UWA suggestions - NOT fisheye

Started Mar 20, 2012 | Discussions
SRT201
SRT201 Senior Member • Posts: 2,519
UWA suggestions - NOT fisheye

Been looking around at the only thing my gear doesn't cover... ultra wide angle. I'd like to get down into the 20mm (equiv) field of view or wider. The Pentax 10-17 doesn't interest me because while fish-eye lenses are "neato" for a short period their actual usage is very limited. I want a rectilinear very wide angle view for landscapes with as little distortion as possible. Yeah I know I can correct but the less correction, the better.

I've seen the Sigma 10-20 and the Tamron 10-24 online. The extra reach on the Tamron is nice but I really don't know how they compare. The Sigma is apparently another situation in which you can get a good sharp one or soft garbage.

Any other suggestions.

Thanks,

Scott

-- hide signature --

Life is NOT measured by the "moments that take your breath away" anymore than books are measured by the number of exclamation marks. The whole picture matters.

Joe Ogiba
Joe Ogiba Veteran Member • Posts: 4,627
Re: UWA suggestions - NOT fisheye

I use the 10-24mm Tamron and I like the wider range.

10mm:

24mm:

 Joe Ogiba's gear list:Joe Ogiba's gear list
Sony RX10 III Sony a7R Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Samsung NX1 Sony a6300 +1 more
Gerry Winterbourne Forum Pro • Posts: 14,398
Re: UWA suggestions - NOT fisheye

There are two Sigma 10-20s, both still current: the original version is f/4-5.6 and takes 77mm filters; the newer version is constant f/3.5 and takes (very expensive) 82mm filters. The general opinion is that the newer version loses in IQ to get the extra speed.

As well as the Tamron 10-24 there is the Pentax DA12-24, although the Pentax is significantly more expensive than the others. If you look at all the reviews available you'll find that all these UWAs have their positives and negatives - there isn't a simple, clear "best".

For me, though, the best UWA to buy is none of these, but the Sigma 8-16/4.5-5.6. It's as sharp as the rest, has very good colours/contrast and its extra FOV can be very handy. If you don't want so much FOV 16mm is pretty useful. This lens doesn't accept filters because it has a very bulbous front element. It feels much more solid than the other non-Pentax UWAs and is surprising cheap - in the UK, at least.

-- hide signature --

Gerry

First camera 1953, first Pentax 1985, first DSLR 2006
http://www.pbase.com/gerrywinterbourne

Brentliris Veteran Member • Posts: 3,557
Re: UWA suggestions - NOT fisheye

I had really been thinking of getting a UW did my research and found the Samyang 8mm, which is reportedly quite good for an okay price. But as I'm not going shopping just yet I'm cooling to the whole idea of UW again. I have the DA 15 ltd, and a K 28 3.5 and somehow I feel with these two lenses and HH or tripod based panorama technique I may just have my bases covered for the time being.

Note that many users are getting quite usable results with the Fish Eye optics like the 10-17 and defishing software. And though Fish Eye lenses CAN be used or overused they are also serious tools when used by skillful photographers. If you have the money then you have a complete set of lenses and no lenses toolkit is complete without a Fisheye.

What bothers me often with UW is that many things of importance in a UW perspective get so reduced in size. Where if you do HH or tripod Panoramas you can use a magnification via lens choice that suits the main points of interest in your image.

Another thing if you use the 15mm ltd lens you can cover a huge area with just 3 overlapped images..

Brent

-- hide signature --

Reflections, understandings, discoveries and intimations..

 Brentliris's gear list:Brentliris's gear list
Ricoh GR Ricoh GXR S10 24-72mm F2.5-4.4 VC Ricoh GXR Mount A12 Pentax K-3 II Pentax smc DA 15mm F4 ED AL Limited +10 more
JoeDaBassPlayer Veteran Member • Posts: 3,657
Re: UWA suggestions - NOT fisheye

A Fisheye is useful for shooting people since it does not distort their features like a rectiliear will.

