Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: K5 and Sigma 10-20 f3.5

  1. #1
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    K5 and Sigma 10-20 f3.5

    I spent an hour and a half putting the lens through it's paces this evening.

    It's not perfect, but it's not bad either!














    Just this guy you know

  2. #2
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: K5 and Sigma 10-20 f3.5

    Here are some more















    It's not too expensive, it's nicely made, focusing is quiet and fast, image quality is pretty good. It focuses pretty close.

    not despicable

    Just this guy you know

  3. #3
    Senior Member ecsh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Tax State
    Posts
    549
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: K5 and Sigma 10-20 f3.5

    Not bad at all. I love that knarly looking tree in the water.
    Joe

  4. #4
    Senior Member JMaher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Sarasota
    Posts
    942
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    16

    Re: K5 and Sigma 10-20 f3.5

    Look like a nice lens choice and good photos as well.
    Jim

  5. #5
    Subscriber Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,031
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: K5 and Sigma 10-20 f3.5

    I've got a thing for trees, Jono... and the one with the dog got my toes tingling..

    Roy Benson

  6. #6
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: K5 and Sigma 10-20 f3.5

    Quote Originally Posted by ecsh View Post
    Not bad at all. I love that knarly looking tree in the water.
    Joe
    Thanks Joe - that pond is always lovely, but it's prickly to get to! The light is always different too


    Quote Originally Posted by JMaher View Post
    Look like a nice lens choice and good photos as well.
    Jim
    Thanks Jim - I think it does the job - the Pentax 12-24 is nearly twice the price, and that isn't weathersealed either.

    Quote Originally Posted by benroy View Post
    I've got a thing for trees, Jono... and the one with the dog got my toes tingling..

    Roy Benson
    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.

    Just this guy you know

  7. #7
    Subscriber Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,031
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: K5 and Sigma 10-20 f3.5

    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

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    501
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: K5 and Sigma 10-20 f3.5

    It's a tempting walkabout , do most everything lens. Having the 50-135 the 17-70 would suit me more but as you know I've gone ltd.

    David

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Limerick, Ireland
    Posts
    134
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: K5 and Sigma 10-20 f3.5

    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.
    Listen to my new album "The Drones" free on BandCamp. Visit my Flickr images, website, or blog. Cheers!

  10. #10
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: K5 and Sigma 10-20 f3.5

    Hi Robin
    Quote Originally Posted by rparmar View Post
    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
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by rparmar View Post
    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.
    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!

    Just this guy you know

  11. #11
    Senior Member JMaher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Sarasota
    Posts
    942
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    16

    Re: K5 and Sigma 10-20 f3.5

    Jono,

    Either I am looking at the wrong lens or the Pentax 12-24 and the Sigma 10-20 3.5 are about the same price, at least at B&H. $699 versus $649. At similar prices would you have made the same purchase?

    Jim

  12. #12
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: K5 and Sigma 10-20 f3.5

    Quote Originally Posted by JMaher View Post
    Jono,

    Either I am looking at the wrong lens or the Pentax 12-24 and the Sigma 10-20 3.5 are about the same price, at least at B&H. $699 versus $649. At similar prices would you have made the same purchase?

    Jim
    Probably. But in the UK it's 400 against 600. And I like the wider end.

    Just this guy you know

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    EU
    Posts
    325
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: K5 and Sigma 10-20 f3.5

    Jono, did you consider the 8-16mm Sigma? They say it is as good or better than the 10-20mm ones. I'm seriously tempted. The downside is it has a convex front lens and can not use conventional filters.

  14. #14
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: K5 and Sigma 10-20 f3.5

    Quote Originally Posted by emr View Post
    Jono, did you consider the 8-16mm Sigma? They say it is as good or better than the 10-20mm ones. I'm seriously tempted. The downside is it has a convex front lens and can not use conventional filters.
    I did, but I thought that the 20 (30) mm made it more useful, and an equivalent to 15mm is plenty wide enough for me. . . . . but really I should be using the Leica for this stuff!

    Just this guy you know

  15. #15
    Subscriber Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,031
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: K5 and Sigma 10-20 f3.5

    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

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Fort Collins, Colorado
    Posts
    2,077
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: K5 and Sigma 10-20 f3.5

    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

  17. #17
    Subscriber Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,031
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: K5 and Sigma 10-20 f3.5

    Zeiss 25/2.8 ZK is also very good...but...hard to find.

    Roy Benson

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Hawaii
    Posts
    944
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    16

    Re: K5 and Sigma 10-20 f3.5

    Quote Originally Posted by woodyspedden View Post
    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
    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

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Limerick, Ireland
    Posts
    134
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: K5 and Sigma 10-20 f3.5

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    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!
    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.
    Listen to my new album "The Drones" free on BandCamp. Visit my Flickr images, website, or blog. Cheers!

  20. #20
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: K5 and Sigma 10-20 f3.5

    Quote Originally Posted by rparmar View Post
    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.
    Hi Robin
    But 16mm on a full frame sensor is pretty much the same angle of view as 10 on an APSc.

    Just this guy you know

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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