Maybe I Changed My Mind? The most wishy-washy LBA ever...

jsherman999 · 05-13-2011, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by DRabbit

I've pretty much made the decision now, so I'm covered from 35 and longer. It's just a matter of deciding on wider now. As of now, my kit consists of DA35 Macro (on its way), FA43, DA*55 for weather-sealing and DA70 (on its way). I also have an older SMC-A 28mm f/2.8 that I like.

As someone who doesn't shoot wide much (but likes to very occasionally)... which makes more sense do you think? The DA21, DA15 or something like the FA 20-35 (too much overlap?) or DA 12-24/third-party zoom (Sigma 10-20/Tamron 10-24)? I'm actually lean towards the DA15 I think... since I like primes. The 15 and 35 could be a nice travel pair.

.

I carry the DA 15, 35 and FA 77ltd, and you just can't beat that prime trio, IMO. The 31ltd could take the place of the 35 if you're going to need that extra 1.3 stops of light, but besides that the 15, 35 and 77 just about represent perfection.

That said, the 16-45 f/4 is a step above any kit lens you've ever shot, including that 18-135. That would be a better choice on aps-c than the 20-35 4, I think.

.

Cannikin · 05-13-2011, 12:36 PM

Originally posted by DRabbit

I've pretty much made the decision now, so I'm covered from 35 and longer. It's just a matter of deciding on wider now. As of now, my kit consists of DA35 Macro (on its way), FA43, DA*55 for weather-sealing and DA70 (on its way). I also have an older SMC-A 28mm f/2.8 that I like.

As someone who doesn't shoot wide much (but likes to very occasionally)... which makes more sense do you think? The DA21, DA15 or something like the FA 20-35 (too much overlap?) or DA 12-24/third-party zoom (Sigma 10-20/Tamron 10-24)? I'm actually lean towards the DA15 I think... since I like primes. The 15 and 35 could be a nice travel pair.

I love the 15, and it is a fantastic and fun lens to use if you like wide angle, and not just landscapes; it also makes for very interesting closeups. It's permanently in my bag, I never leave it behind. And you're right, the 15 and 35 make an excellent pair: last year I spent the summer hiking a lot and I carried just the two and the 55-300. I felt this set covered virtually all landscapes and perspectives, while being compact and light.

That being said, it is on the verge of being an ultra-wide angle lens, with all the quirks that come with that angle of view. I personally like it a lot, but it can be kind of hard to visualize if you're used to normal focal lengths (though you get used to it). The difference is actually considerable, even if it doesn't look like it looking at the focal lengths. The 21 is closer to normal perspective (almost 20 degrees narrower in horizontal angle of view), so it might feel somewhat more natural. But if you ever want to go really wide (but not crazy wide), the 15 is the way to go. Technically you can crop the 15 to match the 21, but you can't replicate the unique view the 15 produces with the 21.

In terms of IQ it's a wash. They have remarkably similar behavior, almost identical really if you go by Photozone's charts. Size/weight-wise, the 15 is not quite as small or light as the 21 (which is pretty much the same size as the 43), but it's still a very tiny lens. It's about the same size as the 43 with its hood attached. The difference is negligible in practice I would say.

As for the 12-24 and 10-20, fine lenses both of them, though considering you love small/light, and think the 55 is borderline too big/heavy, I'd imagine you'd have some serious reservations about the size and weight of those ultra-wide zooms. They are vastly larger than the 15, and over twice the weight.

**DRabbit** · 05-13-2011, 01:03 PM

I think about size/weight you're right Cannikin... the more I read about the ultra wides, the more I realize most are going to be too big and heavy for me, so I think the 15 might be a better choice. If I had the money right now honestly I'd buy both the 15 and 21 and then decide which I like better -- hehe -- but I'm not sure that's in the cards unless I start taking in a whole lot more freelance work

creampuff · 05-13-2011, 04:31 PM

Take a tip given to me by a retired Korean photojournalist friend... don't buy another lens until you know intimately what your current lenses can and cannot do.
I have found that his advise is true today as it was when I first met him in the 80s. That said, a 15, 21, 35, 70 combo will easily cover 90% of photo situations most of us will likely meet.

farfisa · 05-13-2011, 04:53 PM

Your own thought about the FA 20-35mm is a good one too. I've never used that lens, but I know some who swear by the lens, and the user reviews here are very positive. At 245g, it's also lighter than many primes.

