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!
Thanks Joe - that pond is always lovely, but it's prickly to get to! The light is always different tooNot bad at all. I love that knarly looking tree in the water.
Joe
Thanks Jim - I think it does the job - the Pentax 12-24 is nearly twice the price, and that isn't weathersealed either.Look like a nice lens choice and good photos as well.
Jim
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've got a thing for trees, Jono... and the one with the dog got my toes tingling..
Roy Benson
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.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
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.
Probably. But in the UK it's £400 against £600. And I like the wider end.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
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!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 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).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
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.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!
Hi RobinBut 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.