I will get a resctilinear solution some day but I doubt if I will ever replace my Zenitar 16 FE.
--
Variance is Evil!

ayewing Contributing Member • Posts: 707
Re: UWA suggestions - NOT fisheye

JoeDaBassPlayer wrote:

A Fisheye is useful for shooting people since it does not distort their features like a rectiliear will.

Really?

 ayewing's gear list:ayewing's gear list
Leica M Typ 240 Olympus PEN-F Olympus E-M1 II Leica CL Leica Elmarit-M 28mm f/2.8 ASPH +6 more
DAVID MANZE Veteran Member • Posts: 5,249
Re: UWA suggestions - NOT fisheye

Hi,

I have the 10-20mm 4/5.6 Sigma which I think is a great lens! low chromatic aberration,very sharp at all focal lengths, 77mm filter and very well made.

I also have the Samyang 8mm fisheye,it also is a great lens sharp,but you need to stop down to F8-11 to have sharp images in the corners,however defisheyeing does produce a big reduction of sharpness at the edges,everything is smeared. I paid only £150 new for the lens as stock clearance. (It now retails on the web)
The Tamron 10-24mm is an old design and most reviews are not that favourable.

To me the biggest bang for buck is the Sigma 10-20mm 4/5.6! and the distortion @ 10mm is low compared to others. Of course there's the Sigma 8-16mm, a bit more expensive. Beware of decentered examples!
--
Dave's clichés

 DAVID MANZE's gear list:DAVID MANZE's gear list
Nikon D750 Nikon D500 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon AF Nikkor 24mm f/2.8D Nikon AF Nikkor 28mm f/2.8D +16 more
viking79
viking79 Forum Pro • Posts: 14,148
Re: UWA suggestions - NOT fisheye

ayewing wrote:

JoeDaBassPlayer wrote:

A Fisheye is useful for shooting people since it does not distort their features like a rectiliear will.

Really?

Correct, Fisheyes do not distort perspective, but they do curve lines around the edges. Rectilinears distort perspective (stretch near the edges), but do not curve lines.

People will often look better near the edge of a frame using a fisheye than a wide rectilinear.

Eric
--
I never saw an ugly thing in my life: for let the form of an object
be what it may - light, shade, and perspective will always make it
beautiful. - John Constable (quote)

See my Blog at: http://www.erphotoreview.com/ (bi-weekly)
Flickr Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/28177041@N03/ (updated daily)

 viking79's gear list:viking79's gear list
Sony a7R Samsung NX1 Samsung NX 30mm F2 Pancake Samsung NX 85mm F1.4 ED SSA Samsung NX 60mm F2.8 Macro ED OIS SSA +5 more
Ishpuini Veteran Member • Posts: 6,194
Another vote for the Sigma 8-16

I have spent a lot of time pondering which lens to get to increase the FoV of my kit. Years actually. It was tempered by getting the excellent DA15/4 limited, but only temporarily.

Before that I used the Zenitar 16/2.8 for a while (on 6MP it was OK, but it disappointed me from 10MP on), and later the DA10-17. I still like the latter, but I agree it's more of an effect lens than a general purpose lens.

After getting the DA15/4 I held off looking for a UWA zoom, hoping that the excellent Tokina 11-16/2.8 would be made in Pentax mount, possibly by Pentax themselves (in analogy with the 16-50/2.8 and 50-135/2.8). Unfortunately this was not to be...

And then appeared the Sigma 8-16. After initial excellent reviews I purchased it from SRS microsystems in the UK. I must say I'm really glad I waited for this lens. It is really an excellent piece of glass: sharp and contrasty and very well built (EX grade actually, it's only called DC because of the reduced image circle for APS-C). It has made that the wide end of my kit now feels complete.