If you'd even consider getting a 21 and a 28, then it's a cost effective option--I wouldn't worry about the overlap at 35mm.

Those tiny DA limiteds are extremely well made and nice to use, but on the extreme wide end, I found that I didn't like keeping the 15 on for very long. With the 43 or the 55, I could keep it on all day though.

Of course it's always a personal thing. If you see a deal here in the marketplace, see if you can grab a 15 or 21 to try out. You can generally resell well priced items for the same amount and think of the shipping and paypal fees as a 'rental'.

But try to be patient too--creampuff's advice is good! Just wish I had the willpower to listen myself

Frogfish · 05-13-2011, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by creampuff

Take a tip given to me by a retired Korean photojournalist friend... don't buy another lens until you know intimately what your current lenses can and cannot do.
I have found that his advise is true today as it was when I first met him in the 80s. That said, a 15, 21, 35, 70 combo will easily cover 90% of photo situations most of us will likely meet.

Oh rubbish ! how is THAT going to feed the LBA ?!? Spoilsport ! *blows raspberry*

**DRabbit** · 05-13-2011, 08:32 PM

Originally posted by frogfish

oh rubbish ! How is that going to feed the lba ?!? Spoilsport ! *blows raspberry*

:d

lol! :d

bdery · 05-14-2011, 04:37 AM

Originally posted by Wheatfield

I get your drift, I also get that you sidestepped the question

Which question exactly? How the lack or WR would affect you?

In that case, everyone is different, and people managed before WR (and before AF, for that matter). But without WR it would be impossible (for me at least) to risk shooting such an image:

The fall was spraying enough water that I was literally soaked after taking that shot. There was a Canon shooter a few hundred paces behind me, holding his camera behind his back to protect it, and looking at me like I was crazy when I held the camera in front of me and walked up to the fall.

Does that answer your question?

woof · 05-14-2011, 05:38 AM

Originally posted by DRabbit

Is you head spinning yet? Mine is.
I've reached maximum frustration - LOL - and am considering just canning them all and keeping only the 43 and 70 for a while (and my old SMC-A 28).

Let me apologize for my blabbering. You're the only guys who understand... lucky for you

No, lucky you.

Seriously now... you have some nice lenses already. Do you REALLY use them? Or are you collecting them? I ask because I really do not know and cannot tell. OTOH, you do seem to be exhibiting a little bit of obsession. I say that with all respect...

This is what worked for me... I went and I joined two "Single in <Month>" challenges, relatively close together. This meant using a single lens/FL for a month in each case. One photo per day published to the group with one lens for 30 days. It does not matter, but I used a 28mm and a 15mm respectively.

Those challenges forced me to get out and shoot. I decided in the course of them to learn a type of photography I admire but never previously did. So I added another layer to the challenge which was to stick to a theme. Furthermore, the conventional wisdom is that the 28mm was not wide enough for the theme.

What I found was that the conventional wisdom stinks, that I really like the new discipline, and that HAVING all the tools in the world will not help me see better. Using the tools did.

When I was through with the second challenge I knew exactly what I wanted and exactly what I needed.

The two are not synonymous.

Let me be clear: The challenges cured me of the mild LBA obsession I had been experiencing. The issues with my photography had nothing to do whatever with the lenses I owned. I have since purchased one lens and will sell another lens this week. Net 0 lenses. Since November.

In short, shooting taught me that shooting is the priority, not collecting glass and planning my lineup. I am happier and have work to show for it.

What I am advocating is this: use what you have. A lot. In a concentrated and directed manner. Then look at your kit. For example, you are imagining that you would like some macro capability. Do you really? Find a way to shoot some, or something close to this. Buying an expensive lens because you think you'd like to have the capability is... expensive. With all due respect, I tried it. It did nothing really for me.

