UKC

I'm in the process of upgrading my Pentax K10D, probably to a Pentax K50II (APS-C)

I also need a new wide angle lens, my current widest is a 24-90 zoom

The default choice seems to be to go for a zoom, and Pentax do a nice 12-24 f4. However I'm rather drawn to a Pentax prime 15m F4 instead. According to the reviews there's not a massive difference in image quality. The prime appeals because it's much more compact and portable for days on the hill or crag; and in the old days we used to use primes more and move around to get the composition we wanted - also cropping with digital is a good option(with a sharp lens and interpolation ) as is stitching for landscapes.

What are UKC folks' thoughts and experiences?

In reply to kevin stephens:

Depends...

A good wide prime is a thing of beauty. They tend to be optically simple so flaring is less of a problem when you have low sun etc They are also expensive.

I used to have a 20mm prime that I liked greatly, sadly I don't have it any more (destroyed due to incompetence). If money is no object then a wide prime is great.

These days my wide angle needs are served by a tokina 11-16 zoom, which is remarkably good given the price. Not quite as distortion free and sharp as the old prime but still surprisingly good. More elements means it flares a bit more - don't even think about using it without a hood!

In reply to kevin stephens:

What do you want to use the wide angle lens for? Is it for shooting very close to the subject and getting the "effects" that the wide angle gives you, or for "getting more in" of landscapes. If it's the latter, I don't think stitching a panorama from a wide angle images is going to be great.

I'm not very technical and I don't know whether you should go prime or zoom, but there is quite a difference between 10mm and 24mm - I mean if you have a close subject and move the camera so your subject is the same size in the image, the background you see is very different. Having a zoom gives you the flexibility to choose what works best.

In reply to kevin stephens:

I have a Nikon so I can't give you any specific advice on Pentax but I think my experience is still relevant.

I've had a Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 for a few months now and realize that most of the pictures I take are at the widest end, because when you buy such a wide angle lens, it's because you want to fit as many elements as possible. In other words I'm using my zoom as a prime. If I don't want to give my pictures the "wide angle effect", I won't zoom in to 16mm because it's still quite wide but will rather switch to a different, normal lens (like 18-55mm), which won't be as prone to distortion or flare (the Tokina is absolute shite at managing flare, Sigma 10-20 seems much better for this). It doesn't really matter whether it's 11, 12 or 13mm, it's wide anyway. Now 12-24mm is a bigger range, but can't you cover your not-so-wide needs with another lens (I hope I can make myself understand...)?

If the 15mm f4 is better optically than the 12-24 f4 and you already have a standard zoom lens, I'd say go for the prime. Wide angle shots are all about composition anyway, so a prime won't add any hurdles to your work.

In reply to Adrien:


I'm not sure that's true - at least in my personal experience. When I use a wide lens it's because I want to get right in the face of the subject. Whenever I've tried to use a wide lens to 'fit more in', I just end up with drab, boring compositions. For me, going wide is to get up close and personal, not to get more in.

I have found though that I shoot a hell of a lot at or around 24mm (on an APS-C sensor). In an ideal world I'd love a decent, fast 24mm prime.

Apologies I can't make any specific recommendations - I'm a Nikon guy.

In reply to tehmarks:

I completely agree with you, I'm just shit at explaining myself. At first I bought the Tokina to fit as much as possible with a wide lens, but realized it was pointless and that it's much better to get closer to your subject.

Nikon has a 24mm 1.4 that's said to be amazing, but it costs about 1800€. Sigma just released a "cheaper" version of the lens that costs 1000€ and that is about as good as the Nikon apparently.

In reply to kevin stephens:

save on lenses and go FF