DA15 vs. DA*16-50

robgo2 · 04-09-2011, 03:49 PM

I realize that some members of this forum are wild about the DA15/4 Limited, but I would like to know what advantages it has over the DA*16-50/2.8, other than smaller size and less distortion and CA, the latter two being fixable in PP. According to Photozone, which is not the ultimate source in lens evaluation, IMO, the DA* actually has better resolution. Does the DA15 render differently?

So what I want to know is whether the DA15 is really something special or just the object of a lot of LBA hype.

Rob

Last edited by robgo2; 04-09-2011 at 04:04 PM.

imtheguy · 04-09-2011, 04:28 PM

When I needed to upgrade to a better wide lens, I tested/rented 5 different (not the da*16-50 though). The da15 not only have the qualities you mention but they also appeared to have the depth of color as if a CPL was mounted. I can't explain it more that that. The size is very important to some (like me) as I often am without an ultra wide when I get a mile from the car just because of weight. A few onces in my pocket gives a change for shots I would otherwise miss out. Other than correctable distortion when under 20mm, I am very happy with the da16-45 but the color that jumps out of the da15 makes the da16-45 seem pale. Just my 2 cents.

**Rondec** · 04-09-2011, 04:41 PM

Not having used the DA 15, the big advantage I see (other than size) over the DA 16-50 is resistance to flare. The 16-50 can't shoot into the sun the way the DA 15 can. It also has more distortion (although that is fixable fairly easily).

**Ex Finn.** · 04-09-2011, 05:25 PM

I agree with Rondec. The 16-50 is a flare prone pos. No experience with DA-15.
Don`t get me wrong, the DA* has it`s uses , rain,sleet and snow is where it shines, a tough lens in that regard.

Last edited by Ex Finn.; 04-09-2011 at 05:33 PM.

selar · 04-09-2011, 11:11 PM

Originally posted by Rondec

The 16-50 can't shoot into the sun

It can't? Oh ok, no one told me, else I wouldn't have attempted this?

EricT · 04-10-2011, 02:21 AM

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:

selar · 04-10-2011, 04:06 AM

You didnt say which lens produced those shots. Guessing DA15.

**Rondec** · 04-10-2011, 04:12 AM

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).

**Rondec** · 04-10-2011, 04:13 AM

Originally posted by selar

You didnt say which lens produced those shots. Guessing DA15.

The exif is in place (its the 16-50).

Spotmatic · 04-10-2011, 07:03 AM

Originally posted by robgo2

I realize that some members of this forum are wild about the DA15/4 Limited, but I would like to know what advantages it has over the DA*16-50/2.8, other than smaller size and less distortion and CA, the latter two being fixable in PP. According to Photozone, which is not the ultimate source in lens evaluation, IMO, the DA* actually has better resolution. Does the DA15 render differently?

So what I want to know is whether the DA15 is really something special or just the object of a lot of LBA hype.

Rob

The only way to really know is to use the lens. I had the 12-24 and the DA 15. I sold the 12-24. I just prefer primes. The 16-50 is certainly a fine lens too. I am not a pixel peeper and just evaluate a lens by the images it produces. That said, I think the DA 15 is quite good.

Marc Sabatella · 04-10-2011, 09:08 AM

Actually, if you really look at the photozone numbers, they don't show the 16-50 with better resolution overall. At certain apertures, certain portions of the image (center versus border versus extreme) are slightly better with one, and at other apertures and with other portions of the image, it's the other way around. And in most cases, no matter which one has the better numbers for a given aperture in a given portion of the image, the differences are small enough to likely be undetectable. What the numbers say that sharpness is not a differentiator.

The numebrs show the DA15 beating the zoom handily in distortion, CA, and pretty much everyone agrees its no contest with respect to flare. But to my mind, those differences are what it's about. It all comes down to flexibility in favor of the zoom and size/weight in favor of the prime. Clearly, great images can be made with either.