I know I have not helped your plan. Sorry about that. I will say keep the 28mm. It's actually become a favorite FL for me.

Hope this helps,

Kind regards,

woof!

Blue · 05-14-2011, 06:25 AM

I think with the DA* 55mm, the FA 77mm ltd would make a better fit or even the old FA* 85/1.4.

I have 2 basic AF kits. One for my digital bodies and one for my MZ-3 and the obviously overlap. Digital: 21, 35, 40, and 77 ltds and Sigma 105mm and DA* 300mm. Film AF: F 28.2.8, FA 50/1.4, FA 77, Sigma 105mm, and DA* 300mm.

Through a few mf into the mix, A 50/1.2, Tamron 180mm/2.5, Tamron 90/2.5, Tamron 24/2.5.

Then factor in a Takumar collection and I have a lot of lenses.

That said, with exception of trading a DA 17-70 for a DA 40 ltd and some cash, I haven't bought a lens in nearly 7 months. That did create somewhat of a gap in my digital line up at anything greater than 21mm.

**NaClH2O** · 05-14-2011, 06:39 AM

Originally posted by DRabbit

I've pretty much made the decision now, so I'm covered from 35 and longer. It's just a matter of deciding on wider now. As of now, my kit consists of DA35 Macro (on its way), FA43, DA*55 for weather-sealing and DA70 (on its way). I also have an older SMC-A 28mm f/2.8 that I like.

As someone who doesn't shoot wide much (but likes to very occasionally)... which makes more sense do you think? The DA21, DA15 or something like the FA 20-35 (too much overlap?) or DA 12-24/third-party zoom (Sigma 10-20/Tamron 10-24)? I'm actually lean towards the DA15 I think... since I like primes. The 15 and 35 could be a nice travel pair.

Hi Amy, I own both the DA 12-24 and the FA 20-35. Also own the FA 20mm F/2.8. Obviously I like to shoot wide (probably more than you do) but I would say for someone like you who doesn't shoot wide all that often that the 20-35 would be the better lens than the 12-24. Don't get me wrong, the 12-24 is a great lens and I'll never sell mine, but I think it's a bit more limited in scope than the 20-35. I don't own and have never shot with the DA 15mm so I can't comment at all on it other than to say that it is highly regarded.
The FA 20-35 is a great lens, it is sharp corner to corner even wide open (tho at f/4.0 that's not very wide). Color rendition is superb, nice bright reds w/o oversaturation, yellows don't overexpose, blues and greens are spot on, and excellent flesh tones. Bokeh is also good, but that is such a subjective judgement I almost don't want to mention it.
The lens also close focuses very well. CA, the bane of many a WA lens, is limited. I can get purple fringing etc to appear, but I have to work at it. Because of it's color rendition and it's close focus abilities, it is just about the perfect "garden" lens. If it was f/2.8 instead of f/4.0 it would be the perfect garden lens.

NaCl(it's also relatively light and unobtrusive)H2O

Frogfish · 05-14-2011, 12:10 PM

Amy - what are you planning to shoot with your wide lense ? I was shooting the dichotomy between old houses and new skyscrapers in downtown Shanghai today and was forced to use my Tamron 17-50/2.8 at 17mm most of the time because I forgot to take my Sigma 10-20. 17mm was not wide enough. 15mm would have been much better.

**DRabbit** · 05-15-2011, 01:56 PM

Thanks again everyone.

I've decided on this kit for now...
DA21
DA35 Macro
FA43
DA*55 for bad weather
DA70

We'll see how those go. I do have a CV 15 on my M8 for times I need ultra wide, so I'm not concerned with skipping the DA15 for now (and I don't shoot real wide all that often). I think I'll seriously get some enjoyment out of having a macro-capable lens in my kit.

