Wide angle for a K100D

Although I am often surprised by what comes out of the DA 18-55mm, I feel the

need for something wider. Looking at what's available and affordable in South

Africa, I come down to the Sigma 10-20mm and the Pentax DA 14mm. Does anyone

have experience of both of these lenses?

 

Henk

I've no experience with the DA 14mm but I've owned the Sigma 10-20 for perhaps 18 months and have found it an excellent and very useful lens. I'd certainly like to own the 14mm however in the UK it's twice the price of the Sigma.

Godfrey can comment on the 14mm DA, my recollection is he owns it and finds it a great lens.

<P>

I own and enjoy the 10-20 for just a few months. It's taken some fine images. On both the ist D and the K10D. For about $400 after rebates, coupons and free shipping/no tax from Amazon I got it for $200 less then the Pentax version (12-24) which is a really good lens. The 10-20 was a bit smaller, and almost interal zooming. (just a few mm of movement. it is internal focusing and takes standard 77mm filters. Flare control is good for a superwide, and probably better than I've gotten since I have taken all my shots with the filter on just because the front element slightly protrudes. The star effect is not as nice as the Pentax though.

<P>

<a title="Mid-Hudson (FDR) Bridge" href=" src="http://static.flickr.com/1211/1059726068_acf072b60c_d.jpg" border="0" /></a>

<P>

<a title="The Sky Is Falling - Osgood River" href=" src="http://static.flickr.com/1438/1200571446_c127843ce8_d.jpg" border="0" /></a>

<P>

<a title="Just Another Sunset" href=" src="http://static.flickr.com/1195/1373402628_4f3568b7b3_d.jpg" border="0" /></a>

<P>

<a title="Reflections In Mid Town" href=" src="http://static.flickr.com/1108/1469841128_8e2fb08ad4_d.jpg" border="0" /></a>

<p>Like the previous posters, I also have the Sigma 10-20 and like it very much. I would not have bought it if its reputation weren't so good, but it's reputation is good, and I decided to go with a zoom for flexibility. The difference between 10mm and 14mm is significant, and so is the difference between 14mm and 20mm. </p>

 

<p>I just took three quick shots with the Sigma 10-20 to illustrate these differences. You can see the shots by <u><a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/wmb.porter/20071006Sigma1020Examples?authkey=D7ZJnX8cNQ0">clicking here</a></u>. PLEASE note that they're not meant as examples of the lens's acuity, but just of the zoom range. The shots were taken handheld with an *ist DS, a slow shutter, and medium-high ISO, so they're not tack sharp.</p>

<center>

<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW7/large/41c-half.jpg"

target=new1>

<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW7/large/41c.jpg" border=0>

</a><br>

Cart Wheel - Sheep Ranch 2005<br>

<i>©2007 by Godfrey DiGiorgi<br>

Pentax *ist DS + DA14mm f/2.8<br>

ISO 200 @ f/6.3 @ 1/30 sec, Av <br>

<br>

Click the image above for a larger version in a separate window.<br></i>

</center>

<br>

The DA14 was one of the reasons I bought a Pentax DSLR in the first place. It has made

several thousand excellent photos for me with the DS and K10D bodies. I find its rendering

qualities and overall performance excellent in every way.

<br><br>

Godfrey - <a href="http://www.gdgphoto.com">www.gdgphoto.com</a>

<br><br>

Good example if you click Williams link...definitely gives you an idea of how wide 10mm is. Don't forget at the wide angles 1-2mm really makes a huge difference.

 

IIRC shot #1 above is about 17mm

 

#2 about 14mm

 

#3 about 20mm

 

#4 definitely 10mm (just took it the other day)

Well for me and a lot of people, this is the obvious answer

 

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=17658788

 

Daniel

If you like non straight lines.

 

For me distortion is to be avoided...fisheye is kind of a gimmick lens.

 

I have some ideas for fisheye shots but I can take them with the 10mm end and turn them into a fisheye via photoshop saving $160 and a few ounces in my camera bag.

