Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 28

Thread: UWA Discussion

  1. #1

    Default UWA Discussion

    Searched Pentax forum, last discussion was quite a while back.

    I am considering to purchase one of the UWA (non-fish eye) lens.

    Are the following still the preferred choice?

    Pentax DA 12-24mm f/4 AL (IF)
    Sigma AF10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC

    Are there any "newer" lenses lately?

    Thanks for your advice.

  2. #2

    Default Re: UWA Discussion

    Sigma 8-16 ?
    My Flickr ->Flickr

  3. #3

    Default Re: UWA Discussion

    8-16 can't use filters, i would advise against it.

    i use the sigma 10-20.

    you can take a look at my signature links, everything that looks like it's taken with a UWA will be taken by the sigma 10-20.

    one weakness of the lens is corner softness (especially at extremes), but i don't find it a pressing issue.

  4. #4
    Member Cenvin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Singapore - West Side
    Posts
    308

    Default Re: UWA Discussion

    Sigma got a slightly newer 10-20mm F3.5 EX DC

  5. #5

    Default Re: UWA Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by night86mare View Post
    8-16 can't use filters, i would advise against it.

    i use the sigma 10-20.

    you can take a look at my signature links, everything that looks like it's taken with a UWA will be taken by the sigma 10-20.

    one weakness of the lens is corner softness (especially at extremes), but i don't find it a pressing issue.
    Thanks.

    Took a look at the price guide, last updated August 19, 2009, the price was $910 then. Wonder if it has came down.

    Also, there is another one slightly faster at f/3.5 throughout, more expensive though.

    Have a look at B&H, before shipping, US$479 (f/4-5.6) vs US$649 (f/3.5), quite a bit difference in price.

  6. #6

    Default Re: UWA Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by KTi View Post
    Searched Pentax forum, last discussion was quite a while back.

    I am considering to purchase one of the UWA (non-fish eye) lens.

    Are the following still the preferred choice?

    Pentax DA 12-24mm f/4 AL (IF)
    Sigma AF10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC

    Are there any "newer" lenses lately?

    Thanks for your advice.
    Both lens are good to have for landscape. I'll say go for the 12-24 if you have the budget but if you are price conscious like most of us. I'll say go for the sigma10-20 f4-5.6.

    The 8-16 is very scary to use, you see the front element you'll know what I mean. Want to avoid touching & staining it also hard. Looks like a C-cup T*Ts.
    Body - K-x, KX, ME
    Lens - DAL18-55, DAL55-300, DA 35 Ltd, M 50 F1.7, A 50 F1.7, Sigma 10-20

  7. #7

    Default Re: UWA Discussion

    The DA 15 is worth considering also. Main pros is that it is extremely compact and light and that it has relatively low distortion.

    Check out this discussion on pentaxforums.com

    The 15mm Limited controls my mind

    It is also incredibly flare resistant, and has a very nice flare pattern


  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Choa Chu Kang
    Posts
    241

    Default Re: UWA Discussion

    And here's what the sigma 10-20mm will give you.
    Picture at 10mm f4.0.


    But personally, i still prefer DA15 la.
    Last edited by Nanoo; 2nd August 2010 at 09:42 AM.
    K5, Tam 17-50, DA 50-200, FA 31, DA 70, DA 14

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Still wondering where I belong
    Posts
    3,434

    Default Re: UWA Discussion

    i will go for the sigma...Pentax i find it a little too ex and not wide enough at times...
    Gallery|Baby gallery
    I have become an expert in cleaning poo

  10. #10

    Default Re: UWA Discussion

    DA15 is an excellent choice.
    Very portable and unique to Pentax.
    UWA primes are not so common from other brands, are very expensive and they are NEVER smaller.
    The ease of chucking this into the camera bag, just makes it one of my often taken out lens.


    DA15ltd

    Its plenty wide. I actually cropped off another 1/6 to 1/5 on the right of this photo.

  11. #11

    Default Re: UWA Discussion

    pinholecam, excellent pics.

    at 15mm (@22.5mm), somehow I felt that it is not wide enough. The sigma zoom is versatile to go from 10-20mm, covers a good range.

    Unless of course the IQ of Sigma is way inferior to the DA 15. Based on those I've seen, the Sigma is not bad.

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    East
    Posts
    5,154

    Default Re: UWA Discussion

    It really depends on your usage. And that may change with time, experiences etc...

