Actually the apparent underexposure of the 10-20mm is easily fixed through Paintshop, but it still doesn't have the depth and vibrancy of colour of the 8-16mm shot, in my opinion.

Damm - I'd almost (99%) decided to get the 10-20mm from SRS tomorrow then you post these........

The 10-20mm is clearly the worst of the four, by some way too. I know it's only one shot and other people might argue otherwise, but with limited funds it shows how hard the decision is.

To my eyes the 8-16mm is the best image which surprises me considering the cost of the 12-24mm and the DA 14mm. I think it has real character.

Might have to check that one out now........

Thanks very much John (I think!). First time I've seen a straight comparison like this and appreciate the trouble you went to. Don't suppose you want to sell the 8-16mm

A and C, both B and D are out of focus, B much more so than D, to my eyes anyway.

Hi Georgia

It could be the focus settings on the camera or, as John says, the type of subject you are trying to lock onto. Try it with a range of subjects at different distances and see if it works at all.

Whereabouts are you? I have a Pentax 18-250 you would be welcome to try to see if it is the camera or the lens, but not a K20.

It's worth getting the problem sorted. The 18-250mm is quite a sought after lens now that it's discontinued and, in my opinion anyway, a whole lot better than the Tamron 18-200.

One here Andrew

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Pentax-SMC-DAL-18-55mm-f3-5-5-6-AL-lens-/300734417571?...

Or two from this seller at £25 (Samsung, but the same)

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Samsung-D-Xenon-f3-5-5-6-18-55mm-AL-Lens-Pentax-KAF-Fi...

Hadn't thought about that, Kris. Will give them a call.

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.

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.

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!

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

I currently have a Pentax 18-250mm which I love as my travel lens. It's an excellent copy - my sig was taken with it (larger pic in gallery) as was the photo that won the weekly comp #255, plus the 'storm', 'boat', 'pagoda' and 'lightning' pics in my gallery.

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