Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-06-2011, 04:57 AM   #1
Forum Member




Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: 35 km far from Ravenna, Italy
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 61
Going wider (DA14, DA15, DA21)

Hi all,
I'm about to spend some money on a new wide angle lens for my K200D but I find so hard to make a choice between the Pentax' gems available.

At the moment my preferred "wide" is the M 28/3.5 which is always attached on my camera. I like to go really closer to my subject while having the rest of the frame filled with the surroundings. On the other side, when shooting landscapes, I like how distortion look like in my 28mm... looks like the "distortion" you get when stitching panoramas.
Last, I like fixed focal optics cause they fit in my way to take photos.

So, for me, fast aperture is not mandatory... short minimal focusing distance is.
I would avoid that wide angle effect that looks like the scene is stretched inside a cone (I tried the 12-24 and this effect is really visible)... at the same time I don't like the FishEye distortion (the 10-17 is a wonderful lens, but I find its use really limited).

After thinking a lot (and asking also in the italian Pentax forum) I end up with 3 possible candidates.
The DA 14/2.8 is interesting for its wide field (unreachable by my current set up), very close minimal focusing distance (nearly 1:5), a sort of distortion which is "not so cone-like".
The DA 15/4 Limited is interesting for the field of view but I can't figure how much it can go close to the subject: I need some example shot. Its small size is also interesting.
The DA 21/3.2 Limited would be a quality choice in the wide field covered by the 18-55. It's field of view is wonderful and the distortion nearly looks like the one achieved in panoramas. But like the 15/4 I don't know how much it go in close focus: again some shot needed.

What's your opionion?... I would end up in a choice... I'm still confused .

Thanks.

Bye
Jenner

03-06-2011, 05:03 AM   #2
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,311
The DA 15 has minimum focus distance at 18 cm
03-06-2011, 05:25 AM   #3
Veteran Member
TOUGEFC's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Brisbane
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,561
I think the DA14 has the shortest minimum focus distance of the three, but the DA15 can get very close too.

A couple examples from me-


Also the DA15 has incredible flare resistance like no other, making sun bursts a breeze-

03-06-2011, 05:49 AM   #4
ntx
Forum Member




Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: 35 km far from Ravenna, Italy
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 61
Original Poster
@the swede: Yes, I know the 15/4 has a minimum distance of 18 cm... I only would like to see some shot of a well-known subject made at the minimum distance. It's a way to figure if it fits my needs...

@TOUGEFC: Could you tell me about the size of that... cannon (it's a cannon, isn't it?)?

Bye
Jenner

03-06-2011, 05:57 AM   #5
Veteran Member
TOUGEFC's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Brisbane
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,561
Yes its a canon, the barrel would be close to two meters long.
Is that what you meant, by the size? Hope it helps
03-06-2011, 06:36 AM   #6
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,311
QuoteOriginally posted by ntx Quote
@the swede: Yes, I know the 15/4 has a minimum distance of 18 cm... I only would like to see some shot of a well-known subject made at the minimum distance. It's a way to figure if it fits my needs...
Oh! Im sorry for that

Here is iMac mouse at closest focus distance with the DA 15. this is at 5,6.
03-06-2011, 07:59 AM   #7
Loyal Site Supporter
blackcloudbrew's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Cotati, California USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,782
I own and use the DA 14, DA 21, DA 10-17, DA 12-24 equivalent (my's the Samsung version), FA 17-28, DA*16-50. All of these have their place and use. The only one I'm missing is the DA 15. I wish I had it! Over and over the owners who have it extol it's virtues in many areas.
In my mix of lenses the DA 21 is for me the odd one out. It's just not a versatile an option as all the others. OTOH, I get great images from all of these too.

If you want to see some recent examples the DA 14, I did a challenge on this forum in January shooting one image a day with it all month. The images area on my flickr site here:
Single in January - a set on Flickr
03-06-2011, 08:55 AM   #8
Site Supporter
Deimos's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kingdom of Wonder
Posts: 1,707
QuoteOriginally posted by blackcloudbrew Quote
I own and use the DA 14, DA 21, DA 10-17, DA 12-24 equivalent (my's the Samsung version), FA 17-28, DA*16-50. All of these have their place and use. The only one I'm missing is the DA 15. I wish I had it! Over and over the owners who have it extol it's virtues in many areas.
In my mix of lenses the DA 21 is for me the odd one out. It's just not a versatile an option as all the others. OTOH, I get great images from all of these too.

If you want to see some recent examples the DA 14, I did a challenge on this forum in January shooting one image a day with it all month. The images area on my flickr site here:
Single in January - a set on Flickr
Nice collection! Lets say you were travelling long term for example and you could only take a couple with you from the group. Which 2 or 3 would it be? I generally shoot wide and like close focus as well

OP Sorry for the threadjacking

03-06-2011, 10:02 AM   #9
Pentaxian
8540tomg's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Waterloo, Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,444
I don’t shoot a lot of wide-angle stuff as most of my time is spent with the longer telephotos. I have a DA* 16~50/2.8 which does the job for me at this time. One of my few complaints with this lens (no SDM failure – yet) is the significant barrel distortion I get at 16mm. Zooms are all about compromises right? If I go wider at some point I would be torn between the DA 15/4 and the DA 14/2.8. Both appear to be fine lenses with the 15mm having the larger fan club it seems. Both focus very close but I always try to get the fastest prime I can as that extra speed is always there when you need it. This might not be a big a factor now with the K5s remarkable low light abilities.

