Lens Dilemma, looking for wide angle

[jgredline]

<p>Justin, atleast you where able to make some sort of sense out of the chart. I had no such luck.</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>I have some brand bias but at least <em>some </em> of it comes from things I like about Pentax glass - positive points for quick-shift focusing and consistency in the direction of operation for focus and zoom rings.</p>

<p>The chart isn't bad, I quickly understood what Sudhakar was trying to do though as Justin pointed the minimum focus distance for the Pentax lenses was botched. Anyway, the categories and weights assigned for different categories would likely be different for each of us if we were to attempt a similar matrix. Certainly these weights are heavily biased towards the max wide angle, where the Tamron gets seriously penalized despite being not all that far off from the DA16-45 & DA* 16-50. And there's no benefit for the max focal length.</p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>Javier,</p>

<p>I'm going to assume he is an engineer. They tend to break things down like this. That isn't to say we all don't before buying something but engineers tend to be a bit more elaborate in drawing up a pros and cons list!</p>

<p>Andrew,</p>

<p>Your point on brand makes more sense, but it would be better to eliminate brand, and add subjective lens optical qualities, and subjective ergonomic qualities. Then you could fairly add points for things like SMC coating, and quick shift without automatically biasing the results. For instance, Sigma EX build is better than standard FA build, but Sigma would still take a hit for build over Pentax if they were matched head to head.</p>

<p> </p>

[miserere_mei]

<p>This thread has been entertaining to read and look at. So much so that I have decided NOT to buy a wide angle. I'm still convinced I need to wait for the DA* 11-16mm f/2.8.</p>

<p>Hope is the last thing to go...</p>

[jgredline]

<p>Ok, I am getting the chart now. I should know better than to be posting in the middle of the night when I am half asleep.</p>

<p>Mis, I am sure you have seen the new Tamron 8-14 F/3.5 right? That may be a better fit. :)</p>

[rogerdaltx]

<p>Sudhakar, I'm glad to see I'm not the only one that does weighted matrix charts when trying to decide between products. They help but don't always get you to the "right" choice. The last camera related one I did covered all the DSLR systems I was considering at the time which lead me to buy into Canon; that lasted about a year before moving to Pentax.<br /> <br /> Will be interesting to see how the revamped Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 HSM turns out once it ships in K mount. This one may be worth the wait, at least for me; but then again who knows how long it will take them to get the k mount out, since it was just announced in March at PMA 2009 and I don't think the Canon / Nikon mounts are shipping yet. No doubt K mount will be the last one to ship. If they've managed to improve the sharpness and consistency over the range and reduce the distortion a bit it should be a winner and the constant aperture is a big plus to me. Their generation two versions usually improve things significantly. It will be HSM / SDM only, which I guess is not be a big deal, but some how it bugs me not to have a screw drive; I need to get past that. It is reported to be about 10% larger in every dimension over the old slower lens, but that 82mm filter size sure makes for an expensive filter.</p>

<p>Here is the PMA press release on dpreview:<br /> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0903/09030305sigma10mm20mm.asp</p>

<p>And intresting enough they also just recently tested the orginial version of the Sigma 10-20. Their test results are not quite consitent with some of our members comments. They find it better at ths long end and higher distoration then the competition which is why I originally passed on it in favor of the Canon 10-22 when I was shooting EOS.</p>

<p>DpReview review of original Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6<br /> http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma_10-20_4-5p6_n15/</p>

[miserere_mei]

<blockquote>

<p>Mis, I am sure you have seen the new Tamron 8-14 F/3.5 right?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Stop pulling my leg, Javier! :-D</p>

[jgredline]

<p>LOL, I am glad you got that. I made the mistake of browsing the news and rumors page at Pentax Forums and ''eek'' what a mess.</p>

[hagar]

<p>Nice try Javier :-)</p>

[henkc]

<blockquote>

<p>Maybe it's just me, but I really like the 10mm range and the distortion that goes with it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have to agree with Javier on this one. This was taken in response to the question "Can you fit the whole ferry in?"<br>

<img src="http://lh5.ggpht.com/_vhEmAcoVwjQ/SfdYy_Ti7OI/AAAAAAAABho/uGh77FUe0S0/s400/IMGP1666.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[rogerdaltx]