Wim

-- hide signature --

Belgium, GMT+1

 Ishpuini's gear list:Ishpuini's gear list
Ricoh Theta S Pentax Q Pentax Q-S1 Pentax K-3 II Pentax smc DA 15mm F4 ED AL Limited +19 more
JoeDaBassPlayer Veteran Member • Posts: 3,657
Re: UWA suggestions - NOT fisheye

Yes! Ths is one reason why I like he Z16. It is not that fishy but gives the FOV of a 12. You can get into the thick of things with a group and no one looks like pinnochio.

It is a great lens stopped down F 4 - F8.
--
Variance is Evil!

Jon Schick Veteran Member • Posts: 4,261
The original Sigma 10-20

General view is that the original 10-20 performs better than the newer version.

I compared it with the Tamron and preferred the Sigma. The Tamron is nice and sharp in the centre but the Sigma is more consistent towards the borders. I also preferred the build quality (and included case). Main advantage of the Tamron is the additional reach - going to 24mm does make it more flexible but I think you pay for it in IQ.

If money is not a problem, the Pentax 12-24 is probably the way to go, but that was too expensive for me at the time.

 Jon Schick's gear list:Jon Schick's gear list
Fujifilm X100F Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +6 more
UtahManSir Veteran Member • Posts: 4,659
Re: UWA suggestions - NOT fisheye

Another vote for the older Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6

Samples speak louder than words.
10mm

14mm

10mm

10mm with a dirty sensor and a CPL (Which I never use now cuz it makes things too saturated.)

10mm (again with CPL..... sigh...)

10mm

10mm 4925.9 Seconds

13mm

10mm

10mm in portrait orientation 5 images stitched

LOVE THIS LENS!!!

Lloyd

-- hide signature --

“For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong.” Henry Louis Mencken

http://lloydshell.blogspot.com/
http://lloydshell.zenfolio.com/
WSSA #354

Peter Szymiczek Regular Member • Posts: 368
Re: Another vote for the Sigma 8-16

I second that. I have the Tamron 10-24 and Sigma 8-16. Since I got the Sigma I never had the Tammy on. I don't care about the longer end of the Tammy - have other lenses that cover the 18+ range. The Sigma beats it not only with the wider angle but also much better image quality, strong contrast and virtually no chromatic aberrations.
--
Peter

JoeDaBassPlayer Veteran Member • Posts: 3,657
Re: Another vote for the Sigma 8-16

Ishpuini wrote:

I have spent a lot of time pondering which lens to get to increase the FoV of my kit. Years actually. It was tempered by getting the excellent DA15/4 limited, but only temporarily.

Before that I used the Zenitar 16/2.8 for a while (on 6MP it was OK, but it disappointed me from 10MP on), and later the DA10-17. I still like the latter, but I agree it's more of an effect lens than a general purpose lens.

After getting the DA15/4 I held off looking for a UWA zoom, hoping that the excellent Tokina 11-16/2.8 would be made in Pentax mount, possibly by Pentax themselves (in analogy with the 16-50/2.8 and 50-135/2.8). Unfortunately this was not to be...

And then appeared the Sigma 8-16. After initial excellent reviews I purchased it from SRS microsystems in the UK. I must say I'm really glad I waited for this lens. It is really an excellent piece of glass: sharp and contrasty and very well built (EX grade actually, it's only called DC because of the reduced image circle for APS-C). It has made that the wide end of my kit now feels complete.

Wim

How good is the DA15? I still use the Z16. On the K2000 (Km). Stopped down F4-F8, it is as sharp as my FA35/2 or F50/1.7.
--
Variance is Evil!

newmikey Veteran Member • Posts: 4,872
There can be only one...

No, NOT Highlander! The 8-16mm!

