File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Sigma 10-20

The images are all sex, as far as I can tell.
How much should I pay for one (Pentax-mount) and are they really as good as they seem or is there a similarly-priced-or-cheaper alternative?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
OP's example is not particularly good.

Also, lens is currently running $399 @ Adorama and $480 @ Amazon.

I think Adorama has the best price right now.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D50Camera SoftwareVer.1.00Maximum Lens Aperturef/4.0Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern824Focal Length (35mm Equiv)15 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2007:09:30 07:16:13Exposure Time10 secF-Numberf/8.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length10.00 mmCommentTONI_V-SwitzerlandColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3008Image Height2000RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastSoftSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknownISO Speed Used200Image QualityFINEWhite BalanceAUTOImage SharpeningAUTOFocus ModeAF-AFlash SettingSLOWFlash Compensation0.0 EVISO Speed Requested200Flash Bracket Compensation0.0 EVAE Bracket Compensation0.0 EVTone CompensationAUTOLens TypeNikon D SeriesLens Range10.0 - 20.0 mm; f/4.0 - f/5.6Auto FocusSingle Area, Center Selected, Top FocusedShooting/Bracketing ModeSingle Frame/OffColor ModeLandscape sRGBLighting TypeNATURALNoise ReductionOFFCamera Actuations25621Image OptimizationNORMALSaturation 2NORMAL
>> weatherreport !UPBQK5lNSw
There's nothing cheaper than Sigma lenses.

Sigma can be that cheap because they're all shit.

I only use the best so that means Nikon. Too bad you have a Pentax. Sucks to be you.
>> Anonymous
>>169356
lolol brandwhore, why don't you apply for an advertising job at Nikon so you can at least be paid for your company blowjobs.
>> Anonymous
>>169360

newfag^
>> Anonymous
>>169356

reported for trolling
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>169356
Your heavyweather mocking in this particular case is especially lame since he also shoots Pentax...
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>169373
Holy shit, looks like it may have actually worked.
>> Anonymous
>>169380

I think impersonating a TripFag is one of the few things that makes a clear and unquestionable troll.

But seriously people.
The Sigma 10-20.
Is it THE BEST THE BEST THE BEST THE BEST and is $400 a good price for it? I can't find better, but I'm a newfag who doesn't know shit.
>> Anonymous
Unfortunately, it is more expensive (~$480) for the Pentax mount. I've been looking at the lens myself recently, and came to the conclusion that it was a better buy than the DA 12-24mm.
>> Anonymous
I'm eyeing the 12-24 sig myself, more expensive though.
>> Anonymous
>>169538

Newfag here - what's the main difference between the lenses? I really don't know anything about gear yet and every time I try reading about wide-angle lenses I get confused... ;_;
>> Anonymous
>>169481

The $400 lens is fixed 20mm, not the 10-20mm.
http://www.adorama.com/SG2018PXAF.html?searchinfo=sigma%2010-20&item_no=5
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>169539
The most important difference is that the 12-24 is usable on full-frame cameras. I.e., it can get an honest-to-God rectilinear 12mm wide angle perspective whereas the 10-20 only works on crop bodies (and is therefore only 15-30mm equivalent on Pentax or Sony or Nikon)
>> Anonymous
>>169542

AH! Thank you for the info! <3

Being that it is a budget camera I am assuming that my K10D is a crop body, and ergo the 10-20 would be the appropriate lens.

I'm going to be going camping in the redwoods in a couple months and from what I've seen posted on here it seems like the 10-20 could really help out with photographing big trees and the forest in general.
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>169542
"rectilinear" is a bit of a stretch. Even on a crop body, the 12mm end distorts like crazy. Not complaining - it's pretty much impossible to do better - but any potential buyers would do well to look at a bunch of samples to see if this is acceptable.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>169651
Still, they didn't just give up and go fisheye.
>> Anonymous
>>169355
Polo? Golf? Passat?