WTB: a wide angle zoom for Pentax


alexvick

Link Posted 27/11/2013 - 07:21
Hi all,

I am looking for one of these:

Pentax DA 10-17
Pentax DA 12-24
Sigma 8-16
Sigma 10-20

or even Pentax 14 or 15.

Will gratefully listen to your offers.
Pentax K-3, DA 18-135, DA 50 1.8, DFA 100 Macro WR, HD 55-300 WR, Metz 58.

bwlchmawr

Link Posted 27/11/2013 - 08:32
Alex, unless you are particularly flush with cash, I urge you to try an ultra-wide angle before committing yourself (unless you've already done so, of course). It's a very specialised tool and an expensive paper-weight if you don't use it regularly.

Having seen some dramatic wide-angle landscapes, for years I coveted a Sigma 10-20 and was fortunate enough (though the kindness of another Forum member)to have the use of one for a morning.

It may be exactly what you want, but I was cured after a dozen shots: the distortion and extreme perspective have to be seen to be believed.
Best wishes,

Andrew

"These places mean something and it's the job of a photographer to figure-out what the hell it is."
Robert Adams
"The camera doesn't make a bit of difference.  All of them can record what you are seeing.  But, you have to SEE."
Ernst Hass
My website: http://www.ephotozine.com/user/bwlchmawr-199050 http://s927.photobucket.com/home/ADC3440/index
https://www.flickr.com/photos/78898196@N05

Helpful

ilovesaabs

Link Posted 27/11/2013 - 09:43
There's a Samsung branded 12-24 on here, apart from detailing it's identical to the Pentax version. The 10-17 is a different proposition, suitable if you want fisheye effects...
AKA Welshwizard/PWynneJ
Assorted Pentax/Nikon/Mamiya stuff

Mike-P

Link Posted 27/11/2013 - 09:53
Don't forget the Sigma 12-24mm ... Excellent lens and FF compatible (should Pentax ever release a body)
No equipment list here but thanks for taking an interest. My Flickr

giofi

Link Posted 27/11/2013 - 09:56
ilovesaabs wrote:
There's a Samsung branded 12-24 on here, apart from detailing it's identical to the Pentax version. The 10-17 is a different proposition, suitable if you want fisheye effects...

Yes (thanks).

I have one for sale here if you are interested, there is someone who will probably test it this week end, but no sale agreed.
Giorgio

Pentax Photo Gallery
Last Edited by giofi on 27/11/2013 - 09:56

alexvick

Link Posted 27/11/2013 - 19:18
bwlchmawr wrote:
Alex, unless you are particularly flush with cash, I urge you to try an ultra-wide angle before committing yourself (unless you've already done so, of course). It's a very specialised tool and an expensive paper-weight if you don't use it regularly.

Having seen some dramatic wide-angle landscapes, for years I coveted a Sigma 10-20 and was fortunate enough (though the kindness of another Forum member)to have the use of one for a morning.

It may be exactly what you want, but I was cured after a dozen shots: the distortion and extreme perspective have to be seen to be believed.

Thanks Andrew, I will carefully consider my options. I have always liked the vast space captured by wide angle lenses and the widest I have is 18mm. The lenses are expensive and I would like to try them before buying, but there's nowhere I can borrow one here in Cork, Ireland.

I guess a lot of research will be needed.
Pentax K-3, DA 18-135, DA 50 1.8, DFA 100 Macro WR, HD 55-300 WR, Metz 58.

Gwyn

Link Posted 27/11/2013 - 19:24
I owned a Sigma 10-20. I sold it. Like Andrew I didn't like the extreme perspective.
In fact instead of giving me sweeping landscapes it squashed it all into normal photo, making it look anything but sweeping. Nowadays I make a panorama of two or more shots for a sweeping view.
I don't miss my 10-20 at all.

It is an art, and a specialist technique to use one well. Several people here do it well, but I also note that for instance CardiffGareth has cropped a couple of his sunset photos taken with a wide angle to panorama format. Others he hasn't of course, and those work too.

bwlchmawr

Link Posted 27/11/2013 - 19:48
I've never tried one on a digital camera, but I reckon a genuine 24mm (in old money) would be a great landscape lens. I owned a 16-45 which was stolen but I never felt it was as wide as published, little different to a kit 18-55. My current standard zoom, a Tamron 17-50, is similar: the 17 is notional. Maybe a Pentax 15mm would be just the thing but then you're into serious money as well as swapping lenses out of doors with all the problems that brings...

I had (n fact still have) a Sigma 24mm from the old days which I used on my Contax 139 film camera. Now that was a great landscape lens and much wider than a 28mm.

Gwyn's right, using ultra wide lenses is an art, perhaps one which can be learnt. There are some great practitioners on this site which is what got me interested. One thing I have noticed is the vital importance of a VERY strong foreground element as even the highest mountains are diminished by the extreme perspective.
Best wishes,

Andrew

"These places mean something and it's the job of a photographer to figure-out what the hell it is."
Robert Adams
"The camera doesn't make a bit of difference.  All of them can record what you are seeing.  But, you have to SEE."
Ernst Hass
My website: http://www.ephotozine.com/user/bwlchmawr-199050 http://s927.photobucket.com/home/ADC3440/index
https://www.flickr.com/photos/78898196@N05

DrOrloff

Link Posted 27/11/2013 - 20:31
I agree with Andrew. Ultra wide angles have to be used with care. They are great in tight spaces, where the foreground is to be made prominent and for flat horizons where there aren't features that would be diminished - seascapes most obviously. I like the natural look that 28mm-35mm on apsc seems to bring. My K30/2.8 often seems just right. A stitch of shots around this focal length can look great imo. The most like being there. There is of course room for both approaches, but I do find them very different.
You can see some of my photos here if you are so inclined

davidstorm

Link Posted 27/11/2013 - 21:11
I agree with Andrew and Dr Orloff. The 12-24 (Samsung or Pentax branded are both the same) is a very good lens but has its weaknesses too and I often prefer to use the 16-45 (very sharp, reliable performer).