It outperforms any of its sisters (the Sigma 10-20's) or neighbors (Sigma12-24, Tammy10-24 etc.) in both reach, sharpness and quality. The only contender is Pentax's own 12-24 which at least on paper seems to have better corner and edge performance but a lot less reach on the wide side.
--
http://newmikey.zenfolio.com
http://www.flickr.com/newmikey

 newmikey's gear list:newmikey's gear list
Ricoh GR Pentax K-70 Pentax smc DA* 50-135mm F2.8 ED (IF) SDM Sigma 8-16mm F4.5-5.6 DC HSM Sigma 85mm F1.4 EX DG HSM +3 more
Ishpuini Veteran Member • Posts: 6,194
info on the DA15/4

JoeDaBassPlayer wrote:

How good is the DA15? I still use the Z16. On the K2000 (Km). Stopped down F4-F8, it is as sharp as my FA35/2 or F50/1.7.

I like it a lot. Main reason is the FoV which is nearest in a prime to the 24mm FoV I was used to on my analog SFXn. It's a DA limited in all its aspects: well built, nice feel to it and compact. The front cap can be a bit of a hassle (it's screw in) when you're in a hurry, but the built in lens hood works fast OTOH. It's not very fast at f/4, but you don't really need that in a wide angle IMHO.

It's certainly sharper than the Z16. As I wrote the Z16 lost considerable sharpness when I moved from my *istDS (6MP) to my K10D (10MP), even stopped down. Could be sample variation of course... The DA15/4 does great on the K-5 (16MP).

hth, Wim

-- hide signature --

Belgium, GMT+1

 Ishpuini's gear list:Ishpuini's gear list
Ricoh Theta S Pentax Q Pentax Q-S1 Pentax K-3 II Pentax smc DA 15mm F4 ED AL Limited +19 more
lester11
lester11 Contributing Member • Posts: 544
Re: UWA suggestions - NOT fisheye

SRT201 wrote:

The Pentax 10-17 doesn't interest me because while fish-eye lenses are "neato" for a short period their actual usage is very limited. I want a rectilinear very wide angle view for landscapes

I didn't do my research properly, and bought the DA 10-17 recently. Nice enough, but I hadn't figured on how much defishing I'd have to do to get results I was happy with (whether humans in the frame, whether at the edge or not!). Putting it on eBay and going for the Sigma 8-16 rectilinear...

-- hide signature --

Lester

 lester11's gear list:lester11's gear list
Olympus E-M5 II Olympus E-M1 II Panasonic Leica D Summilux Asph 25mm F1.4 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm 1:2.8 Macro Olympus 7-14mm F2.8 Pro +9 more
Qwntm Veteran Member • Posts: 6,165
Re: There can be only one... I agree...

The Sigma 8-16 is a great lens and really the only one that goes THAT wide.

 Qwntm's gear list:Qwntm's gear list
Fujifilm X100S Pentax K-5 IIs Olympus E-M5 II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF) +8 more
steveTQP
steveTQP Regular Member • Posts: 207
Re: UWA suggestions - NOT fisheye

David, thanks for the advice on the Sigma 8-16, regading "decentered samples". Being into Pentax, I would be interested in the K-Mount version of the Sigma 8-16. I realize that buying ANY lens is a crapshoot, as I've had a few issues even with Pentax "Limited" versions, but by and large, I think Pentax Quality Control is not bad. Not ever owning a third-party lens like Sigma, I cannot speak to their Quality Control, but judging from the many glowing reviews of the 8-16, I remain hopeful that I would get a good copy, if I go that route. I was debating on the Pentax 12-24 as well, but am intrigued by the extra 4mm of the Sigma! Thanks again.
--
Steve Solomon
steve@totalqualityphoto.com

 steveTQP's gear list:steveTQP's gear list
Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Fujifilm 16-55mm F2.8R LM WR +2 more
newmikey Veteran Member • Posts: 4,872
Wide and sharp shooting it does...

newmikey wrote:

No, NOT Highlander! The 8-16mm!

...my young paduan. Agree with you I do. Save the Empire the 8-16mm will!

 newmikey's gear list:newmikey's gear list
Ricoh GR Pentax K-70 Pentax smc DA* 50-135mm F2.8 ED (IF) SDM Sigma 8-16mm F4.5-5.6 DC HSM Sigma 85mm F1.4 EX DG HSM +3 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads