Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-10-2011, 09:26 PM   #16
Pentaxian
twitch's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,571
QuoteOriginally posted by EricT Quote
The 16-50mm has a bit more distortion, but is weather-sealed, is a stop faster, and of course has a much wider range of focal lengths. The 15mm certainly has nice IQ, bit it's more about size with this lens, IMO.

While the DA 15mm probably has better flare resistance, saying that the 16-50mm is a flare prone POS is a bit of an exaggeration:

is it just me, or does that second photo prove the opposite?

04-10-2011, 09:43 PM   #17
Site Supporter
goddo31's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,295
QuoteOriginally posted by twitch Quote
is it just me, or does that second photo prove the opposite?
No, it's not just you.
04-10-2011, 10:00 PM   #18
Veteran Member
selar's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,035
I love that second photo and how EricT has creatively used the sunspot to envelop the couple in a golden halo.
04-10-2011, 10:15 PM   #19
Pentaxian
twitch's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,571
just saying that pic has a hell of a lot of flare, whether you like that amount is up to you...

Here's how the DA15 handles a similair situation (no flare artifacts I can see)



Here's how the DA12-24 copes (ie, not as well but not horrible, but that lower left flare is borderline unacceptable IMHO)



The DA21 is only a touch behind the DA15 in resistance, but much better than any of the zooms. On the left is the DA21 shot, on the right is a shot taken at the same time but with a Canon 17-55 f2.8 (it's a $1k zoom, not a kit lens)


My conclusion is that for flare resistance primes can't be beaten, it's not even close, no matter how expensive the zoom. Flare resistance is very handy to have, and not just for shooting into the sun (as can be seen in the DA21 pic)


Last edited by twitch; 04-10-2011 at 10:29 PM.
04-10-2011, 10:37 PM   #20
Veteran Member
selar's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,035
A prime is always going to be better than a zoom in handling flare, fewer glass air surfaces. However, did you see the shot that had zero flare with the sun hitting the 16-50 head on?

Lets face it, the DA 15 is a prime candidate for shelf queendom, once its buyers have got over the twinkles. The 16-50, on the other hand is going to be a go to lens if not a permanently attached lens. And if you like buying lenses for their cosmetic appeal (which you de facto admit by buying a Limited), the 16-50 is a pretty bling lens as well. I've had more appreciative comments for the looks of the16-50 than any other lens, Limiteds included.

Last edited by selar; 04-10-2011 at 11:03 PM.
04-10-2011, 11:07 PM   #21
Pentaxian
twitch's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,571
QuoteOriginally posted by selar Quote
A prime is always going to be better than a zoom in handling flare, fewer glass air surfaces. However, did you see the shot that had zero flare with the sun hitting the 16-50 head on?
Yes, not zero flare but pretty low. I've found underexposing and pulling up the exposure for instance helps minimise flare even if hurts noise levels. Was that done on the first photo maybe?

I can make my DA15 flare badly if I over expose too. On average though my DA15 runs rings around my DA12-24 for flare resistance even if there are occasions where my DA15 does flare when I wasn't expecting it too, or my DA12-24 doesn't when I was. I can't accurately predict it to be honest when looking through the VF which is why I tend to shoot a lot when I know there is a chance of flare.

I'd image pic #1 is best case for the 16-50 and pic #2 either representative or worst case, who knows, I haven't used the 16-50 enough to tell.
04-10-2011, 11:14 PM   #22
Pentaxian
twitch's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,571
QuoteOriginally posted by selar Quote
Lets face it, the DA 15 is a prime candidate for shelf queendom, once its buyers have got over the twinkles. The 16-50, on the other hand is going to be a go to lens if not a permanently attached lens. And if you like buying lenses for their cosmetic appeal (which you de facto admit by buying a Limited), the 16-50 is a pretty bling lens as well. I've had more appreciative comments for the looks of the16-50 than any other lens, Limiteds included.
Everyone is different. I use my DA15 a hell of a lot still and not to shoot endless star bursts either. I've tried 2 copies of 16-50 and they were terrible.

I can't understnad your comment about buying limiteds for cosmetic appeal though, I prefer to be low profile, so when I use my 50-135 and get the "that looks like a serious zoom" comment I take it as a bad thing. People on the whole don't like big honking zooms pointed at them.
04-10-2011, 11:18 PM   #23
Veteran Member
selar's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,035
QuoteOriginally posted by twitch Quote
limiteds for cosmetic appeal though
The nice metal finishing and build quality.

With the flare it appears that the angle that the sun hits the front element has a lot to do with it, the meat of the lens is better at controlling flare than the corners, the light seems to bounce around in the barrel a lot less as well.

04-10-2011, 11:19 PM   #24
Veteran Member
selar's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,035
QuoteOriginally posted by twitch Quote
I've tried 2 copies of 16-50
Three is the magic number, atleast it was, in my case. Perseverance is a virtue, it seems:


Last edited by selar; 04-10-2011 at 11:26 PM.
04-11-2011, 03:35 AM   #25
Senior Member




Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Ft. Myers Florida
Posts: 169
QuoteOriginally posted by selar Quote
A prime is always going to be better than a zoom in handling flare, fewer glass air surfaces. However, did you see the shot that had zero flare with the sun hitting the 16-50 head on?

Lets face it, the DA 15 is a prime candidate for shelf queendom, once its buyers have got over the twinkles. The 16-50, on the other hand is going to be a go to lens if not a permanently attached lens. And if you like buying lenses for their cosmetic appeal (which you de facto admit by buying a Limited), the 16-50 is a pretty bling lens as well. I've had more appreciative comments for the looks of the16-50 than any other lens, Limiteds included.
I bought the limiteds for size and performance. I could care less about 'looks'. Lenses are not fashion accessories. The 16-50, for me, is too big and heavy to be a walkabout. To each their own.

All lenses have strengths, weaknesses and limitations.
04-11-2011, 09:32 AM   #26
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by selar Quote
Lets face it, the DA 15 is a prime candidate for shelf queendom, once its buyers have got over the twinkles. The 16-50, on the other hand is going to be a go to lens if not a permanently attached lens.
If you happen to be a big heavy zoom person. For me, it's quite the opposite. The DA*16-50 may be a fine lens, but it weighs as my regular set of primes combined (covering 15mm to 120mm), and wouldn't even fit in my bag with my camera. No way would it ever leave the house.
04-11-2011, 09:38 AM   #27
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by selar Quote
I would buy the DA15 Ltd but have held off so far
Sounds like you're being sarcastic here?

QuoteQuote:
2. Its not wide enough. Not as wide as my Sigma 14/2.8
OK, but that's subjective. For me, given the choice, a 14 is *too* wide. I never could get along with field of view of the DA14, but the DA15 fits like a glove.

QuoteQuote:
3. Its not fast enough. As above.
In practice, this is non-issue. The number of situations where you can't get handholdable, ordinary-motion stopping shutter speeds at 15mm and f/4 are situations where there is essentially no light on the subject - meaning the picture is basically not worth taking.

QuoteQuote:
4. Its not full frame. As above.
Meaning, it's is smaller than a FF version could ever be. A lot smaller. But if you have dreams of Pentax some day making a FF camera, and then someday feeling like spending the money to buy money and to carry around a larger camera to go with your larger lens, then indeed, the DA15 isn't the right choice.

Yo are obviously not among those who like small kits. That's fine, but do realize that a lot of other people do, and indeed, that's been part of the appeal of Pentax as a brand for decades now.
04-11-2011, 11:02 AM   #28
New Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Chicago
Posts: 7
AlexG

I don't have any experience with 16-50 but I tried 3 copies of DA15 from the most recent batch at Amazon. The build quality, flare resistance, contrast and colors are very good. The corner sharpness (F4-F6.3 ) was unacceptable to me - my Panasonic LX3 has much better corner sharpness at F2.0 with similar (24 mm) angle of view. All 3 lenses were back-focusing slightly on my K10D at the close range but it does not matter for landscape work or if you are willing to adjust focus manually. I let it go with regret but overall it did not live up to my expectations.
04-11-2011, 04:25 PM   #29
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,064
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
Just so you all know, I don't think the 16-50 is a flare prone POS. I just think that it tends to lose contrast easily when shooting into the sun and it is more prone to flare than the DA 15 (which makes sense since I am sure it has a ton more elements).


The 16-50/2.8 is by far the most flareprone Pentax lens I have ever used. Even the old Pentax fisheye lenses flared less.
04-11-2011, 04:56 PM   #30
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New Mexico
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,125
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Eagle_Friends Quote
i think the question is whether you prefer primes or zooms.
I find both to be useful in different situations.

Rob
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!
da15, k-mount, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Travel DA15 goes underground.. joele Post Your Photos! 3 12-23-2009 01:16 PM
Best price for a DA15 to Australia? Spock Photographic Technique 28 10-25-2009 05:21 PM
DA15 vs SMC Pentax 15? mabelsound Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 11 04-25-2009 02:03 PM
what do you gain with the DA15 gokenin Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 7 04-24-2009 03:46 PM
A series from the Lavaux with DA15 tcom Post Your Photos! 18 04-20-2009 11:30 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:38 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