05-13-2011, 12:16 PM	#16
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Da 16-45? Originally posted by DRabbit I've pretty much made the decision now, so I'm covered from 35 and longer. It's just a matter of deciding on wider now. As of now, my kit consists of DA35 Macro (on its way), FA43, DA*55 for weather-sealing and DA70 (on its way). I also have an older SMC-A 28mm f/2.8 that I like. As someone who doesn't shoot wide much (but likes to very occasionally)... which makes more sense do you think? The DA21, DA15 or something like the FA 20-35 (too much overlap?) or DA 12-24/third-party zoom (Sigma 10-20/Tamron 10-24)? I'm actually lean towards the DA15 I think... since I like primes. The 15 and 35 could be a nice travel pair. . I carry the DA 15, 35 and FA 77ltd, and you just can't beat that prime trio, IMO. The 31ltd could take the place of the 35 if you're going to need that extra 1.3 stops of light, but besides that the 15, 35 and 77 just about represent perfection. That said, the 16-45 f/4 is a step above any kit lens you've ever shot, including that 18-135. That would be a better choice on aps-c than the 20-35 4, I think. .

05-13-2011, 12:36 PM	#17
Cannikin Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: SW Washington Posts: 833	Originally posted by DRabbit I've pretty much made the decision now, so I'm covered from 35 and longer. It's just a matter of deciding on wider now. As of now, my kit consists of DA35 Macro (on its way), FA43, DA55 for weather-sealing and DA70 (on its way). I also have an older SMC-A 28mm f/2.8 that I like. As someone who doesn't shoot wide much (but likes to very occasionally)... which makes more sense do you think? The DA21, DA15 or something like the FA 20-35 (too much overlap?) or DA 12-24/third-party zoom (Sigma 10-20/Tamron 10-24)? I'm actually lean towards the DA15 I think... since I like primes. The 15 and 35 could be a nice travel pair. I love the 15, and it is a fantastic and fun lens to use if you like wide angle, and not just landscapes; it also makes for very interesting closeups. It's permanently in my bag, I never leave it behind. And you're right, the 15 and 35 make an excellent pair: last year I spent the summer hiking a lot and I carried just the two and the 55-300. I felt this set covered virtually all landscapes and perspectives, while being compact and light. That being said, it is on the verge of being an ultra-wide angle lens, with all the quirks that come with that angle of view. I personally like it a lot, but it can be kind of hard to visualize if you're used to normal focal lengths (though you get used to it). The difference is actually considerable, even if it doesn't look like it looking at the focal lengths. The 21 is closer to normal perspective (almost 20 degrees narrower in horizontal angle of view), so it might feel somewhat more natural. But if you ever want to go really wide (but not crazy wide), the 15 is the way to go. Technically you can crop the 15 to match the 21, but you can't replicate the unique view the 15 produces with the 21. In terms of IQ it's a wash. They have remarkably similar behavior, almost identical really if you go by Photozone's charts. Size/weight-wise, the 15 is not quite as small or light as the 21 (which is pretty much the same size as the 43), but it's still a very tiny lens. It's about the same size as the 43 with its hood attached. The difference is negligible in practice I would say. As for the 12-24 and 10-20, fine lenses both of them, though considering you love small/light, and think the 55 is borderline too big/heavy, I'd imagine you'd have some serious reservations about the size and weight of those ultra-wide zooms. They are vastly larger than the 15, and over twice the weight. Last edited by Cannikin; 05-13-2011 at 01:17 PM.*

05-14-2011, 12:10 PM	#27
Frogfish Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Shanghai Posts: 4,490	Amy - what are you planning to shoot with your wide lense ? I was shooting the dichotomy between old houses and new skyscrapers in downtown Shanghai today and was forced to use my Tamron 17-50/2.8 at 17mm most of the time because I forgot to take my Sigma 10-20. 17mm was not wide enough. 15mm would have been much better. Last edited by Frogfish; 05-16-2011 at 02:27 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
I have changed my mind!	edgedemon	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	56	11-19-2010 10:18 PM
is it just me of has Flickr changed?	cdurfor	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	20	07-13-2010 10:31 PM
K-7 shutter sound changed	disya2	Pentax DSLR Discussion	11	04-20-2010 07:09 AM
Do I have LBA or have I simply lost my mind?	Lowell Goudge	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	41	01-07-2010 11:44 PM
Has the marketplace policy changed?	zoltan1983snapper	Site Suggestions and Help	3	07-06-2009 11:03 AM

