For ultra-wide, I have the FA 20-35 (a great lens) and the Zenitar 16mm. f2.8 fisheye. I am thinking about getting a non-fisheye prime that is wider than the FA 20-35. The choices seem to be:
17 mm. (Tamron, Tokina): 104 degree diagonal field 15 mm. (Pentax, if one can find used) 111 degree diagonal field 14 mm. (Sigma, Tamron) 114 degree diagonal field Now, at 20 mm. the FA 20-35 has a 94 degree diagonal view. The 17s are small and affordable, but only give an additional 10 degrees of diagonal view. The 14s and 15 give much more view but are expensive and heavy, and these lenses have design limits - weaker at the edges, light fall-off, flare in the non-Pentax brands. I use very wide-angle for architecture, maybe also for landscapes. I find that I use the FA 20-35 a lot, and that it gives me perhaps my highest percentage of "keepers." The options I am pondering are: 1. Get a 17 - small, inexpensive, but is the extra 10 degrees of view worth carrying around an extra lens? 2. Get a 14 or 15 - gives the extra view, but has the limits noted above. 3. Just make do with the FA 20-35 and the Zenitar 16 mm. fisheye. What do wide-angle users think? Thanks, Joe - 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 .