Justin,

 

You forget the Zenitar 16mm fisheye is only $160 shipped incl tax (in U S). The barrel distortion effect , if offensive, can easily be taken out . For rectilinear wide angle lens, you have the same distortion just not barrel though. It is governed by the focal length.

You think that there is no distortion in a 10mm shot?

 

http://i.pbase.com/o6/21/521621/1/78409157.MJQsq4l1.IMG_4821.jpg

 

Hope it is shown here

 

http://i.pbase.com/o6/21/521621/1/78409157.MJQsq4l1.IMG_4821.jpg

 

That was a Canon 10mm rect lens. Yeah. Sure. There are straight lines. Personally I would rather have slight spherical distortion.

 

See my input on straight line at

http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/view_topic.php?id=572992&forum_id=80&jump_to=761229#p761229

 

Daniel , Toronto

Daniel, I understand what your saying but correcting slight distortion is much easier than a lot. When you correct distortion you lose resolution, correct? Even digitally correction isn't a lossless fix. I understand there are defishing programs but how much of the frame do you lose? And can't DxO essentially one click correct any lens in the database?

 

I use the Sigma 10-20 at 10mm and while there is distortion it is very slight considering the FL. I only got the lens recently, and was a little worried about it, i wasn't even sure I really needed a 15mm equiv lens. It's been a pleasure to use though, and as good, if not better than expected.

 

See the Reflections image above...everything looks good to me at 10mm. However, there definitely is usually more distortion on the extreme edges, even visible in the viewfinder, the composition just worked for that shot to avoid it.

 

The Zenitar is a killer option but I definitely think some people might be disappointed with it if they aren't 100% sure they want a fisheye.

 

BTW, holy crap...the inside of the church with the 10mm Canon is super distorted. You are right it might be easier to defish, I'd like to see how the sigma compares.

http://www.pbase.com/danieltong/image/82010563/original

 

Here is a defished image of an indoor iso 1600 shot in the Holy City. Majority of the time I was in tight corner, I would not have made it without a WA or a fisheye. Defishing is simple and just adds one click after resizing for web use

 

Here is another one in Ontario Museum.

 

http://www.pbase.com/danieltong/image/76173496

 

 

Daniel, Toronto

Henk have you made a decision yet? I just picked up a like-new DA 14mm f2.8 at Henry's in Toronto because $440 shipped was too good to pass up. I realize 15 ounces isn't much for a 14mm of that speed but i've been spoiled by the tiny pancakes and am considering whether if I really want to keep it. If I sell I'll just want to break even.

Yesterday I got the Sigma 10-20mm because of local availability and price. In South Africa gear is a lot more expensive than in the US and while ordering direct is an option, it raises warranty issues and attracts a whole bunch of duties, taxes and so on. The DA 14mm was a bit outside my budget for now (not that the 10-20 was _really_ within it :-) ).

<center>

<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW7/large/42c-half.jpg"

target=new>

<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW7/large/42c.jpg"

border=0></a><br>

Where Next - Oxford 2005<br>

<i>©2007 by Godfrey DiGiorgi<br>

Pentax *ist DS + DA14mm f/2.8<br>

ISO 1600 @ f/3.5 @ 1/40 sec, Av <br>

<br>

Click the image above for a larger version in a separate window.</i><br>

</center><br>

Every time I say to myself "Oh, it's so big and heavy. I hardly use it. Why do I hang onto

this 14mm lens?" I find another picture in my library that I couldn't have made without it...

<br><br>

Godfrey - <a href="http://www.gdgphoto.com">www.gdgphoto.com</a><br><br>

yeah, I also frequently see shots i couldn't make with the DA21, lovely little beast that it is. Truth be told I miss my nine ounce AF Nikkor 24mm 2.8. But unless hell freezes over and Pentax adds a lightweight DA16mm 2.8 prime, guess I'll keep the 14.

I have to agree with Godfrey, 14mm DA f/2.8 is an incredible lens.