Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax / Samsung dSLR, K Mount Mirrorless

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 3, 2008, 6:52 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Driver3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 481
Default

Here's another one with the 10-20. this is at 10mm f16 iso100 1/25sec.



I thought about the 10-17 fisheye but thought it may be limiting ? I don't know.

I think the 16-45 is a fine lens too.

Driver3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 3, 2008, 6:54 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
DMJJR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 926
Default

Wouldn't buy the 16-45 again-not any better than my kit lens. Mine is very soft-have used it with DS & K10d with the same results.
DMJJR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 3, 2008, 9:10 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Monza76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,093
Default

Thanks very much, after some thought I have eliminated the 16-45mm because I want wider. I am not sure about the fisheye, I would like to use this lens for vertical landscape shots and for some wedding shots (not group shots, more like church interiors). I think the distortions may be too difficult to work with. I love the effect but it does have some restrictions, maybe it will be a purchase for later.

It seems to come down to the Sigma 10-20mm or the DA 12-24mm. Both look good but it will cost me $150 more for the Pentax, I really need to see a big advantage to make that choice. Is there a significant reason to choose the Pentax or will I get the Sigma? The reviews for the Sigma are very good so optical quality doesn't seem to be an issue, and it is an EX model so it is their best build quality, is the Pentax worth $150 more for an amateur photographer who does some weddings and events but does not make a living from photography (I just use these gigs to pay for the hobby)?

I think it will be the Sigma.

Ira
Monza76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 3, 2008, 10:00 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Posts: 1,381
Default

Hi Ira,

This is my favorite area of photography and I consider myself just a rank novice. I picked up the 16-45 and the 10-17 due to the wide angle prespective. The specific reason for the 16-45 was due to a lot of reports of it being better than the kit lens, and it being a bit wider. There are many reasons why I like the 16-45, however about a year after I picked it up I did a quick test across the 18-55 kit, 16-45 and the 10-17.

http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo...mp;forum_id=94

There I found that the 16-45 was not better than the kit - based on this "test". Now its been a year and I still have the lens, and I still like it. In thinking about it, I believe that the quick test I did was somewhat flawed. I should have found the "sweet" spot of each lens and then compared them, rather than just take 3 images in automatic and compare the results.

DMJJR has indicated before that the 16-45 was not marginally better than the kit and so far, I do agree with him. I took a number of images at the National Air and Space Museum annex at Dulles Airport a couple of days ago with the 16-45 and I need to go back and look at them. The 16-45 is much better than the kit on focusing. My kit lens has a habit of hunting, while the 16-45 just locks on.

The 10-17 compared with the 12-24 along with the 10-20 are comparing apples to oranges. Yes their focal length are similiar, however you really need to compare them using field of view, due to the FE to understand the lenses. The 10-17 is 180 to 100 degrees wide, while the 12-24 and the 10-20 are on the order of 99 to 60 degrees wide. Just for comparison purposes the 16-45 has a fov of 83 to 35 degrees. The FE effect is manageable, and at the 17mm FL it almost disappears.

The 10-17 does defish very well, and I have used it in the vertical and stitched. It does well, however - be warned that if your subject has a lot of straight lines and square corners, then the stitching can be difficult.

http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo...mp;forum_id=94

The 12-24 is a lens that I have been on the verge of purchasing several times. I have thought about the 10-20 also, but am really undecided - especially since the Pentax has the premium attached to it. I ran across the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 but so far does not come in the Pentax mount and am wonderig if Pentax will possibly announce
it some time in the future - which I have no clue on.

So I will be very interested in what you finally decide to do. I have seen some great images from the Sigma, and also on the Pentax - but have not pulled the trigger as of yet on any of these.
interested_observer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 3, 2008, 10:10 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Posts: 1,381
Default

Hi Ira, - one additional note. In a recent response posting on the 12-24, Hariett said that the 12-24 was ... not a great lens.

Quote:
I really like it, but I wouldn't call it a great lens, it's not quite in the same category to me as the 77 Ltd or the DA*50-135 (and it is in the same price range).
http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo...mp;forum_id=94

That has me rethinking all of this - and your question on this area - will certainly give me another prespective on the selection of lenses.

