Ultra wide angle lens, DA14 or DA12-24?
- Thread starter livetofly
- Start date
- Status
da10-17 is a fun lens because of it fishy perspective on the ultra-wide.. but we couldn't use this fishy lens for day-to-day landscape shooting. fisheye is more for fun creativity shooting.
actually i am looking at either da10-17 or da12-24 also. I read that da12-24 is a respectable lens which is sharper than da14 even at f/4. But there are also people who argue about this. I would like to see how good the da12-24 is...
anyway, i am in no rush to get any lens at the moment... these days, i only use my da21 most of the time as i am getting lazy to carry big lens once i started using pancake for general shooting.
cheerss...
actually i am looking at either da10-17 or da12-24 also. I read that da12-24 is a respectable lens which is sharper than da14 even at f/4. But there are also people who argue about this. I would like to see how good the da12-24 is...
anyway, i am in no rush to get any lens at the moment... these days, i only use my da21 most of the time as i am getting lazy to carry big lens once i started using pancake for general shooting.
cheerss...
Photozone lens test for the 14mm/2.8:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/pentax_14_28/index.htm
Photozone lens test for the 12-24mm/4.0:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/pentax_1224_4/index.htm
I would go for the 12-24/4 if budget allows (hint: buy from JP or HK, much cheaper there!)
Can consider the Sigma 10-20 or the Sigma 12-24 too although you better check thoroughly for centering issues...they're sigmas...
The 10-17 Fisheye is more a novelty. You (or your clients) will get sick of those images after a while.
Here's an urban shot with a 16mm FE. Not so wide nor pronounced curvature due to crop factor but acceptable as a wide angle.
this is the zenitar 16/2.8 FE ? that da12-24, da14 gives a 18 to 21mm in term of 35mm equv which are really on the ultra-wide angle range.
(wide-angle) 28mm in 35mm equv still give a natural wide angle view that is normal to our eye when we view it. (ultra-wide) range below 24mm in 35mm equv will not look normal to our eye, the linear rect view on these ultra-wide helps to capture 'in the box' view which are very useful when doing architectural shoot and indoor room snap.
da12-24 seems to be just the right focal length for such use. :think:
Here's an urban shot with a 16mm FE. Not so wide nor pronounced curvature due to crop factor but acceptable as a wide angle.
Off-topic a bit. Toa Payoh?
Da10-17!!!!
The 12-24 mm is only 2mm longer at the widest end. Does that make that much of a difference? If not than perhaps we should consider them based on their relative prices also...
:think:
-
Have lar... He got check with me even before putting it up for sale...
But I just got my Sigma 17-70 leh...
Plus I planning for a Japan trip in a few months time...
No this was shot with the Sigma 16mm f2.8 FE that I got from a nice fellow Pentaxian. With the crop factor, the angle of view has been reduced but you still get the fun effect of uncorrected curvature. This can be corrected in Photoshop if you want to de-fish it.
er no... Bukit Batok St 24. Nowadays industrial buildings look sooo similar :bsmilie:
Looking at the discussion on this thread, I feel the first question that TS needs to be ask is what's angle of view he is looking at and can handle. Comparing between the 14mm and 12-24mm, that 2mm difference in focal length is significant. The 14mm gives an angle of view of 90 degrees versus the 12-24mm's 99~61 degrees (measured diagonally). That's 9 degrees at the wide end. If one goes with the Sigma 10-20mm, angle of view is 102.4~63.8 degrees. Trust me, the differences on the wide end is apparent. I would think the zoom will be a little bit more versatile than the prime but the prime might have better sharpness and aberration controlled (flare, CA, barrel distortion, vignetting).
The Pentax 10-17 fisheye should not really be compared to the rectilinear ultra-wide angle lenses. With a 180~100 degree angle of view it is a true fisheye in my book because of the 180 degree coverage. At 10mm, the FE gives 180 degrees vs 102.4 degrees on the ultra-wide. So it's an apples vs oranges comparison when judging rectilinear ultra-wides to the fisheye.
DA10-17 can also be used as a super wide angle len sometimes.
10mm:
17mm:
These are samples directly from RAW conversion, not defished. The fisheye effect isn't very obvious at 17mm end, and 17mm (100 degree AoV) on the DA1017 is probably as wide as or even wider than the DA14mm (90 degree AoV)
But of course a normal rectilinear ultra-wide angle lens is a better choice for buildings and interior photos I think. The 10-17mm is more or less a fun lens to use ... well, we shoot for fun, don't we
Cheers!
10mm:
17mm:
These are samples directly from RAW conversion, not defished. The fisheye effect isn't very obvious at 17mm end, and 17mm (100 degree AoV) on the DA1017 is probably as wide as or even wider than the DA14mm (90 degree AoV)
But of course a normal rectilinear ultra-wide angle lens is a better choice for buildings and interior photos I think. The 10-17mm is more or less a fun lens to use ... well, we shoot for fun, don't we
Cheers!
Yes, the 10-17 is a nice and fun lens. Alanswan checked recently, it is selling around $730.
- Status
Similar threads
