Searching for sharp wide angle

[screeny]

<p>Hey all, long time since I spent time here. However, currently I'm happy with the 45mm end of my <strong>Pentax-DA 16-45mm F4</strong>, sharpness wise. However, the 16mm end seems to be pretty un-sharp, to the point I'm considering purchasing another lens for the 16mm area. (Btw I´m using a K20D). After some googling I came up with the idea the Pentax smc DA 12-24 might be the lens for me. However, next to all those reviews in magazins I was wondering and hoping whether some owners of both lenses can inform me and/or unleash their opinion on whether the Pentax smc DA 12-24 mm is significant sharper in the 16mm area than the Pentax 16/45 F4? In other words; does it justify, from a sharpness point of view, the investment? Thanks for any input. <br>

<br>

Cheers, <br /><br>

<br>

Marc<br /></p>

[steve_rasmussen]

<p>Did you see this? <a href="http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/category-SMC-Pentax-DA-Zoom-Lenses.html">http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/category-SMC-Pentax-DA-Zoom-Lenses.html</a><br>

I don't own the lens but was considering it for a K-01. The 12 -24mm has some good ratings. </p>

[stemked]

<p>Marc,</p>

<p>I do not have both lenses, but I have been very pleased with the 12-24. Here are a few images taken on the wide end the first two on a tripod, the second hand-held:<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/15971813-lg.jpg" alt="" width="472" height="298" /><br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/15849973-lg.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="425" /><br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/11071490-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="1016" /></p>

[michael_elenko]

<p>I owned the DA 12-24mm for a few years and used on my K20D. I was disappointed with the corner sharpness at the wider focal ranges. It could very well be a sample issue. I do have the Tokina version of the same lens and use it on my 7D. Corner sharpness is quite acceptable with that setup.</p>

<p>I essentially replaced the lens with a DA Limited 15mm. I think the corner sharpness is pretty good at f5.6 and smaller. Furthermore, the optical rendering is luscious. And it's a lot smaller.</p>

<p>What Pentax shooters really need is a K-mount version of the Tokina f2.8 11-16mm.</p>

<p>ME</p>

[screeny]

<p>Michael, thanks for the reply. I wonder; where do corners start and end in corner sharpness. If you look in my portfolio at my website you'll see some typical images I make with the 16mm end of the 16-45. The sharpness in the corners are of no concern to me, however in this type of images In can't seem to get the faces sharp, not at F5.6, not at F8. Now would the DA Limited 15mm solve this issue? </p>

[r.t. dowling]

<p>It sounds to me like there might be something wrong with your 16-45, or perhaps it's having focus problems. It <em>should</em> be very sharp at the wide end, even at f/4, based on all the reviews and tests I've seen. When PhotoZone tested it, sharpness at 16mm was quite impressive -- and significantly sharper than at 45mm.</p>

[dawsonjm]

<p>I have been very happy with my DA15. I do not do a lot of work where corner sharpness is critical, but outside, at least, it seems plenty adequate. I have three examples with this lens in this weeks POTW. Take a look.</p>

[steve_t.1]

I also have been very pleased with the

DA15MM Limited. I've got the previous

generation Sigma 10-20mm which works

well. Check the reviews of the newest

version of the Sigma 10-20mm (constant

aperture) and the Sigma 8-16mm over at

PentaxForums.

[ross_keele]

<p>If you want a technical comparison of the DA 12-24 and the DA 16-45, you can check out the Photozone website:<br>

<a href="http://www.photozone.de/pentax/133-pentax-da-12-24mm-f4-al-ed-if-review--test-report">http://www.photozone.de/pentax/133-pentax-da-12-24mm-f4-al-ed-if-review--test-report</a><br /> <a href="http://www.photozone.de/pentax/134-pentax-smc-da-16-45mm-f4-ed-al-review--test-report">http://www.photozone.de/pentax/134-pentax-smc-da-16-45mm-f4-ed-al-review--test-report</a><br>

