Reading mode: Light Dark

Pentax 14mm or Sigma 10-20mm?

Go to last post
M

markpsf

Veteran Member
Messages
2,732
Reaction score
0
Location
Woodacre, CA, US
A question I'd ordinarily research via a search but of course that's not possible right now.

I also know that prime vs. zoom is like apples vs. oranges in some ways.

But if the quality of the Sigma is very good then this would be a no brainer.

Recommendations appreciated.

Mark
 
I haven't used either of these lenses, but if you want to run a search when search is down, go to google and enter:

site:dpreview.com your search here

works like a charm. :-)
  • Jeremy
 
Jeremy:

Good idea but I'm a slow learner.

Could you give me an exact URL for (as an example) a search for Sigma 10-20mm.
Then I can take it form there for other entries.

Thanks.

Mark
 
Don't get me wrong, from what I have seen of it, the DA14 is an excellent lens.

However, in my opinion, it is too close to the 16mm end of either the 16-45 or the new 16-50. If it was 12mm, it would be a lot more interesting to me.

I went with the Sigma 10-20, over both the DA14 and the DA12-24. I felt the 12-24 had too much overlap with my 16-45, so the Sigma made more sense at the time.

I can say that I am very happy with the Sigma. it goes really wide, and has a nice overlap with the 16mm zoom lenses.

If I had to do it all over again, I would make the same choice.

Andrew
 
I went for the Sigma. I used it extensively on a trip to Bali and, resolution and focal length aside, I was just not massively impressed by it.

It's mainly the low contrast that bothers me, I suppose, and if the Pentax has better contrast (which I assume it does), it would have been the much better choice for me. 10mm is too wide for me to know what to do with anyway.

EDIT: To be fair, I haven't given the lens a go on my new K10d yet. Perhaps it will will redeem itself. The K10d output looks to be punchier, maybe this will be a winning combination. But I have my doubts. I'm used to the way Pentax lenses render and function (focus ring etc.), and the Sigma is simply very different. From what I've seen of the DA14, the images are Pentaxy.

-Matt @ resolution is NOT everything!

--

... interested in .... photographs? Heh? Know what a mean? Photographs? (He asked him knowingly). Nudge nudge, snap snap, grin grin, wink wink, say no more, say no more, know what a' mean? Know what a' mean?

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/mattbulow
 
The Sigma 10-20 EX is a fantastic lens, I use it constantly when shooting cityscapes, architectural or even wide landscapes. Highly recommended IMHO.

Phil

This shot was hand held with a K10D, the 10-20 and 1/15 second at F4 and 800 iso. This was very dim lighting, and of course has been brightened up somewhat.



--
Matix - These Photographers are Crazy!!
 
Matt,

Here's a gallery of 10-20 images I've put together:

http://www.pbase.com/alinla/sigma_1020

They probably speak better about the lens than I ever could. Its a good little lens.

I think the 14's greatest benefit is its speed. If you need 2.8 then go that direction.

In my book if you want wide, then go w-i-d-e. There's something about shooting at 10mm that can't be duplicated. However if you don't intend to shoot that wide, the 14 is a great choice.



--



http://www.trappedlight.com

Los Angeles based photographers, join our local group:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LAShooters/
 
The Pentax 12-24 is better than both. I bought the 10-20mm because the price of the 12-24mm scared me, but since you are looking at the 14mm, you should look at the 12-24mm.

Thank you
Russell
 
Hi Al!
alinla said:
Here's a gallery of 10-20 images I've put together:

http://www.pbase.com/alinla/sigma_1020
Click to expand...
Those are really good, and some quite exceptional. But the reason for that is 99% photographer and maybe 1% lens if you ask me. :-)
alinla said:
They probably speak better about the lens than I ever could. Its a
good little lens.
Click to expand...
It is good and your images were part of what convinced me to go for it in the first place. But looking at your gallery after owning the lens myself I can now see the results of the same weaknesses I'm finding - you've had to use a much more severe curve to get the contrast the image needs in the midtones than you probably would have liked to, and you're losing a lot of shadow detail (see your hair in the self-portrait) and getting really bright highlights (see kid in fountain) as a side effect.

I find the images from this lens lack punch in general. Obviously, this isn't true for every image -- your turtle was probably perfect right out of the camera. But in the rest of your gallery, it looks like a lot of processing went on to get the images where they are. At least that's my experience with it so far. Maybe I'm just not skilled enough with the light at those focal lengths - it certainly is a big challeng that I am probably not good enough to meet yet.

But I still think that the lens is also just inherently not very punchy. I does resolve a lot of detail, but landscapes still aren't that stunning out of the camera with it I find.

