Thanks for the fine judging, no problem there at all! If you win again, perhaps you will relent and judge again....

But congrats to the winners and especially pschlute, who is now invited to start the new thread.

Tomato on Toast

I agree, the weakness in these shots is the tendency to split the images into two with a central horizon.

Barrel distortion in an ultra-wide tends to be reasonably acceptable (pincushion would definitely not be) but modern zooms are very lax in this area.

The Pentax 12-24mm is one of the best I have seen for some time, with very moderate to virtually zero distortion.

It is worth buying these more expensive lenses if you have a purpose in mind, such as architecture perhaps. I would have described the distortion in the bridge shot as "dreadful".

Escher was indeed exactly what I had in mind.

That's an obscure one.

I have one thought and that relates to image distortion. If you are plotting co-ordinates to make 3D models then would I be right in assuming that spatial accuracy would be vital?

Does this then mean that zooms would be quite inaccurate and the only lenses suitable would be macro lenses, and even more likely specially manufactured lenses spoecifically for the purpose? Nikon for example make or made various different fish-eye lenses with different projections. Orthographic projection was one I think?

Here it is, or at least it could be:

The lowest cost lens from Pentax that might come close to your requirements is the 16-45mm. A very, very good zoom that's on my camera almost all the time.

If you can bear to pay more, then the 12-24mm is another cracker of a lens, albeit it a bit more than your miserly budget!

Some things just can't be done for the price you are quoting.

Post some shots by all means - there's a section of the forum for that.

I depends what you do with the images and that dictates the need for better lenses. If you need images for A3 and bigger prints and for publication in magazines then the better lenses pay dividends.

If you only post on the web and never make prints larger than 7" x 5" then i would stay with low cost lenses, within reason. The SMC Pentax-DA 18-55mm is a good example of a low cost lens that delivers the goods. It will actually make fine A3 prints as well, but has to be stopped down to get the best out of it. But even then, wide open it's good for portraiture, so it's never clear cut.

Even a really poor lens might be good for soft focus portraits and flower studies, and so on. So never reject anything out of hand until you try it out for yourself.

I think you're right to have fun with photography at low cost. When you feel the need for better lenses you'll have a purpose in mind and the direction to go will be more obvious.