1 & 2 The Vivitar is better than the Tokina optically. The Tokina is not great. The Fa 20-35 is MUCH BETTER, as is the Sigma 17-35 EX for about the same price. Here, the Sigma gives greater range, and is f2.8 at 17mm, but the pentax is far more flare resistant than any 3rd party lens.
For a prime lens I would SERIOUSLY consider the FA 24 f2.0. A good value combo might be rge FA 24 f2.0 and the Vivitar 19-35. This give flexibility and ultimate quality. > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Erickson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 11 March 2002 17:14 > To: pentax-discuss > Subject: super-wide-angle options? > > > All, > > I'd like to add super-wide-angle capability to my photo > setup. I've been > mulling over the options, and I'm hoping to get some advice > from the list. > I'd like to go rectilinear rather than fisheye, and here are > the options I'm > considering: > > Cheap: > ------ > Vivitar 19mm or Russian/Ukranian 20mm > (are either of these worth considering?) > > Medium: > ------- > Tokina 20-35 zoom (in the $200's) > Used SMC-M 20mm F4 (around $350) > > Expensive: > ---------- > SMC-A or FA 20mm F2.8 ($400-500) > FA 20-35mm F4 ($450?) > > Insanely Expensive > ------------------- > Used SMC or SMC-A 15mm ($750-900) > > With the above options in mind, here are my questions: > > 1) Are the MIR or Vivitars even worth considering? > > 2) Is the Pentax 20-35 that much better than the Tokina? > > 3) Are the primes that much better than the zooms? > > 4) Anyone out there have experience with the 15mm? > > Thanks a lot in advance! TTYL, > > --Mark (KE6NJ, inactive for more than a decade....) > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
