this review:

http://www.photozone.de/pentax/146-sigma-af-10-20mm-f4-56-ex-dc-pentax-k-review-...
~Pete
mikew
Posted 09/12/2008 - 20:04 Link
Quote:
at f8 and 10mm, see how badly the edge performance is compared to the very centre, the DOF at that focal length should be from around 1m to infinity.

Hmm I'd have said that before using the lens and others at the wider end.

What is DOF - is not just an indication of 'acceptable sharpness' rather than a hard and fast rule. If the lens is focussed at 4m then all things being equal the only objects in focus are at 4m and everything else is out of focus.

When using the Sigma I am very careful to ensure what I want to be in focus is indeed the point of sharp focus and anything else that happens to be in focus is a bonus.

I'm not sure if it's some arc with a radius of 4m that's in focus or a plane at 4m distance that's meant to be in focus but things at 5m are not in focus although they may appear to be acceptably so.

These are all my own thoughts and I am quite happy to be corrected but in my rangefinder days I always applied the same mental rules about focus and was not disappointed.

I'll be interested to hear what more expert members think.

I second Pete's comments - I find the lens to be good and quite sharp enough but then as Richard says we all have different standards. It's not as sharp as my Tamron 17-50 but it's a different breed of lens.

Mike
johnriley
Posted 09/12/2008 - 20:48 Link
It's quite right that a lens is focused at just one distance, and only things at that distance are in focus. However, things nearer and further away become progressively out of focus, depending upon the aperture, and the eye cannot distinguish the difference until it exceeds a certain threshold.

This point can be defined as we know the resolution of the eye, so DOF can also be defined. So it isn't quite as vague as suggested, but it's also true that a more exacting standard has to employed for huge enlargements than say for producing 6" x 4" prints.

The one thing I don't agree with is that we should expect different levels of sharpness from different types of lenses. In a practical sense all our lenses should produce equally sharp prints and the differences if any should only become apparent when we start being very picky and examining them from unrealistically close distances! Like camera club judges do...
Best regards, John
Daniel Bridge
Posted 09/12/2008 - 23:40 Link
Couldn't find the old thread I mentioned, but I've uploaded a pic taken from Edinburgh Castle overlooking the city. It's about 4.8Mb, and can be found here.

The lens was focused on the sign, which was about 1m away I would think. Aperture was f/8, lens was at 10mm. I'll leave you to make up your own minds about the image quality.

Dan
K-3, a macro lens and a DA*300mm...

Add Comment

To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.