Wide angle lens

Have it in mind to buy myself a wide angle lens. My first question is how wide should one go when using a DSLR to get the sort of view one would with say a 20mm mounted on a 35mm film camera or am I asking too much.

Question 2 is although I would in most cases prefer a Pentax lens sometimes if I am to have it at all I have to buy a different make of lens. Most of my lenses are Pentax or Sigma so advice on these or others would be welcome.

A 14mm is the nearest equivalent to a 20mm on a 35mm film camera.

Your best options are SMC Pentax DA 12-24mm or Sigma 10-20mm. If you like the fisheye perspective there's the SMC Pentax DA 10-17mm.

Or the Pentax DA 14mm if you prefer primes...

How about the new Tokina 11-16 f4, it's getting very good reviews and as it's a Tokina it may in the future be added to the Pentax range.

Prefer to avoid fisheye if possible so it looks as if I have 3 choices once I have decided if I want prime or not, so it may come down to what I can afford.

At the moment I only have two prime lens the 50mm and my 105mm macro, I love them both but wonder if having a bit of adjustment helps with composition when it comes to landscape, what do others with experience think? Do I go for a prime and be prepared to move when taking the shot or to crop or take what seems the easier option of having the flexibility of a lens with adjustable length.

P.S. have a bit of a mobility problem so walking or climbing is not always an option.

With landscapes you've quite a lot of time to set everything up so prime would be the better option since the image quality is better.

There is also a DA 15mm Ltd on the way link

Oh!! Decisions, decisions.

Although a prime will have better IQ and an extra stop of speed, the Pentax 12-24mm is extremely good. The DA 14 is is only 20 quid cheaper than the 12-24. I find that I have that lens on the camera quite a bit of the time and although I use the longer end more often than the shorter it is good to have the flexibility. With your mobility problem you may also prefer the zoom. The main downside is size. The 12-24 is a chunky piece of glass

Isn't it nice to be spoilt for choice?

LOL I have a 50-500mm that I need a porter for so I reckon I would be able to manage the chunky 12-24mm. Also have an old Pentax 100-300mm that is surprisingly heavy, is it my imagination or has the weight of glass reduced in recent years and if so can someone explain why.

Cost cutting maybe? is there more plastic than metal?

The FA 100-300 f/4.5-5.6 has powerzoom, maybe that makes the difference?

The F version is quite heavy - keep one in my office draw in case anything interesting crops up that needs a longer lens - it's got a higher metal content than the FA which followed. Lenses have got progressively lighter as more and more plastics have been used. Just compare an K or M lens with the A or F or FA version.

The benefit is of course the long zooms have become manageable handheld (only for short periods true :lol where as there is no way you could try this with the SMC K 135-600 without a very substantial monopod (or industrial quality tripod.:!


Steve