What's your take on the contrast/PP issue?

-Matt
 
I'm slowly coming to the same conclusion.

The Sigma sounds real good but feedback from some pros raises questions about the quality control (ie, the higher odds of getting one that isn't as good as the ones you guys describe)

The 12-24 range also feels right for me and I have a bias for Pentax lenses.

The last obstacles that I just have to get myself through are size and cost.

Mark
 
From what I had seen and tried, sigma 10-20 is definitely a winner. It can produce the stunning colour like what Fa 31 ltd is capable of and it is a zoom!

The zoom is not that heavy either and sure that this is going to be quite useful in the wild.

Da 14 flares easily, vignetts after whacking on a neutral density filter. Shooting it at f2.8 is great with low light but but that was the only good point to go for this prime ...

--
Roentarre, Melbourne, Australia
http://www.roentarre.com
http://www.roentarre.blogspot.com
http://facade-roentarre.blogspot.com
http://photoblog50mm.blogspot.com

 
Tbear2 said:
I have been very happy with my DA 14mm/2.8.
Click to expand...
Ditto. I love mine.

I was considering the DA 14/2.8 versus the DA 12-24/4. I chose the DA 14 and feel it's an excellent lens for what I need it for.

After considerable pixel peeping, I'm not sure I could tell much difference but I went for the fixed focal length lens because it is easier to set up accurately and repeatably on my pano head.

Tom
--
K100D, DA 16-45, DA 14, DA 40, DA 50-200, and others
 
Roentarre30 said:
From what I had seen and tried, sigma 10-20 is definitely a winner.
It can produce the stunning colour like what Fa 31 ltd is capable of
and it is a zoom!
Click to expand...
If there were one lens I own that is least like a limited, the 10-20 would be it. Especially regarding colors! Strange how different we can see things.

-Matt
 
Tom_ [U] Brown said:
Tbear2 said:
I have been very happy with my DA 14mm/2.8.
Click to expand...
Ditto. I love mine.

I was considering the DA 14/2.8 versus the DA 12-24/4. I chose the
DA 14 and feel it's an excellent lens for what I need it for.

After considerable pixel peeping, I'm not sure I could tell much
difference but I went for the fixed focal length lens because it is
easier to set up accurately and repeatably on my pano head.

Tom
--
K100D, DA 16-45, DA 14, DA 40, DA 50-200, and others
Click to expand...
I like the colors and contrast from the 14 as long as you take care not get lens flare. I consider it quite a bulky lens but worth it when that focal length is called for.[/U]
 
KL Matt said:
Hi Al!
Click to expand...
Hey Matt.
KL Matt said:
KL Matt said:
http://www.pbase.com/alinla/sigma_1020
Click to expand...
Those are really good, and some quite exceptional. But the reason for
that is 99% photographer and maybe 1% lens if you ask me. :-)
Click to expand...
Ah shucks! Thanks.
KL Matt said:
It is good and your images were part of what convinced me to go for
it in the first place. But looking at your gallery after owning the
lens myself I can now see the results of the same weaknesses I'm
finding - you've had to use a much more severe curve to get the
contrast the image needs in the midtones than you probably would have
liked to, and you're losing a lot of shadow detail (see your hair in
the self-portrait) and getting really bright highlights (see kid in
fountain) as a side effect.
Click to expand...
Now I feel like Superman in the bad joke about the bar on the top of the Empire State Building.

The self portrait was lit by the onboard flash so I wouldn't think that'd be a good example of anything (except my stup*dity knows no end) since the light is pretty weak. Both that shot plus the kid & fountain are pretty high dynamic range shots and so I figure I'd see a lot of both shadow & highlights. I think most my RAW shots come up rather neutral (a nice way of saying bland) from my Pentax without a lot of contrast and fairly neutral colors. I tend to add/subtract contrast to my suiting after the fact depending on my PP mood. Having said that the 10-20 probably lacks contrast more than my other lenses except the kit lens.
KL Matt said:
I find the images from this lens lack punch in general. Obviously,
this isn't true for every image -- your turtle was probably perfect
right out of the camera.
Click to expand...
To be honest it was about a stop underexposed. The DR was at crazy extremes and with the bright sun overhead & the turtle constantly moving it was hard to judge the correct exposure. Thank goodness for RAW. I was so focused on the focus I almost blow the exposure.
KL Matt said:
But in the rest of your gallery, it looks
like a lot of processing went on to get the images where they are. At
least that's my experience with it so far. Maybe I'm just not skilled
enough with the light at those focal lengths - it certainly is a big
challeng that I am probably not good enough to meet yet.

But I still think that the lens is also just inherently not very
punchy. I does resolve a lot of detail, but landscapes still aren't
that stunning out of the camera with it I find.