    For travel, I really like a setup like 12-24, 31(and you have it!), 50-200. It covers a really light setup for most usage, and wrt the wide angle lens, the 24mm which is really very useful for occasional travel portraitures (don't have to change lens). I also think the 12-24 distortions are a little easier to manage, so if you aren't into spending quite a bit of time on photoshop to correct these, then I personally think the 12-24 is an easier choice.

    I see that you are using the Pen as well, so if you are travelling with that system (for leisure trips), you may not necessarily require the 24mm (covered by your pancake 17mm). The 10-20 may be a better choice then.
    Last edited by hjbyeo; 2nd August 2010 at 12:20 PM.

  13. #13

    Default Re: UWA Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by hjbyeo View Post
    It really depends on your usage. And that may change with time, experiences etc...

    For travel, I really like a setup like 12-24, 31(and you have it!), 50-200. It covers a really light setup for most usage, and wrt the wide angle lens, the 24mm which is really very useful for occasional travel portraitures (don't have to change lens). I also think the 12-24 distortions are a little easier to manage, so if you aren't into spending quite a bit of time on photoshop to correct these, then I personally think the 12-24 is an easier choice.

    I see that you are using the Pen as well, so if you are travelling with that system (for leisure trips), you may not necessarily require the 24mm (covered by your pancake 17mm). The 10-20 may be a better choice then.
    Hi, appreciate your "customised" suggestion, really helpful.

    I was actually wondering if I should be getting the Oly 9-18 m43 wide angle lens instead, however, I have more or less decided that the m43 system is not something I would continue building, so, leaning more towards getting it for my K7.

    As you have rightly pointed out, a 10-20 mm lens would complete my range. I would be able to cover most of my usual focal length.

    Just called SLRR, the 10-20mm f/3.5 has been out of stock for over a month, looks like a very hard lens to find. The quoted price is $1080.

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    East
    Posts
    5,154

    Default Re: UWA Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by KTi View Post
    Hi, appreciate your "customised" suggestion, really helpful.

    I was actually wondering if I should be getting the Oly 9-18 m43 wide angle lens instead, however, I have more or less decided that the m43 system is not something I would continue building, so, leaning more towards getting it for my K7.

    As you have rightly pointed out, a 10-20 mm lens would complete my range. I would be able to cover most of my usual focal length.

    Just called SLRR, the 10-20mm f/3.5 has been out of stock for over a month, looks like a very hard lens to find. The quoted price is $1080.
    Or get the older version 10-20 f4-5.6?

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Choa Chu Kang
    Posts
    241

    Default Re: UWA Discussion

    But just an awareness for TS.
    UWA lens are sometimes difficult to compose. At least it is for me.
    K5, Tam 17-50, DA 50-200, FA 31, DA 70, DA 14

  16. #16

    Default Re: UWA Discussion

    has anyone got the sigma 8-16 here? what's the price like?

    the field of view is really mind-boggling to me. and anyways, it would be a 'special scenario' kind of lens, only out of the camera bag when it's needed, so should be safe enough with the lens hood?

  17. #17
    Senior Member creampuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Dover
    Posts
    5,116

    Default Re: UWA Discussion

    Shooting ultra wide angles isn't always about getting the lens with the widest angle of view, or for that matter, the lens with the widest maximum aperture. Making an good ultrawide angle lens is a tough challenge for any lens designer. By my reckoning the ideal UWA lens has to have good resolution, excellent flare control, good control of lens aberrations. Maximum aperture is probably one of the lowest priorities for me. What's the point of getting a lens that go the widest when the corners are crap, or the lens flares all too easily or there is noticeable wavy distortion? I like the DA 12-24mm because by my reckoning it is plenty sharp and the flare control is good (at some point in UWA shooting the sun or incandescent lighting is always gonna be a factor). Build quality is good and I can still use a filter without vignetting.


    K-7 DA 12-24mm

  18. #18

    Default Re: UWA Discussion

    I am as confused as ever .... part of the joy of shopping for lens of course.

  19. #19

    Default Re: UWA Discussion

    can the 1020 also be use for low light landscape?

  20. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    East
    Posts
    5,154

    Default Re: UWA Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by teruranse View Post
    can the 1020 also be use for low light landscape?
    Clarify "low light"? Do you mean that you are going to depend on f4.0 and try to take a picture of say the Merlion or Clifford Pier in the evening with high ISO without the use of tripod?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •