[selar]

Set your camera up on a tripod

I sold my tripod when I got my Kx. Very cumbersome things, tripods.

[selar]

Hey, I tried the lens and I didn't think it was anything special

I have used a 14mm for close on 3 years and didn't think it was anything special either, till I read up on some tips on how to use an ultrawide. I wouldn't have bought this lens if I didn't think the focal length had potential.

[kyteflyer]

I have used a 14mm for close on 3 years and didn't think it was anything special either, till I read up on some tips on how to use an ultrawide. I wouldn't have bought this lens if I didn't think the focal length had potential.

Indeed. Prowling the QV building eh? Must get down again soon, theres not a lot of decent architecture in Newcastle to really explore the lens

[JHD]

I have used a 14mm for close on 3 years and didn't think it was anything special either, till I read up on some tips on how to use an ultrawide.

You're right, it takes a little know how to compose with a WA lens. I have Sigma 10-20 and I love it. There's a HUGE difference between 10mm and 15mm. I wouldn't call 15mm on APS-C an UWA. On a FF yeah, but not on a 1.5 crop sensor. I shoot a lot of close interiors and 15mm is quite often not nearly wide enough.

[JHD]

I sold my tripod when I got my Kx. Very cumbersome things, tripods.

I still find my tripod comes in handy. Use mine a lot for 1:1 macros.

[selar]

I still find my tripod comes in handy. Use mine a lot for 1:1 macros.

Handheld 1:1, tripod wouldn't have been much use anyway. It was shoot and run....

[VaughnA]

I'm the latest victim to be sucked into the DA-15 vortex. I sold my 10-20 and went with the DA-15. In only a couple of hours I find that it's definitely sharper than the 10-20 and much more flare resistant. Yes, the starbursts are neat but they are also an indicator of how well this lens will do in tough flare situations without the starbursts.

I've got a 16-45 that I really love, so why did I get something about that length? Because I'm lazy, if I've got the zoom on the camera I tend to twist the knob, zoom in and out and shoot. When I'm shooting with a prime, I seem to take my time, move around and compose things a lot better. I've tried to do that with a zoom and I all too easily cop out and zoom before pressing the shutter. I've taken a lot of photos in the last year, probably 75% of them or more are with zooms. But I'd say 50% or more of my keepers are from shots using my primes. I've sold a couple of zooms and I'm trying to get a good basic collection of primes so that I don't have to use the zooms as much. I just shoot better with primes, don't know why, don't care why.

YMMV..

[audiobomber]

I wouldn't call 15mm on APS-C an UWA.

Me neither. In my definition, ultrawide is under 14mm, 14-17mm is extra wide. I agree with you about the 16-45mm. You can find differences if you study the photo closely, but FOV or IQ differences wouldn't justify adding a 15mm IMO. (I'm basing this on a comparo that Jay did when he first got the 15mm).

But does LBA need justification?

I bought the 15mm mainly for its small size. I haven't bothered to compare IQ vs the 16-45mm because I use them differently. I carry the 15mm in an all-prime kit or in a day kit with an 18-135 and DA 40. The 15mm has better flare resistance than the zoom, but won't take a CPL. The 16-45 lives in a larger kit with 10-17 FE, 55-300, three primes, flash, CPL filters.

[Ron Kruger]

Primes are still slightly better optically than zooms, but it is a difference most don't notice or appreciate, especially if they've never shot primes. However, as VaughnA points out, primes naturally make one a better photographer.
I've been shooting for four decades, and my most consistent problem remains not taking enough time to think a shot through to get the best from it. Primes slow you down a bit and cause you to concentrate more on composition. Once you shoot a specific FL for a while, you also develop a "photographic vision." You can imagine the shot and the composition before aiming.
Zooms tend to push one toward a lazy or unimaginative snapshot mentality. At least they do that to me.
The wider one goes the tricker the composition, but the greater the opportunity for creative compositions as well.
I started with a Zeiss prime decades ago, then switched to Nikon and zooms, because the versatility made sense at the time. It took me a long time to notice, or become objective enough to notice, that my photos were better with that old prime, and when I switched to Pentax a few years ago, a big part of the reason was excellent primes at reasonable prices. I've been more pleased with my decision with each prime I've purchased, and the DA 15mm Limited pushed me over the top into almost a fan-boy rage.
If you want to put everything on auto and "walk about" taking snapshots, you may not think much of this lens and would be better off with a zoom. But the more you know about photography, the more critical you are and the more thought you put into your shots the more you will appreciate this lens. Each one is sprinkled with magic dust before it leaves the factory.

[DogLover]

I'm the latest victim to be sucked into the DA-15 vortex. I sold my 10-20 and went with the DA-15. In only a couple of hours I find that it's definitely sharper than the 10-20 and much more flare resistant. Yes, the starbursts are neat but they are also an indicator of how well this lens will do in tough flare situations without the starbursts.

I've got a 16-45 that I really love, so why did I get something about that length? Because I'm lazy, if I've got the zoom on the camera I tend to twist the knob, zoom in and out and shoot. When I'm shooting with a prime, I seem to take my time, move around and compose things a lot better. I've tried to do that with a zoom and I all too easily cop out and zoom before pressing the shutter. I've taken a lot of photos in the last year, probably 75% of them or more are with zooms. But I'd say 50% or more of my keepers are from shots using my primes. I've sold a couple of zooms and I'm trying to get a good basic collection of primes so that I don't have to use the zooms as much. I just shoot better with primes, don't know why, don't care why.

YMMV..

Other than the fact that I have a 16-50 instead of a 16-45, I could have posted this. Everything else here applies to me as well.

Also, while many folks here on this site may no longer be so blown away with the sunburst shots, the fact is that most "lay-people" really are. A few well-executed sunburst shots in your portfolio will definitely get some oohs and aahs. And the cool thing is that many of these people will assume that it was only your skill as a photographer that got that shot! You don't have to tell them that you have a lens that excels at it.

[Marc Sabatella]

Hey, I tried the lens and I didn't think it was anything special. Set your camera up on a tripod and take the same shot with the DA16-45. If the DA15 is worth twice the price, there should be some hard evidence to justify the dollars...

The evidence is more apparent when you take it *off* the tripod; even more so when you try to fit it in your bag. One is much smaller than the other. Either that matters to you or it doesn't.

Even on the tripod, though, the difference in distortion and in CA would be plainly apparent. But to the extent the optical quality is close, that's really a testament to the 16-45, not a knock on the 15.

When you glance at the sun, do you see it emitting 14 pointy spikes?

No, but I do so a clearly defined ball, and under the right conditions, I do see clearly defined rays. The sky is very much lighter close to the sun, but it is not completely washed out. With most lenses, shots that include the sun are not able to render any of this very accurately. But the DA15 does quite well at this.

I’d rather not see so much misrepresentation of reality. And there's no way around that artificial manufactured look with the DA15.

Of course there is - just don't stop down so much when shooting directly into the sun. Also, many of the starburst shots you see posted required PP to get there; otherwise, the sun would have been rendered much larger (the sky around it would have been blown out too) and the spikes subsumed in the blown out sky. if you prefer not to see 14 pointy spikes, it's *trivially* easy not to get them.

But that misses the point. In addition to my observation about the problems inherent in representing the sun in a photograph - problems that the DA15 solves very well - there is also the question of how the foreground is rendered when the sun is in or near the shot. Flare just *kills* contrast in many of these situations, and with a semi-ultra-wide-angle lens, you're shooting in the general vicinity of the sun more often than with a longer lens. The fact that the 15 can take advantage of its amazing lack of flare to create the starburst effect is indeed primarily a novelty. The fact that it is so lacking in flare in the first place is what is really valuable, though. In other words, stop looking at the starbursts - look at how the rest of the scene is rendered.

[mikeSF]

... I’d rather not see so much misrepresentation of reality.

I have Sigma 10-20 and I love it. There's a HUGE difference between 10mm and 15mm... I shoot a lot of close interiors and 15mm is quite often not nearly wide enough.

Wait, I'm confused now. You dislike a distorted reality but you often shoot close subjects using 10mm?! Uh, did you notice how close together those opposite walls look in your pictures?



Regarding the rays, my school aged kids always draw the sun with a burst of lines emanating from it, so it isn't the craziest idea i've ever heard.

[v5planet]

I'm not sure the lens in your eyes 'distorts' reality any less than any lens you could possibly put in front of a camera. Your photon receptors and neurological machinery 'distort' the message from light no less than a camera's sensor does. I guess you could describe all the light and objects around you in a purely mathematical form, but then, that's just another abstract representation of reality.

[mikeSF]

Thanks! For the record, here it is:



:-)

great photo!

[mikeSF]

here's the Photozone sample image of 10mm from the Sig 10-20:



http://www.pzimages.com/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_1020_456_pentax/samples/IMGP6831_acr37.jpg

The lens appears to be a nice performer, but look at that distortion of reality? yikes. It makes me dizzy.