WerTicus · 04-10-2011, 09:42 AM

the da 15 is pretty flare proof... and has nice star highlights on light sources

I dont know much about the 16-50.

robgo2 · 04-10-2011, 09:54 AM

What I am hearing so far is that the main benefit of the DA15 vis a vis the DA*16-50 is small size, which comes at the cost of less versatility. It may also be slightly less prone to flare and also has less distortion and chromatic aberration, both of which can be dealt with in PP.

The background for my asking this question is that I have been a happy user of the DA*16-50 for about two years and have generally been quite satisfied with the IQ that it delivers. However, recently I became reacquainted with my FA31 and FA77 and could immediately see the differences. This led me to purchase a FA43, which I think may be the best of the FA Limiteds. (It is un-freaking-believable!) And that got me to wondering whether the DA15 might also be significantly superior to the DA*16-50 in terms of IQ. My sense is that any difference is rather small, which attests to the quality of the DA* and not to the lack of quality of the DA15.

Whether or not I will acquire one of those tiny little lenses someday is yet to be determined. Thanks to all for their input. Further comments are welcome.

Rob

selar · 04-10-2011, 06:24 PM

I would buy the DA15 Ltd but have held off so far for the following reasons:
1. Its not in stock, and probably won't be until people get over getting star effects. Thats okay I'm in no rush.
2. Its not wide enough. Not as wide as my Sigma 14/2.8
3. Its not fast enough. As above.
4. Its not full frame. As above.
The only attraction for me is that it tiny. But the camera body is big anyway, so whats the point? I think Pentax went the wrong way with the current crop of limiteds. I am not interested in that mirrorless camera they are supposed to be bringing out, the ergonomics would suck.
Now, if they brought out an ultrawide version of the FA31, game on.

Eagle_Friends · 04-10-2011, 09:04 PM

i think the question is whether you prefer primes or zooms.

04-09-2011, 03:49 PM	#1
robgo2 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: New Mexico Photos: Albums Posts: 1,125	*DA15 vs. DA16-50** I realize that some members of this forum are wild about the DA15/4 Limited, but I would like to know what advantages it has over the DA16-50/2.8, other than smaller size and less distortion and CA, the latter two being fixable in PP. According to Photozone, which is not* the ultimate source in lens evaluation, IMO, the DA* actually has better resolution. Does the DA15 render differently? So what I want to know is whether the DA15 is really something special or just the object of a lot of LBA hype. Rob Last edited by robgo2; 04-09-2011 at 04:04 PM.

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?	zoltan1983snapper	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

04-09-2011, 04:28 PM	#2
imtheguy Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Virginia Beach Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,950	When I needed to upgrade to a better wide lens, I tested/rented 5 different (not the da*16-50 though). The da15 not only have the qualities you mention but they also appeared to have the depth of color as if a CPL was mounted. I can't explain it more that that. The size is very important to some (like me) as I often am without an ultra wide when I get a mile from the car just because of weight. A few onces in my pocket gives a change for shots I would otherwise miss out. Other than correctable distortion when under 20mm, I am very happy with the da16-45 but the color that jumps out of the da15 makes the da16-45 seem pale. Just my 2 cents.

04-09-2011, 04:41 PM	#3
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,662	Not having used the DA 15, the big advantage I see (other than size) over the DA 16-50 is resistance to flare. The 16-50 can't shoot into the sun the way the DA 15 can. It also has more distortion (although that is fixable fairly easily).

04-09-2011, 05:25 PM	#4
Ex Finn. Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Southern Maryland. Espoo. Kouvola. Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,975	I agree with Rondec. The 16-50 is a flare prone pos. No experience with DA-15. Don`t get me wrong, the DA* has it`s uses , rain,sleet and snow is where it shines, a tough lens in that regard. Last edited by Ex Finn.; 04-09-2011 at 05:33 PM.

04-09-2011, 11:11 PM	#5
selar Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Sydney, Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,042	Originally posted by Rondec The 16-50 can't shoot into the sun It can't? Oh ok, no one told me, else I wouldn't have attempted this?

