Upgrade from Pentax 18-250mm (at wide end!)
Posted 29/06/2012 - 16:36 - Helpful Comment
Link
Hi Chris
Always a difficult type of question to answer as we all have different tastes. However for what it is worth :
1. My most used lens is my Sigma 10-20 - stunning IQ
2. My second most used lens is my Pentax 17-70 - equally stunning IQ but I tend to shoot more frequently at the wider end so the Sigma edges it
3. I rarely use my 55-300, although the IQ is very good for the price - my 17-70 is better up to 70mm - my Sigma 50-150 is better up to 150mm and my Sigma 120-400 and 150-500 are both better for the longer shots. That said - if you rarely use the long end - the 55-300 is a good budget choice
regards
Carl
Always a difficult type of question to answer as we all have different tastes. However for what it is worth :
1. My most used lens is my Sigma 10-20 - stunning IQ
2. My second most used lens is my Pentax 17-70 - equally stunning IQ but I tend to shoot more frequently at the wider end so the Sigma edges it
3. I rarely use my 55-300, although the IQ is very good for the price - my 17-70 is better up to 70mm - my Sigma 50-150 is better up to 150mm and my Sigma 120-400 and 150-500 are both better for the longer shots. That said - if you rarely use the long end - the 55-300 is a good budget choice
regards
Carl
No matter how many lenses I have owned - I have always needed just one more
Posted 29/06/2012 - 16:50
Link
Thanks Carl
It is a difficult one I know especially as peoples' experiences and reviews vary so much. I've seen great reviews for the 10-20mm and plenty more where it's allegedly unuseable until around 14mm because of image softness and distortion.
Likewise with the 17-70 and 16-45. Also plenty of poor reviews for the 18-250mm whereas I think it's excellent!
I'll stick with the 18-250mm if i can't get anything better without spending a fortune, but would like something a bit wider if I can. Going to Pompeii/Herculaneum next week and suspect I won't get most of the interior shots with 18mm.
I don't shoot wildlife as a rule at home, but can do when travelling to somewhere exotic! A good 200mm might be better than a mediocre 300mm.
Thanks again
Chris
It is a difficult one I know especially as peoples' experiences and reviews vary so much. I've seen great reviews for the 10-20mm and plenty more where it's allegedly unuseable until around 14mm because of image softness and distortion.
Likewise with the 17-70 and 16-45. Also plenty of poor reviews for the 18-250mm whereas I think it's excellent!
I'll stick with the 18-250mm if i can't get anything better without spending a fortune, but would like something a bit wider if I can. Going to Pompeii/Herculaneum next week and suspect I won't get most of the interior shots with 18mm.
I don't shoot wildlife as a rule at home, but can do when travelling to somewhere exotic! A good 200mm might be better than a mediocre 300mm.
Thanks again
Chris
Posted 29/06/2012 - 17:46 - Helpful Comment
Link
I'll stick with the 18-250mm if i can't get anything better without spending a fortune, but would like something a bit wider if I can. Going to Pompeii/Herculaneum next week and suspect I won't get most of the interior shots with 18mm.
If you don't want to spend a lot its got to be a sigma 10-20 F4-5.6, I have one and its great value for money and mine is sharp enough, buy one second-hand and if you don't like it sell it on you wont lose any money.
Regards Robin
If you don't want to spend a lot its got to be a sigma 10-20 F4-5.6, I have one and its great value for money and mine is sharp enough, buy one second-hand and if you don't like it sell it on you wont lose any money.
Regards Robin
Posted 29/06/2012 - 18:12 - Helpful Comment
Link
Chris
If you have any doubts about the 10-20 - check the images in my portfolio - for instance the last 3 I have posted from Derwent water are all taken on the 10-20 - in fact the vast majority of my landscapes in my portfolio are with this lens
My first lens was the 18-250 and like you - I think it was and is seriously under-rated but it was not wide enough for me. Totally agree with Robin - even if you decide to keep the 18-250 - investing in the Sigma 10-20 could well be the best decision you ever make. My advice regards poor reviews of this lens would be to ignore them - I do not know anybody who has had a "bad copy" but I do know a couple of bad photographers who could not use it properly!