What's your take on the contrast/PP issue?
Click to expand...
I do a fair amount of PP. Very VERY rarely does an image leave my server without some type of PP. I happen to like contrast and introduce a bit of it into my images. I happen to think my Pentax seems to capture the middle 10 stops of light (of the 20 we can see) and it doesn't fairly represent what my eye saw when I hit the shutter. The colors, contrast & tone of the 43, 28-75, 100 macro & surprisingly the 50-200 are favorable. The kit lens, 10-20, 24 are probably the worst I own with the 77 & 70-200 somewhere in between. I'm not saying any are bad, just comparing them amongst themselves.

Is that a fair assessment of the 10-20? Maybe. I tend to put the 10-20 into tough DR situations. Obviously the lens sees a lot and there's bound to be more changes in lighting conditions than most lenses ever see. So day in and day out the lens is being asked to do a lot.

In summary, I'd put it this way. Many of my RAW images need more contrast to satisfy me regardless of lens. Does this one need more than others? Maybe, maybe a little. But since I think all need some adjustment I really don't notice how much more this particular lens needs compared to another. But now that you put the idea in my head, maybe I'll notice it more now.

--



http://www.trappedlight.com

Los Angeles based photographers, join our local group:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LAShooters/
 
Hi Al,
alinla said:
alinla said:
I find the images from this lens lack punch in general. Obviously,
this isn't true for every image -- your turtle was probably perfect
right out of the camera.
Click to expand...
To be honest it was about a stop underexposed. The DR was at crazy
extremes and with the bright sun overhead & the turtle constantly
moving it was hard to judge the correct exposure.
Click to expand...
Then maybe the underexposure saved the image. The problem I have with the 10-20 is that every shot, even ones with only 4 or 5 stops of DR, is 1.5 to 2 stops underexposed. I generally dial in +1.5 for my 10-20 on my istDS!
alinla said:
I do a fair amount of PP. Very VERY rarely does an image leave my
server without some type of PP.
Click to expand...
Me too - I've even gotten comments from JensR about how I'm over-the-top (he's quite conservative in that regard). But I may be mellowing out...
alinla said:
shutter. The colors, contrast & tone of the 43, 28-75, 100 macro &
surprisingly the 50-200 are favorable. The kit lens, 10-20, 24 are
probably the worst I own with the 77 & 70-200 somewhere in between.
I'm not saying any are bad, just comparing them amongst themselves.
Click to expand...
This is really useful information - but I'm surprised where you put the 77. Which 24 do you have?

Of my lenses, contrast and color are ranked as follows from catastrophic to phenomenal:

K 300 f/4: very weak in all regards
Sigma 10-20: Low low contrast, cooler, Sigma-ie colors. Hi res.
DA 18-55: color quality ok, contrast ok. needs PP
FA 28 f2.8 pretty so-so, but great bokeh

FA/A 50 not too punchy wide open, but that can be a good thing! Completely different animals stopped down. Love these lenses.

A 70-210: fantastic contrast for a zoom lens. Unbeatable bokeh. Colors not as nice as 16-45
DA 16-45: perfect, absolutely lovely colors, somewhat lower contrast
DA 40: slightly superior contrast to zooms, but heavy red bias

FA 77: very, very warm (red/yellow/green). Sometimes creates PP problem. Great contrast, even wide open
FA 35: magnificent contrast from wide open up. colors spot on.
alinla said:
Is that a fair assessment of the 10-20? Maybe. I tend to put the
10-20 into tough DR situations. Obviously the lens sees a lot and
there's bound to be more changes in lighting conditions than most
lenses ever see. So day in and day out the lens is being asked to do
a lot.
Click to expand...
Yes, I don't know how much the situations I tend to use that lens in have to do with my impressions. Although I have seen the behavior exibited in very normal, controlled situations, too.
alinla said:
In summary, I'd put it this way. Many of my RAW images need more
contrast to satisfy me regardless of lens. Does this one need more
than others? Maybe, maybe a little. But since I think all need some
adjustment I really don't notice how much more this particular lens
needs compared to another.
Click to expand...
A good way to look at it. Especially if you are more a photographer than lens collector!
alinla said:
But now that you put the idea in my head,
maybe I'll notice it more now.
Click to expand...
Ack! What have I done? I'm going to ruin your enjoyment of this awesome lens. Please forget everything I've written!!!

Matt

--

... interested in .... photographs? Heh? Know what a mean? Photographs? (He asked him knowingly). Nudge nudge, snap snap, grin grin, wink wink, say no more, say no more, know what a' mean? Know what a' mean?

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/mattbulow
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top