Tom G
03-06-2011, 10:29 AM   #10
ntx
Forum Member




Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: 35 km far from Ravenna, Italy
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 61
Original Poster
@blackcloudbrew: If I go for the 21mm I think my set up needs to be redesigned to light weight. At the moment I have the M 28/3.5, A 50/1.7, Tak 135/2.5, FA 100-300, DA 18-55 and DA 50-200... sorted by usage from often to rarely.
I think your set up penalize the 21mm: you just have 3 lens covering that focal...
Can you do a shot with the 21mm at the minimum focal distance? Thank you.

@the swede: Thank you!

@Deimos: No problem, don't worry...

@8540tomg: I expect to have distortion from all the three lenses. Having a wider angle means also a more complex way to expose my shots... and that's a problem. It's also a problem to have all the scene moved to the background... it's like trying to find the perfect balance from composing using planes and composing using perspective (in panoramas I'm able to get both)... that's why I didn't jump into the wider prime and never care.

Bye
Jenner
03-06-2011, 10:41 AM   #11
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: North Wales, UK
Posts: 645
I actually use the DA12-24mm but from your selection only the 15mm makes sense - 21mm isn't wide enough and the 14mm doesn't have as good IQ as the 15mm, it's a fair bit more bulky too

Simon
03-06-2011, 11:59 AM   #12
Veteran Member
paperbag846's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,396
I think the 14 is the close focus king (and 2.8 to boot).

IMHO the draw of the 15 is it's tiny size and flare resistance. The 14 should be a closer focuser.
03-06-2011, 12:51 PM   #13
Pentaxian
8540tomg's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Waterloo, Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,444
QuoteOriginally posted by ntx Quote

@8540tomg: I expect to have distortion from all the three lenses. Having a wider angle means also a more complex way to expose my shots... and that's a problem. It's also a problem to have all the scene moved to the background... it's like trying to find the perfect balance from composing using planes and composing using perspective (in panoramas I'm able to get both)... that's why I didn't jump into the wider prime and never care.

Bye
Jenner
True enough Jenner.

Ultra wide presents challenges for the lens makers and some distortion is to be expected. It is a just question of degree. The barrel distortion on the DA* 16~50 is just a little too much for my taste. I would expect the distortion on the DA14 and DA 15 to be a much lower level as it should be on a prime lens. If I shot more wide angle images it would be a bigger concern for me. I want a much longer telephoto and a K5 before I purchase anything wider than I already have.

Tom G

Last edited by 8540tomg; 03-06-2011 at 01:20 PM.
03-06-2011, 12:59 PM   #14
Pentaxian
philbaum's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA
Posts: 3,659
photographers don't normally go out with lenses to shoot at their minimum distance, perhaps thats the reason i don't see the photos that the op wanted. also, metadata doesn't record focus distance.

17cm is min for 14
18cm is min for 15
20cm is min for 21

20 cm is equiv to 8 inches from the back focal plane, which is pretty close for a normal lens. i've always regarded the 21 to be a close focuser so i don't think the close focus distance is a decider in my opinion.

One of the reasons the 21 always finds its way into my bag is its small. For that reason, i suggest you only consider the 15 or the 21. 14 looks too large to find its way consistently into my bag, imo.
03-06-2011, 02:26 PM   #15
ntx
Forum Member




Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: 35 km far from Ravenna, Italy
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 61
Original Poster
@8540tomg: Cause I usually shot nature and abandoned buildings (or both) distortion isn't a bit issue (even with abandoned buildings: their walls aren't straight).

@philbaum: I usually look for a detail in my scene: that would be my subject... but I want to show the place where it is located: that would be my background. So I move around my subject until a find a satisfying composition.
I often set the 28/3.5 at its minimum distance and I start moving back until my subject is in focus; so I set the aperture not only to set the DOF but also to set how much recognizable is the background.
So close focus is important because I would like to have more potential subjects (and smaller - like wild plants fruits, for example). BTW while the 21mm has the longer minimum distance, has a magnification ratio higher than the 15mm.

Bye
Jenner
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!
choice, da, distance, distortion, effect, field, k-mount, lens, panoramas, pentax lens, shot, slr lens, view
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
DA15 & DA21 or DA12-24 or SIG 10-20 ntrao Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 13 07-13-2010 10:31 AM
DA15 vs DA14 vs Sigma10-20/4-5.6 (9 shots) tcom Post Your Photos! 11 04-19-2009 11:00 PM
About DA14 vizjerei Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 8 03-18-2008 08:31 PM
So, which is wider? And does it matter? azcavalier Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10 10-17-2007 01:27 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:24 PM. | See also: NikonForums.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