That being said, the Tokina 12-24 has received very good reviews, and from what I understand they are essentially the same lens (the Pentax/Tokina design and build relationship).

... so I will be very interested in what you decide to do.

interested_observer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 3, 2008, 10:30 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Posts: 1,381
Default

I see you have eliminated the 16-45, but here is a good wide shot with the lens...


Attached Images
 
interested_observer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 3, 2008, 11:11 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,052
Default

I very much like my 12-24, but it isn't in the same class as the 77 Ltd. At the time I bought it I was only vaguely aware of the Sigma (I didn't do that much research for non-Pentax alternatives before buying it). If the two lenses have similar quality (and I've seen lots of outstanding pictures taken with it so I suspect they are similar), I don't see where the Pentax is worth that big of a premium.

If you are interested in comparison shots between the 10-17 and the 12-24, I put some up in my miscellaneous album on zenfolio ( http://mtngal.zenfolio.com/p78031665...A65B#476489307). There's a thread here somewhere with those same pictures. If budget didn't matter so much, I'd like to have both the fisheye and either the Sigma or the 12-24 - the fisheye effect can be fun, but I wouldn't want it as my only wide-angle.

My 12-24 has a fair amount of CA (blue/yellow)and it's not exactly the sharpest lens I have. It's somewhat sharper than my kit lens, and resolves better on the K20. Purple fringing reasonable (I have worse lenses for this). I tend to not crop these pictures much (why would you want to significantly crop a wide angle shot?) and they resize well.
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 4, 2008, 7:47 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
Monza76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,093
Default

This is certainly becoming more complicated instead of less. Here is what I have so far.

1 - DA 16-45mm f4 ($400). Declined - a good lens but not wide enough to consider here.

2 - DA 12-24mm f4 ($750). Expensive but still considered for its decent field of view.

3 - DA 10-17mm f3.5-4 fisheye ($500). Very tempting, but... I think this lens is more of a want than a need, it can wait for later.

4 - SIGMA 10-20MM 4-5.6 EX DC PENTAX ($600). Number one on the list right now although there are still some reservations. I have owned 5 Sigma lenses over the years, one was of excellent mechanical and optical quality (built around 1990), one was total junk mechanically but optically fine (built late 1990s), two were mediocre in quality and optics (both mid 1990s) and my 24-135mm is optically excellent but has some very minor mechanical issues (zoom creep and the rubber grip on the zoom ring can slip around the lens). The 10-20mm is an EX lens, Sigma's best quality, and they do have a 6 year warranty. Godfrey DiGiorgi, one of the photographers showcased on the Pentaxian site http://www.pentaxian.com/#pentaxians...dfrey_digiorgiuses more than one camera system and he warns against Sigma based on poor mechanical quality, as he put it every Sigma he has owned has fallen apart. I realize that this is only one opinion but when I look around this forum I find that the only Sigma lenses that are fairly common, and spoken of highly, are the 50-500mm and both versions of the 75-300mm.

I think basically here is what I have learned from an internet search. The same website has tested both the Sigma 10-20mm and the Pentax 12-24mm. The Sigma displays much more vignetting but far less CA, both lenses are considered to be very well built. The Pentax shows some softening at the long end but is extremely sharp at the 12mm end, the Sigma is soft in the corners at the wide end. Finally, the Pentax is a fixed aperture f4 lens while the Sigma is a variable aperture f4-5.6 lens.

I had almost talked myself back into the 12-24mm until I read Harriet's post which gives it an "OKay but..." kind of review. I have become something of a prime snob in recent months, rarely using zooms because I like the results from my fast primes. Perhaps I should just drop this list and get the DA 14mm f2.8 and be done with it ($650 for me).

Ther you go, I have just managed to totally cloud the issue again.
Monza76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 4, 2008, 3:14 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Driver3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 481
Default

Ira,

I don't know if you ar e familiar with this site but it is definitely worth a look.

http://photozone.de/

All the lenses you are considering are tested here. Impartial and thorough.

Dennis
Driver3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 4, 2008, 3:36 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
snooked's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: South Florida
Posts: 1,411
Default

I have had my 12-24mm for over two years and love it.

Hand held 1/5 sec. F4

Ed
Attached Images
 
snooked is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 6:15 PM.