The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
K5 and Sigma 10-20 f3.5
- Thread starter jonoslack
- Start date
jonoslack
Active member
Thanks Joe - that pond is always lovely, but it's prickly to get to! The light is always different too
Thanks Jim - I think it does the job - the Pentax 12-24 is nearly twice the price, and that isn't weathersealed either.
Thank you Roy - me too - as for the dog, will it spoil it if I tell you that he was cocking a leg to make his mark?
I remember reading somewhere that making an ultra wide lens into a zoom was relatively simple, and without much of an impact on image quality. This lens works okay - the corners are not fantastic, but they're okay as long as it's stopped down. Hardly the quality of the Lieca tri-elmar, but then it's not much more than 1/10th of the price.
Jono: you are very lucky to have trees in uncluttered surroundings...I live in suburbia where there are dramatic trees but they are always surrounded by buildings...I take a miniature dachshund with me in my quest for subject matter...she's a pretty good tree tinkler, although not a leg lifter.
Roy Benson
Roy Benson
Some lovely shots there. I have seen distinct distortion from the Sigma 10-20 so I am wondering if you did any geometric fixing up in PP? To get horizons straight, for example.
I have the DA12-24 which is only slightly better build... still a bit wonky in my opinion. It misses out on the 2mm wide, which is a lot. But I prefer having the 24mm on the other end which I use more than any other focal length. And it has a tad less distortion and clarity
To be honest anything wide is always disappointing if one examines an image per pixel. That much "world" fit into the same amount of sensor is always gong to limit the detail. I suppose I should save up for the 645D.
I have the DA12-24 which is only slightly better build... still a bit wonky in my opinion. It misses out on the 2mm wide, which is a lot. But I prefer having the 24mm on the other end which I use more than any other focal length. And it has a tad less distortion and clarity
To be honest anything wide is always disappointing if one examines an image per pixel. That much "world" fit into the same amount of sensor is always gong to limit the detail. I suppose I should save up for the 645D.
jonoslack
Active member
Hi Robin
24mm is a favorite of mine - and I can see your point that the Pentax will also double as a normal 35mm equivalent.
I was tempted by the 12-24, but put off by the price!. I haven't done any correction to these shots - Doing this kind of nature stuff the distortion really isn't too much of a problem - I usually deal with horizons with the camera angle, but basically I use whatever comes up.
24mm is a favorite of mine - and I can see your point that the Pentax will also double as a normal 35mm equivalent.
Oh no - anything wide isn't always disappointing! I have the 16-18-21 leica tri-elmar, and it's lovely - crispy corners crispy centre - of course there is some distortion, but basically it's a lovely lens (small too). On the other hand, for that price it certainly ought to be good!To be honest anything wide is always disappointing if one examines an image per pixel. That much "world" fit into the same amount of sensor is always gong to limit the detail. I suppose I should save up for the 645D.
jonoslack
Active member
Probably. But in the UK it's £400 against £600. And I like the wider end.
Yes, Jono, you should be using the Leitz (or the Zeiss) wide angles...the Pentax extreme wide angles don't even come close. I just picked up (today) the Sigma 8-16/4.5-5.6 and have given it a quick trial run...not impressed...so far, anyway.They look good on the iMac monitor, at full screen, but when zooming in...not there!
Roy Benson
Roy Benson
woodyspedden
New member
So far I am very pleased with the Zeiss ZK 18 and the Zeiss ZK 28mm for the K-5. I'll post a couple of shots as soon as I can get out of the house.
Woody
Woody
I have the ZK28 and frankly find it very difficult to focus. I have a KatzEye screen and find it very easy to focus other manual focus lenses (especially the Voigtlanders....they seem to POP into focus).
For some reason, the ZK focus is very hard to discern. Any ideas as to why?
R
But 16mm isn't wide compared with 12mm, let alone 10mm! 16mm is much easier to do, the DA16-45 managing it very nicely for no money at all.
jonoslack
Active member
Hi Robin
But 16mm on a full frame sensor is pretty much the same angle of view as 10 on an APSc.