Before that comment gets a stack of outraged replies - I am not suggesting that everybody who claims to have had a bad one is a bad photographer. Like all lenses - there are bound to be rogues but I suspect that they are a minority
Carl
If you have any doubts about the 10-20 - check the images in my portfolio - for instance the last 3 I have posted from Derwent water are all taken on the 10-20 - in fact the vast majority of my landscapes in my portfolio are with this lens
My first lens was the 18-250 and like you - I think it was and is seriously under-rated but it was not wide enough for me. Totally agree with Robin - even if you decide to keep the 18-250 - investing in the Sigma 10-20 could well be the best decision you ever make. My advice regards poor reviews of this lens would be to ignore them - I do not know anybody who has had a "bad copy" but I do know a couple of bad photographers who could not use it properly!
Before that comment gets a stack of outraged replies - I am not suggesting that everybody who claims to have had a bad one is a bad photographer. Like all lenses - there are bound to be rogues but I suspect that they are a minority
Carl
No matter how many lenses I have owned - I have always needed just one more
Posted 29/06/2012 - 18:37
Link
Thanks again
Nearly bought the 10-20mm on here a few days back, but got cold feet with the reviews.
I'll have to keep looking!
Nearly bought the 10-20mm on here a few days back, but got cold feet with the reviews.
I'll have to keep looking!
Posted 29/06/2012 - 23:59 - Helpful Comment
Link
I've got a Sigma 10-20 but not happy with the way it vignettes images. Strangely the 8-16 doesn't seem to suffer as much.
The Pentax 12-24 gives a far more pleasing image in my opinion if the extreme wide angle isn't for you. But the 8-16mm is terrific value for what it is (when I got it it was cheaper than the 10-20mm) however I see SRS currently have a special price on the Sigma 10-20 so that might be the most affordable at present. The 10-20 isn't a bad lens when it comes to sharpness, it's just that vignetting puts me off using it (Carl's examples do exhibit this.)
If you wish I'll take three similar views tomorrow using the Sigmas 8-16 and 10-20 and the Pentax 12-24 each set at around 12mm which may give a useful comparison.
John
The Pentax 12-24 gives a far more pleasing image in my opinion if the extreme wide angle isn't for you. But the 8-16mm is terrific value for what it is (when I got it it was cheaper than the 10-20mm) however I see SRS currently have a special price on the Sigma 10-20 so that might be the most affordable at present. The 10-20 isn't a bad lens when it comes to sharpness, it's just that vignetting puts me off using it (Carl's examples do exhibit this.)
If you wish I'll take three similar views tomorrow using the Sigmas 8-16 and 10-20 and the Pentax 12-24 each set at around 12mm which may give a useful comparison.
John
John K
Posted 30/06/2012 - 00:03 - Helpful Comment
Link
johnha wrote:
I've got the DA 17-70 and it is rarely off the camera. I tried the 15mm f/4 but it didn't seem significantly wider considering the expense.
The 15mm f4 comes into its own if you mainly use a lightweight prime set rather than zooms.I've got the DA 17-70 and it is rarely off the camera. I tried the 15mm f/4 but it didn't seem significantly wider considering the expense.
John
John K
Posted 30/06/2012 - 07:01
Link
JAK wrote:
The 10-20 isn't a bad lens when it comes to sharpness, it's just that vignetting puts me off using it (Carl's examples do exhibit this.)
If you wish I'll take three similar views tomorrow using the Sigmas 8-16 and 10-20 and the Pentax 12-24 each set at around 12mm which may give a useful comparison.
John
That would be great, thanks. I can see a small amount of vignetting on one of Carl's images, but not on the others, though that's possibly my eyesight. On the other hand they are super images and very sharp.The 10-20 isn't a bad lens when it comes to sharpness, it's just that vignetting puts me off using it (Carl's examples do exhibit this.)
If you wish I'll take three similar views tomorrow using the Sigmas 8-16 and 10-20 and the Pentax 12-24 each set at around 12mm which may give a useful comparison.
John
I'll take a look at the 8-16mm as well, thanks. My limit is around £400 sadly so the 12-24mm is an unlikely option.
Posted 30/06/2012 - 07:31
Link
There is nothing wrong with the Sigma 10-20 F4-5.6 you only need to do a search in Flickr to see that.
I have one but am sadly lacking in the skills to use it to its full ability but this guy needs no such excuses.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/amblekingrat/7395302800/in/photostream/
Just shows its not what you've got its what you do with it.
Regards Robin.
I have one but am sadly lacking in the skills to use it to its full ability but this guy needs no such excuses.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/amblekingrat/7395302800/in/photostream/
Just shows its not what you've got its what you do with it.
