Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-10-2010, 05:34 PM   #16
Veteran Member
paperbag846's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,396
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by PentHassyKon Quote
My recollection is that this Diane Arbus photo (part of a set) was taken with a TLR camera. I mention this as I'm not sure that it had a Wide angle lens on it - most likely it was a rolleiflex with an 80mm normal
Well! That changes everything then! Thank you so much for your insight. The sort of distorted background led me to believe it was a wider angle lens. Not super wide, but if I could get that sort of perspective with my 28mm or 40mm, I would be happy to go with the 15 for landscapes and such!

Obviously skill is important here and even if I took a photo every minute for the rest of my life I would never be able to do anything as interesting as the great Ms. Arbus! But that look is very dramatic, I do quite like it.

11-10-2010, 05:39 PM   #17
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: SoCal
Posts: 402
QuoteOriginally posted by paperbag846 Quote
Well! That changes everything then! Thank you so much for your insight. The sort of distorted background led me to believe it was a wider angle lens. Not super wide, but if I could get that sort of perspective with my 28mm or 40mm, I would be happy to go with the 15 for landscapes and such!

Obviously skill is important here and even if I took a photo every minute for the rest of my life I would never be able to do anything as interesting as the great Ms. Arbus! But that look is very dramatic, I do quite like it.
aargh!!.... you may be right with looking at that perspective. A little google search led me to this Diane Arbus & Classic Cameras - Photo.net Classic Manual Cameras Forum.
Looks like she used a Rollei Wide.
Your eyes weren't deceiving you after all. Not sure what FOV a Rollei Wide is but my guess is it's somewhere around 28 or 35 equivalent FOV on a 35mm format.
11-10-2010, 05:56 PM   #18
Veteran Member
paperbag846's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,396
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by PentHassyKon Quote
aargh!!.... you may be right with looking at that perspective. A little google search led me to this Diane Arbus & Classic Cameras - Photo.net Classic Manual Cameras Forum.
Looks like she used a Rollei Wide.
Your eyes weren't deceiving you after all. Not sure what FOV a Rollei Wide is but my guess is it's somewhere around 28 or 35 equivalent FOV on a 35mm format.
Ah ha! Well thank you for your fabulous research. The DA 21 would bring me comfortably in between those two focal lengths. Now to scrounge up the money...
11-10-2010, 07:06 PM   #19
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: SoCal
Posts: 402
I'm also in the same predicament as you - searching for a 24-28mm equivalent Wide for my k200d.

I have the DA 16-45/4 and love its 16 end. I haven't checked statistics on how often I'm at the 16 end. I also have a Sigma AF 24/2.8 and am still trying to see how I can live with it. The DA 16-45 is bit big and am trying to find something smaller. The DA 15/4 or DA 14/2.8 seems toooo wide for me even though I like the 16 portion of the DA 16-45.

I sure wish Pentax made a wide angle prime faster than the DA 21/3.2 or even wider. Although f3.2 may be ok now with the K-5 and K-r series of bodies.

A DA 16 or 18/2.4, 2.8, or even 3.5 sure would be nice. The 16 would give the 24mm FOV while the 18 would give us ~ 28mm FOV.

11-10-2010, 08:56 PM   #20
Veteran Member
paperbag846's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,396
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by PentHassyKon Quote
A DA 16 or 18/2.4, 2.8, or even 3.5 sure would be nice. The 16 would give the 24mm FOV while the 18 would give us ~ 28mm FOV.
Hmm, I would think that cropping a 15mm shot to 18mm would not do too much damage. Although the speed factor is something worth noting... the lens set-up right now does not leave much room for a 16-20mm prime no matter the speed (which I believe would be, maximum, 2.8 anyways).

However I do think something between 24 and 28 would be a nice addition. I quite like the 28mm focal length on digital. I suppose there are a host of options in discontinued glass, and it would clutter up the limited line a bit.

The DA 21 is actually pretty close to a 28mm on film being... 30.5 or something? It has got to be tricky - lump too many lenses in the same FL and you cannibalize your sales, but leave the gaps too wide and people get frustrated.

It is unfortunate that the DA 21 is 3.2. Not because I think that it really makes a difference from 2.8, but it does look worse on paper and likely does not help sales...

However cropping on a nice 10-14 megapixel camera does give you a lot of latitude, I would suspect that you could crop a picture from the DA 15 down to 18 mm on a 14 MP camera and still sit around 10 megapixels. I did the math, and cropping from 15 to 21 brings you to 8-ish megapixels.