<p>To me a rectilinear ultra-wide should be as distortion fee as possible and that's my biggest complaint with these lenses and why I like my old EOS 10-22 so much. I can deal with CA but complex distortion patterns are much harder to adjust for. Distortion for artistic sake is cool, but I much prefer the inward curving barrel distortion of a fisheye that draws your eye into an image over significant linear distortion coupled with a perspective tilt that takes your eye out of the frame. Guess it's all in what you want to achieve. Also with a fisheye you can sort of control the effect with little distortion in the image center to significant bend on the edges, the DA 10-17 can really bring back some unique images. Here are a few from last year's Texas State Fair.</p><div></div>

[rogerdaltx]

<p>And here is another of the same seen different angle with the DA 10-17 at 14mm and the tower brought closer to the center to lessen the distortion. It has much less distortion at 17mm</p><div></div>

[jgredline]

<p>The sigma 10-20 is virtually distortion free from 13-20mm judging from my own experience, but like I said. I like the distortion.</p>

[sudhakar.com]

<p>Justin, Yep, I am an engineer (LOL at your guess); we enjoy breaking down and building up too. It is true that when we have too many choices and there should be some criteria to deicide and I gave my own weightage for my requirements. As Andrew mentioned, it varies from person to person. By the way, the criteria goes for a toss if I get a freebee any one of the lenses from above list. :-)<br>

I guess, brand do play role other wise I would have bought some kodak from walmart instead of Pentax. As far as 3rd party lenses, I do agree I am biased little bit but after going through reviews Tamron 17-50/2.8 still looks good for me.</p>

 

[john_behrends]

<p>Thanks again for the advice. I'm pretty sure I've narrowed it to the 10-17 and 12-24 Pentax. </p>

[jgredline]

<p>John, Fortunattly I do not believe you could make a bad choice. Enjoy the lens you choose.</p>

[john_behrends]

<p>Javier I love fisheyes but sometimes it can be over used, so at this point I think the 12-24 would be good for my style, also I want to try some street shots so look for some of those. I want to try some hip shooting, I guess thats what it is called? JB</p>

[michael_elenko]

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=4912348">Sudhakar D</a> ,<br>

The Tamron 17-50mm is quite different from the DA 12-24mm in a few significant ways. First is the intended purpose--the Tamron is a more general purpose people & event-shooting tool. Wide enough to fit in a group of folks, long enough to capture smiling headshots or details of what is happening. Well, at least that's what I use it for. And the f2.8 helps manage the intrusiveness of your strobe.</p>

<p>The DA 12-24mm is for large spaces that have to fit into a frame, or interiors where you want to capture all the accessories. Also good for broad landscapes and big skies or chaotic street scenes. At least that's what I use it for.</p>

<p>Optically the Tamron is inferior. It's plenty sharp but the rendering is flatter and provides less capture of depth and texture than the DA 12-24mm. Also Tamron color rendition is just not my cup of tea (excepting the 90mm macro which rocks), too purple/blue cast. I also think the Pentax quickshift manual focusing adjustment is highly valuable. I've faked the Tamron a bit by depressing the lens release button which allows on-the-fly focus tweaking.</p>

<p>Regarding branding and lens purchases, since branding is a purely perceptual phenomena, the only time it makes a difference in my purchase decision making is if I am thinking about resale value. Generally within the Pentax universe, Pentax lenses command better resale. But I'm thinking that is the case with all camera manufacturer platforms. In fact I think Pentax shooters give more brand cred to third-party makers than say Nikon or Canon shooters do.</p>

<p>Maybe we're desperate for love and attention.</p>

<p>ME</p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>The 10-17mm fisheye zoom is a fun lens. The actual angle of view is much wider than the focal length indicates in mm. In other words, the 17mm end is more like the standard 12mm FL. From there it just goes wider. Therefore, it is a match to the 12-24mm lens, though with the fun-distortions aspect. Those distortions can be controlled to some degree by adjusting shooting angle. I have read of "de-fishing" software, which is interesting. The Pentax 12-24mm has been recognized in test reviews for having exceptionally low linear distortion in its class. Even lower than its Tokina cousin- different barrel design, it seems. Very low indeed from about 15-24mm.</p>

<p>The distortions commonly seen are perspective distortions as when shooting from a low or high position relative to the subjects in the frame, which are exaggerated in a wide angle field of view. There may be software to correct that too!</p>

[jgredline]

<blockquote>

<p>I want to try some hip shooting, I guess thats what it is called? JB</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yep, that would be perfect for it. Shooting from the hip.<br>

<img src="http://i404.photobucket.com/albums/pp128/jgredline/Trips/31309Venice45.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://i404.photobucket.com/albums/pp128/jgredline/Street/IMGP6083.jpg" alt="" /></p>