Regards Robin.
Posted 30/06/2012 - 10:05 - Helpful Comment
Link
The Sigma 10-20 F4-5.6 is a super lens. I use it almost exclusively when I'm shooting interiors (the 15 Ltd isn't wide enough). Great value for money but there is a noticeable amount of distortion that can not always be corrected in PP. Definitely sharp enough.
PTlens can correct distortion when needed sometimes in PP, but not always. However this is the nature of the beast and there isn't a WA out there that doesn't have some degree of distortion. If you want to avoid distortion in landscapes altogether then get a sharp 28mm, take multiple shots on a tripod and stitch.
BTW the 10-20 might be slow but on a K5 I have zero problems shooting in dark rooms (and I mean storerooms with no light but that from the doorway) ! Just find a point to focus on and recompose. Voila !
The 15 Ltd is a gorgeous lens, superb rendering and you would have to pry it from my cold dead fingers to get me to release it. It is a wonderful lens, but probably not wide enough for your needs.
PTlens can correct distortion when needed sometimes in PP, but not always. However this is the nature of the beast and there isn't a WA out there that doesn't have some degree of distortion. If you want to avoid distortion in landscapes altogether then get a sharp 28mm, take multiple shots on a tripod and stitch.
BTW the 10-20 might be slow but on a K5 I have zero problems shooting in dark rooms (and I mean storerooms with no light but that from the doorway) ! Just find a point to focus on and recompose. Voila !
The 15 Ltd is a gorgeous lens, superb rendering and you would have to pry it from my cold dead fingers to get me to release it. It is a wonderful lens, but probably not wide enough for your needs.
http://frogfish.smugmug.com/ Pentax. Pentax DA*300/4, Cosina 55/1.2, Lens Baby Composer Pro & Edge 80, AFA x1.7, Metz 50 af1.
Nikon. D800. D600. Sigma 500/4.5, Nikon 300/2.8 VRII, Sigma 120-300/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 21/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 35/2.0, Sigma 50/1.4, Nikkor 85/1.8, Nikon TC20EIII, Nikon TC14EII, Kenko x1.4, Sigma 2.0
Nikon. D800. D600. Sigma 500/4.5, Nikon 300/2.8 VRII, Sigma 120-300/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 21/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 35/2.0, Sigma 50/1.4, Nikkor 85/1.8, Nikon TC20EIII, Nikon TC14EII, Kenko x1.4, Sigma 2.0
Posted 30/06/2012 - 10:05 - Helpful Comment
Link
Most software packages have a function to help counteract vignetting so it is less of a problem than it used to be. The 12-24 is a stunning lens and the lack of barrel/pin cushion distortion would be a bonus for photographing buildings. I have no idea how the Sigma fares on that front, but again there are software solutions available these days.
If you are really after a wide lens for just this one trip, have you considered renting a 12-24 from SRS? Obviously, you cannot re-coup the cost by selling it again, but it might solve your short term dilemma.
Cheers, Kris.
If you are really after a wide lens for just this one trip, have you considered renting a 12-24 from SRS? Obviously, you cannot re-coup the cost by selling it again, but it might solve your short term dilemma.
Cheers, Kris.
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.
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.
Posted 30/06/2012 - 10:15
Link
womble wrote:
If you are really after a wide lens for just this one trip, have you considered renting a 12-24 from SRS? Obviously, you cannot re-coup the cost by selling it again, but it might solve your short term dilemma.
Cheers, Kris.
Hadn't thought about that, Kris. Will give them a call.
If you are really after a wide lens for just this one trip, have you considered renting a 12-24 from SRS? Obviously, you cannot re-coup the cost by selling it again, but it might solve your short term dilemma.
Cheers, Kris.