Makes me think that I should start with the 15, and crop away, and eventually fill the gap with the 21 when I get sick of the quality lost . The DA 15 is ridiculously sharp in the center from wide open, which helps things.
11-10-2010, 09:43 PM   #21
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: SoCal
Posts: 402
QuoteOriginally posted by paperbag846 Quote
Hmm, I would think that cropping a 15mm shot to 18mm would not do too much damage. Although the speed factor is something worth noting... the lens set-up right now does not leave much room for a 16-20mm prime no matter the speed (which I believe would be, maximum, 2.8 anyways).

However I do think something between 24 and 28 would be a nice addition. I quite like the 28mm focal length on digital. I suppose there are a host of options in discontinued glass, and it would clutter up the limited line a bit.

The DA 21 is actually pretty close to a 28mm on film being... 30.5 or something? It has got to be tricky - lump too many lenses in the same FL and you cannibalize your sales, but leave the gaps too wide and people get frustrated.

It is unfortunate that the DA 21 is 3.2. Not because I think that it really makes a difference from 2.8, but it does look worse on paper and likely does not help sales...

However cropping on a nice 10-14 megapixel camera does give you a lot of latitude, I would suspect that you could crop a picture from the DA 15 down to 18 mm on a 14 MP camera and still sit around 10 megapixels. I did the math, and cropping from 15 to 21 brings you to 8-ish megapixels.

Makes me think that I should start with the 15, and crop away, and eventually fill the gap with the 21 when I get sick of the quality lost . The DA 15 is ridiculously sharp in the center from wide open, which helps things.
You bring up a good point with regards to cropping the DA 15. Didn't think about that but as you say seems to be feasible.
With Pentax's current prime lineup of 14/15/21/35/40/55/70 I can see that the 21 is your only logical choice w/o cropping.

I disagree however with regards to the WA end of things being crowded. At WA, something between the 15 and 21 would fill things in nicely. Warning: speculation coming....
With the current lineup speed they'd have to make it between f4 and f2.8. F3.5 or F4 would somewhat be problematic as there is the 18-55 @ 3.5 forcing them to make it in the 2.8/3.0/3.2 range.
11-10-2010, 09:53 PM   #22
Veteran Member
paperbag846's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,396
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by PentHassyKon Quote
I disagree however with regards to the WA end of things being crowded
The hole between 21 (30mm equiv.) and 35 (50mm equiv.) could use a prime, I agree. In fact, I think a 26mm (40mm equiv.) 2.8 (or 2.4 if they could swing it!) would work out quite well. However, that is no longer really a true wide angle anymore. More a wide-normal.
11-10-2010, 11:18 PM   #23
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Taiwan
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,075
Personally I am leaning the other direction towards getting the 21mm and not cropping. I've been playing with my boring kit lens and taking pictures at all the different focal lengths that I will have (18 (the widest), 21, 28, 35 and 50). And I find that there are times that I automatically go to 18 to take the picture but when I adjust to 21 I pay more attention to framing it correctly (and it's better). And that is only the difference between 18 and 21. the difference between 15 and 21 is a lot more than you initially think imo. I kind of wish I could go on a long hike (mix of terrain) with a 12-24 zoom and see what I preferred (other than the obvious BOTH).

And I expect that I would want to be using the 21mm length at least 75% of the time. that's a lot of cropping and wasted pixels.

11-11-2010, 06:03 AM   #24
Veteran Member
paperbag846's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,396
Original Poster
Yes, if people are the focus I think the 21 is the better buy.

I notice that with the kit too - the 21 allows for a tighter composition when the 18 can feel huge, but slightly sloppy. Then you go on the computer and crop the slop out (I do anyways). Plus when you shoot at 21 with the kit, you do wonders for the barrel distortion (which is fairly noticeable IMHO with the kit at 18).

I'm split down the middle between dramatic portraiture, and landscapes, so I think I'm going to have my cake and eat it too this time around, but I might regret my decision. Since I have a 28mm though, the 15 felt like a more spaced-out "gap" between focal lengths. Either way, I'm certain I will be kicking myself every once and a while for my decision .
11-11-2010, 06:32 PM   #25
Pentaxian
Clarkey's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Brampton, ON, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,767
Hi Paperbag. The reason you have the 28mm is due to me being happier with the 21mm. I like that FL so much, that I actually duplicated that FL in buying the 17mm oly m4/3 (34mm equiv). It's just really useful. You can do people (although you do have to be close), or I find it gives a really nice "natural" perpective. I just wish it was F2.4 and had no barrel distortion (which is not an issue if you shoot jpg or correct with the pentax software).

If I bought again for that FL, I'm not sure what I would do. I think I would look hard at the 17-70mm or at the 18-135mm, which is what I am doing (and carry the 40mm and the 15mm).
11-11-2010, 09:03 PM   #26
Veteran Member
paperbag846's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,396
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Clarkey Quote
I just wish it was F2.4
I think I would be a lot more attracted to this lens if it was 2.4, and the barrel distortion is a bother to me because I have to open up the raw in gimp... but I suppose I would only do that for the really good shots anyways (i.e., once every few weeks ).