04-10-2011, 02:21 AM	#6
EricT Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 484	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:

04-10-2011, 04:06 AM	#7
selar Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Sydney, Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,042	You didnt say which lens produced those shots. Guessing DA15.

04-10-2011, 04:12 AM	#8
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,662	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).

04-10-2011, 04:13 AM	#9
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,662	Originally posted by selar You didnt say which lens produced those shots. Guessing DA15. The exif is in place (its the 16-50).

04-10-2011, 07:03 AM	#10
Spotmatic Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Ft. Myers Florida Posts: 169	Originally posted by robgo2 I realize that some members of this forum are wild about the DA15/4 Limited, but I would like to know what advantages it has over the DA16-50/2.8, other than smaller size and less distortion and CA, the latter two being fixable in PP. According to Photozone, which is not* the ultimate source in lens evaluation, IMO, the DA* actually has better resolution. Does the DA15 render differently? So what I want to know is whether the DA15 is really something special or just the object of a lot of LBA hype. Rob The only way to really know is to use the lens. I had the 12-24 and the DA 15. I sold the 12-24. I just prefer primes. The 16-50 is certainly a fine lens too. I am not a pixel peeper and just evaluate a lens by the images it produces. That said, I think the DA 15 is quite good.

04-10-2011, 09:08 AM	#11
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Actually, if you really look at the photozone numbers, they don't show the 16-50 with better resolution overall. At certain apertures, certain portions of the image (center versus border versus extreme) are slightly better with one, and at other apertures and with other portions of the image, it's the other way around. And in most cases, no matter which one has the better numbers for a given aperture in a given portion of the image, the differences are small enough to likely be undetectable. What the numbers say that sharpness is not a differentiator. The numebrs show the DA15 beating the zoom handily in distortion, CA, and pretty much everyone agrees its no contest with respect to flare. But to my mind, those differences are what it's about. It all comes down to flexibility in favor of the zoom and size/weight in favor of the prime. Clearly, great images can be made with either.

04-10-2011, 09:42 AM	#12
WerTicus Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Perth Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 1,514	the da 15 is pretty flare proof... and has nice star highlights on light sources I dont know much about the 16-50.

04-10-2011, 09:54 AM	#13
robgo2 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: New Mexico Photos: Albums Posts: 1,125 Original Poster	What I am hearing so far is that the main benefit of the DA15 vis a vis the DA16-50 is small size, which comes at the cost of less versatility. It may also be slightly less prone to flare and also has less distortion and chromatic aberration, both of which can be dealt with in PP. The background for my asking this question is that I have been a happy user of the DA16-50 for about two years and have generally been quite satisfied with the IQ that it delivers. However, recently I became reacquainted with my FA31 and FA77 and could immediately see the differences. This led me to purchase a FA43, which I think may be the best of the FA Limiteds. (It is un-freaking-believable!) And that got me to wondering whether the DA15 might also be significantly superior to the DA16-50 in terms of IQ. My sense is that any difference is rather small, which attests to the quality of the DA and not to the lack of quality of the DA15. Whether or not I will acquire one of those tiny little lenses someday is yet to be determined. Thanks to all for their input. Further comments are welcome. Rob

04-10-2011, 06:24 PM	#14
selar Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Sydney, Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,042	I would buy the DA15 Ltd but have held off so far for the following reasons: 1. Its not in stock, and probably won't be until people get over getting star effects. Thats okay I'm in no rush. 2. Its not wide enough. Not as wide as my Sigma 14/2.8 3. Its not fast enough. As above. 4. Its not full frame. As above. The only attraction for me is that it tiny. But the camera body is big anyway, so whats the point? I think Pentax went the wrong way with the current crop of limiteds. I am not interested in that mirrorless camera they are supposed to be bringing out, the ergonomics would suck. Now, if they brought out an ultrawide version of the FA31, game on.

04-10-2011, 09:04 PM	#15
Eagle_Friends Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 971	i think the question is whether you prefer primes or zooms.