The 12-24 can distort quite heavily unless used with care and it is also very soft at the edges of the frame. My favourites for landscapes are an old M28 F3.5 and the DA 16-45 that I've just mentioned. The M28 in particular is virtually distortion-free and the 16-45 is pretty good for a zoom.

Regards
David
My Website http://imagesbydavidstorm.foliopic.com

Flickr

Some cameras, some lenses, some bits 'n' bobs

giofi

Link Posted 27/11/2013 - 21:55
davidstorm wrote:
The 12-24 can distort quite heavily unless used with care and it is also very soft at the edges of the frame.

I think distortion is a characteristic of ultra-wide lenses, but in that category the Pentax 12-24 is recognised to have relatively low distortion, and that is also my experience. As you say it requires care, and especially to keep the lens straight.
Giorgio

Pentax Photo Gallery

Dr. Mhuni

Link Posted 27/11/2013 - 22:44
I had a 12-24 some time back and found it to be probably the sharpest Pentax zoom I've owned (including the corners wide open). Perhaps you didn't have a good copy, David. Purple fringing was a bit strong, but it's a fine lens all in all. And I always felt that - while the Sigma 10-20 no doubt provides plenty of creative potential - the 12-24 was a more practical lens at both ends. I didn't find it that extreme either - which for some would be a reason to go with a Sigma (10-20 or 8-16).
Mhuni

500px

davidstorm

Link Posted 27/11/2013 - 23:35
Dr. Mhuni wrote:
I had a 12-24 some time back and found it to be probably the sharpest Pentax zoom I've owned (including the corners wide open). Perhaps you didn't have a good copy, David.

Thanks for the info. Dr. Mhuni, I will have to compare my copy with that of one of my friends on the same camera body and see whether there is any difference. Mine is noticeably soft at the edges of the frame, but very sharp in the centre.

Regards
David
My Website http://imagesbydavidstorm.foliopic.com

Flickr

Some cameras, some lenses, some bits 'n' bobs

Defragged

Link Posted 28/11/2013 - 00:08
The Sigma 8-18mm is also worth some consideration. It's a fabulous lens and takes you just about as wide as it's currently possible to go.

Take a look here at some of the stunning examples this lens is capable of:- link
C.O.L.B.A.S victim
(Compulsive Obsessive Lens Buying Addiction Syndrome)

What you need are lenses, more lenses, bigger lenses, better lenses, faster lenses, and when you have these, your pictures will be perfect!

jules

Link Posted 28/11/2013 - 05:23
alexvick wrote:
Hi all,

I am looking for one of these:

Pentax DA 10-17
Pentax DA 12-24
Sigma 8-16
Sigma 10-20

or even Pentax 14 or 15.

Will gratefully listen to your offers.

Sage advice from Andrew above, try a few before you buy, they are all good options, the 10-17 being a bit more specialised and probably best left alone for now if you are just starting in ultra wide land. I like my Siggy 8-16 better than all of them including the Sigma 12-24 HSMII that I had for nikon, the 8-16 is very special. The easiest to use is the Pentax, it is as good as the Limited 15mm, save for a tiny bit of micro contrast and a lot less vignetting but the 15mm is not really the subject here? If it is I'd still take the Pentax zoom. The two Sigma 10-20's are very good, there is not much between them but I'd give the nod very slightly to the constant F3.5 version although it is more costly. Back to the 8-16, the same can be true of any very wide lens, I like Landscape (This all could therefore, not apply to you) and do most of my photographic work in the lake district, even there with some pretty large mountains to use as backdrops they fade into pinpricks with an equivilent field of view of 12mm at it's widest angle, in practice for my usage it is in reality a 12-16mm, not much range although very very good, it does however excel at big sky and vast emptiness subjects where you can use the 8mm (12mm EFOV) end to magical effect.
So in summary. No1: Siggy 8-16 for optics and versatility but it's a hard task master and you may be dissapointed initially, it's worth learning though.
No2: Pentax 12-24mm for all around usability with no real weak points in it's genetics at all (It really is very very good indeed!)
No3: The Sigma's, they too are all three of them very good four if you include the older FF 12-24.
No4: Suprisingly the Pentax LImited 15mm, sharp as hell but no better than the Pentax 12-24 or the Sigma 8-16 (It's Pancake-iness makes it more difficult to make a totally convincing wide). Vignettes like hell and only the one focal length but it is beautifully made and teeny tiny, gorgeous, beautiful, desireable AND ADDICTIVE!
Cheers Jules...
tri-elmar-fudd

Back in the room!
“The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it.”...Ansel Adams
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
Last Edited by jules on 28/11/2013 - 05:27
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.