Posted 01/07/2012 - 13:34
Link
As mentioned in my earlier post, some comparison test shots:
Sigma8-16 @ 12mm
Camera Model: PENTAX K-5
Image Date: 2012-07-01 12:43:20
Focal Length: 12.0mm (35mm equivalent: 18mm)
Aperture: f/8.0
Exposure Time: 0.0010 s (1/1000)
ISO equiv: 200
Exposure Bias: none
Metering Mode: Matrix
Exposure: aperture priority (semi-auto)
White Balance: Auto
Software: K-5 Ver 1.13
Sigma10-20 @ 12mm
Camera Model: PENTAX K-5
Image Date: 2012-07-01 12:44:53 (no TZ)
Focal Length: 12.0mm (35mm equivalent: 18mm)
Aperture: f/8.0
Exposure Time: 0.0010 s (1/1000)
ISO equiv: 200
Exposure Bias: none
Metering Mode: Matrix
Exposure: aperture priority (semi-auto)
White Balance: Auto
Software: K-5 Ver 1.13
Pentax12-24 @ 12mm
Camera Model: PENTAX K-5
Image Date: 2012-07-01 12:46:10 (no TZ)
Focal Length: 12.0mm (35mm equivalent: 18mm)
Aperture: f/8.0
Exposure Time: 0.0010 s (1/1000)
ISO equiv: 200
Exposure Bias: none
Metering Mode: Matrix
Exposure: aperture priority (semi-auto)
White Balance: Auto
Software: K-5 Ver 1.13
and for comparison the Pentax DA 14mm f2.8
Camera Model: PENTAX K-5
Image Date: 2012-07-01 12:47:49 (no TZ)
Focal Length: 14.0mm (35mm equivalent: 21mm)
Aperture: f/8.0
Exposure Time: 0.0010 s (1/1000)
ISO equiv: 200
Exposure Bias: none
Metering Mode: Matrix
Exposure: aperture priority (semi-auto)
White Balance: Auto
Software: K-5 Ver 1.13
All taken in the space of 5 minutes. Although the K5 was set on Av, it gave the same exposure for each of the shots as can be seen from the EXIF data. I think that may show why the 10-20mm is my least favourite!
John
Sigma8-16 @ 12mm
Camera Model: PENTAX K-5
Image Date: 2012-07-01 12:43:20
Focal Length: 12.0mm (35mm equivalent: 18mm)
Aperture: f/8.0
Exposure Time: 0.0010 s (1/1000)
ISO equiv: 200
Exposure Bias: none
Metering Mode: Matrix
Exposure: aperture priority (semi-auto)
White Balance: Auto
Software: K-5 Ver 1.13
Sigma10-20 @ 12mm
Camera Model: PENTAX K-5
Image Date: 2012-07-01 12:44:53 (no TZ)
Focal Length: 12.0mm (35mm equivalent: 18mm)
Aperture: f/8.0
Exposure Time: 0.0010 s (1/1000)
ISO equiv: 200
Exposure Bias: none
Metering Mode: Matrix
Exposure: aperture priority (semi-auto)
White Balance: Auto
Software: K-5 Ver 1.13
Pentax12-24 @ 12mm
Camera Model: PENTAX K-5
Image Date: 2012-07-01 12:46:10 (no TZ)
Focal Length: 12.0mm (35mm equivalent: 18mm)
Aperture: f/8.0
Exposure Time: 0.0010 s (1/1000)
ISO equiv: 200
Exposure Bias: none
Metering Mode: Matrix
Exposure: aperture priority (semi-auto)
White Balance: Auto
Software: K-5 Ver 1.13
and for comparison the Pentax DA 14mm f2.8
Camera Model: PENTAX K-5
Image Date: 2012-07-01 12:47:49 (no TZ)
Focal Length: 14.0mm (35mm equivalent: 21mm)
Aperture: f/8.0
Exposure Time: 0.0010 s (1/1000)
ISO equiv: 200
Exposure Bias: none
Metering Mode: Matrix
Exposure: aperture priority (semi-auto)
White Balance: Auto
Software: K-5 Ver 1.13
All taken in the space of 5 minutes. Although the K5 was set on Av, it gave the same exposure for each of the shots as can be seen from the EXIF data. I think that may show why the 10-20mm is my least favourite!
John
John K
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
863 posts
14 years
Norfolk
I have noticed, however, that around 80% of my pictures are taken at the wider end. Plenty at 18mm and not much over 50mm or so, except for wildlife on occasion.
I'm therefore thinking about a replacement, but it would have to be something that gives me better quality.
I've been considering the Sigma 10-20mm and also the Pentax/Samsung 16-45mm, plus something longer for the odd occasion I do wildlife, perhaps the 50-200mm or the 55-300mm, unless there is a better quality alternative at 200/300mm or so anyone can recommend.
I have an M 50mm 1.7 for low light which I also use coupled with a 2X macro converter for macro.
I'd appreciate anyone's thoughts about the 16-45mm and whether that would see a step up in quality from my 18-250mm or any other random thoughts about where I might head.
I'd love a Pentax 12-24mm, but it's way out my price range at present.
Thanks
Chris