<br /> The 16-45 seems to be slightly better for centre sharpness, however the 12-24 is well known for even sharpness across the frame, a trait that is coveted for landscape shots. The 12-24 also has less distortion, vignetting, and chromatic aberrations in the 16-18mm range. I don't own the 16-45 but do have the 12-24 on my Pentax K-x.<br /> If you are specifically looking for a landscape lens, it will be hard to beat the 12-24, although the 15mm Limited is a favorite for many Pentaxians. The downside is the you lose the more "normal" range of the 16-45 if you are not planning to travel with two lenses. I find the 24mm end of the lens not too bad for street photos though, but pretty short for casual portraits.</p>

<p><img src="http://members.shaw.ca/crimepsych/images/Huatulco_1024.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[r.t. dowling]

<p>Before the OP goes out and spends lots of money on a new lens, I think he/she should do some testing to make sure his/her 16-45 is working properly. It might only need a minor adjustment. It's normally a very sharp lens, <em>especially</em> at the wide end. </p>

[screeny]

<p>@ R.T. : You might be right because the difference between 16mm end and the 45mm is pretty harsh and I'm anything but a pixelpeeper. Bloody problem with Pentax is, the service is hard to find around where I live and last time I had a Pentax camera checked and repaired, the cost was painfully high. Anyway I'm not replacing the 16-45, as I'm pretty happy with the 45mm end down to somewhere 20mm. So maybe I'll do again some test under controlled conditions. Thx all for the responses</p>

[bob_marz]

<p>M.I., I am no gear geek, but owned and loved the 16-45. In my eyes, I had no issues with sharpness...That is until I was walking with camera in hand while hiking and slipped on a rock and went down. Knowing the cost of DSLR cameras and lenses, I tried in vain to sacrifice my forearm for the expected crash. My forearm took the brunt of the fall and was just a little bloody hiking out, but my 16-45 took a glancing blow on a rock. It still performs adequately, but sometimes seems a little slow or lost searching for focus. I did always notice a bit of vignetting in the extreme corners which could always be cropped out or brushed out. Good luck on your search. I certainly would like some primes myself but am a bit lazy in changing lenses and the 16-45 was very good to me in getting some really nice shots while shooting from the hip during hiking.</p>

[bob_marz]

<p>A shot of my sun up ahead while hiking in Glacier National Park using the 16-45mm.</p><div></div>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>The 16-45/4 is pretty good but it will have more distortion and aberrations than DA12-24/4 or DA15/4, and the 17-70/4 is a smidge better (though not quite as wide).</p>

<p>DA15 probably won't be sharper across the frame until f/8 but is better in terms of distortion/aberrations and flare handling.</p>

<p>Both 12-24/4 and 15/4 are good wide-angle additions to your kit; if you just want a bit more quality (and are willing to stop down a bit), and don't need wider than 15mm, then DA15 can be added with only minor bulk added to your kit. </p>

<p>If you think you want wider angles and are willing to carry a little more bulk then perhaps a 12-24 or Sigma 10-22 (there are both f/3.5-constant and f/4-5.6 variants, it's not my understanding that either is significantly better than the other). It is a shame that the Tokina 11-16/2.8 isn't available in K-mount, as it's probably the best in the category for other mounts.</p>

<p>It sounds like there may be some question as to whether your particular 16-45 is performing to spec -- do you have anything you can compare it to, like a 18-55 kit lens? If it's worse than that, there's something wrong.</p>

[htarragon]

<p>Bob - The SUN is clearly behind you, your SON is up ahead. But you knew that right. Sorry, I've been at the computer too long, today.</p>

[bob_marz]

<p>Yeah, Howard I noticed that way after the time limit that photo.net allows for editing. They should allow spelling editing always.</p>

[MattB.Net]

<p>Count me as another enthusiastic DA 15 fan. </p>

[charles_wood]

<p>If you can deal with manual focus and correctable distortion, then consider the Samyang 14mm F2.8. A little over $300 for the K mount and optically nothing even comes close for the money. Check the review of it under the Canon FF section on Photozone.de. It's been pretty much confirmed to be uniformly good on Nikon, Pentax, Canon, SONY mounts. It's a full frame design which means that if Pentax ever does come out with a FF body, you're set. It's also sold under several different names, Rokinon being the other version that is widely available.</p>

<p>As for your 16-45, I agree with others, you may have a faulty lens. My version is very sharp at the wide end with only a slight corner softness in the lower left. The long end is where it isn't so great.</p>