The 18-135 WR would be a nice thing to have for inclement weather, but I really appreciate the prime experience... that being compact and easy to maneuver around with. I can see how if you were hoping for wide though, the 28 does not cut it. Instead I like to think of it as a "loose normal" which works well for candids. The 21 is considerably more expansive... I suppose similar to the human perspective. The 15 looks like the world though Zeus' eyes .

I think I'm just going to wait a long while on the 21 and keep using the kit for now, and see if I have any revelations. There are a few manual focus options (like your 17mm, or the 20mm / 24mm pentax manual primes) that would work for me, if they ever materialize.

Thanks for the input .
11-12-2010, 05:40 AM   #27
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,775
QuoteOriginally posted by PentHassyKon Quote
With the current lineup speed they'd have to make it between f4 and f2.8. F3.5 or F4 would somewhat be problematic as there is the 18-55 @ 3.5 forcing them to make it in the 2.8/3.0/3.2 range.
A compact 17mm 2.8/3.0/3.2 would fill out the Ltd line nicely--if it can be done.
11-12-2010, 07:26 AM   #28
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Taiwan
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,075
QuoteOriginally posted by paperbag846 Quote
Yes, if people are the focus I think the 21 is the better buy.

I notice that with the kit too - the 21 allows for a tighter composition when the 18 can feel huge, but slightly sloppy. Then you go on the computer and crop the slop out (I do anyways). Plus when you shoot at 21 with the kit, you do wonders for the barrel distortion (which is fairly noticeable IMHO with the kit at 18).

I'm split down the middle between dramatic portraiture, and landscapes, so I think I'm going to have my cake and eat it too this time around, but I might regret my decision. Since I have a 28mm though, the 15 felt like a more spaced-out "gap" between focal lengths. Either way, I'm certain I will be kicking myself every once and a while for my decision .
I disagree with with the argument that if people are the focus then the 21 is a better choice. If people are the focus then you should have something in the 28-40mm range. I would say that if you ever want to have people in your photos then the 21 is a better choice. I see it as the 21mm is a versatile everyday lens whereas the 15mm is more of situational (but incredible) lens)

But there really isn't a wrong answer. It's just unfortunate that getting both will set you back 1000.
11-12-2010, 10:15 AM   #29
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: SoCal
Posts: 402
QuoteOriginally posted by abacus07 Quote
I disagree with with the argument that if people are the focus then the 21 is a better choice. If people are the focus then you should have something in the 28-40mm range. I would say that if you ever want to have people in your photos then the 21 is a better choice. .......
Huh? I've bold italicized items in your post that conflicts. 21mm on APS-C is equivalent to ~31mm FOV for 35mm full frame which agrees with your 2nd sentence.

Maybe you meant "I agree with the argument..." rather than disagree.

However, paperbag makes a very good point for getting the DA15 then cropping to a DA21 equivalent. So maybe the DA15 can really control our minds.

Last edited by PentHassyKon; 11-12-2010 at 10:17 AM. Reason: added DA15 crop statement
11-12-2010, 10:39 AM   #30
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Taiwan
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,075
QuoteOriginally posted by PentHassyKon Quote
Huh? I've bold italicized items in your post that conflicts. 21mm on APS-C is equivalent to ~31mm FOV for 35mm full frame which agrees with your 2nd sentence.

Maybe you meant "I agree with the argument..." rather than disagree.

However, paperbag makes a very good point for getting the DA15 then cropping to a DA21 equivalent. So maybe the DA15 can really control our minds.
You missed the word EVER. It's not really a people lens so it shouldn't be a big factor. But you could take pictures of people easier than the 15 if you wanted.

These are just my opinions despite not owning either. Both seem to ideal for landscapes with the 15 being able to produce some WOW photos.

And instead of cropping a lot of my photos I'll instead be able to use a panoramic program. Though I'm still undecided tbh. Because both are great lenses.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
consideration, da, da 18-55 ii, ii, k-mount, kit, lens, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Can't afford the 645D, what is the alternative for landscape. pcarfan Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 74 01-06-2011 03:25 AM
Advantages to old lenses Docrwm Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 24 10-21-2010 07:51 PM
I can't afford to shoot Pentax any more :( er1kksen Photographic Technique 103 10-15-2009 03:29 AM
Advantages of Prime Lenses stafford588 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 14 12-29-2007 06:34 PM
Live the grand life; if you can afford it! (With Photos this time!) channeler Post Your Photos! 10 08-01-2007 12:30 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:27 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top