05-13-2011, 01:03 PM	#18
DRabbit Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Long Island, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 593 Original Poster	I think about size/weight you're right Cannikin... the more I read about the ultra wides, the more I realize most are going to be too big and heavy for me, so I think the 15 might be a better choice. If I had the money right now honestly I'd buy both the 15 and 21 and then decide which I like better -- hehe -- but I'm not sure that's in the cards unless I start taking in a whole lot more freelance work

05-13-2011, 04:31 PM	#19
creampuff Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Singapore Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,953	Take a tip given to me by a retired Korean photojournalist friend... don't buy another lens until you know intimately what your current lenses can and cannot do. I have found that his advise is true today as it was when I first met him in the 80s. That said, a 15, 21, 35, 70 combo will easily cover 90% of photo situations most of us will likely meet.

05-13-2011, 04:53 PM	#20
farfisa Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Toronto, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,274	Your own thought about the FA 20-35mm is a good one too. I've never used that lens, but I know some who swear by the lens, and the user reviews here are very positive. At 245g, it's also lighter than many primes. If you'd even consider getting a 21 and a 28, then it's a cost effective option--I wouldn't worry about the overlap at 35mm. Those tiny DA limiteds are extremely well made and nice to use, but on the extreme wide end, I found that I didn't like keeping the 15 on for very long. With the 43 or the 55, I could keep it on all day though. Of course it's always a personal thing. If you see a deal here in the marketplace, see if you can grab a 15 or 21 to try out. You can generally resell well priced items for the same amount and think of the shipping and paypal fees as a 'rental'. But try to be patient too--creampuff's advice is good! Just wish I had the willpower to listen myself

05-13-2011, 08:21 PM	#21
Frogfish Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Shanghai Posts: 4,490	Originally posted by creampuff Take a tip given to me by a retired Korean photojournalist friend... don't buy another lens until you know intimately what your current lenses can and cannot do. I have found that his advise is true today as it was when I first met him in the 80s. That said, a 15, 21, 35, 70 combo will easily cover 90% of photo situations most of us will likely meet. Oh rubbish ! how is THAT going to feed the LBA ?!? Spoilsport ! blows raspberry

05-13-2011, 08:32 PM	#22
DRabbit Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Long Island, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 593 Original Poster	Originally posted by frogfish oh rubbish ! How is that going to feed the lba ?!? Spoilsport ! blows raspberry :d lol! :d

05-14-2011, 04:37 AM	#23
bdery Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Quebec city, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,362	Originally posted by Wheatfield I get your drift, I also get that you sidestepped the question Which question exactly? How the lack or WR would affect you? In that case, everyone is different, and people managed before WR (and before AF, for that matter). But without WR it would be impossible (for me at least) to risk shooting such an image: The fall was spraying enough water that I was literally soaked after taking that shot. There was a Canon shooter a few hundred paces behind me, holding his camera behind his back to protect it, and looking at me like I was crazy when I held the camera in front of me and walked up to the fall. Does that answer your question?

05-14-2011, 05:38 AM	#24
woof Inactive Account Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: In the present Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,870	Originally posted by DRabbit Is you head spinning yet? Mine is. I've reached maximum frustration - LOL - and am considering just canning them all and keeping only the 43 and 70 for a while (and my old SMC-A 28). Let me apologize for my blabbering. You're the only guys who understand... lucky for you No, lucky you. Seriously now... you have some nice lenses already. Do you REALLY use them? Or are you collecting them? I ask because I really do not know and cannot tell. OTOH, you do seem to be exhibiting a little bit of obsession. I say that with all respect... This is what worked for me... I went and I joined two "Single in <Month>" challenges, relatively close together. This meant using a single lens/FL for a month in each case. One photo per day published to the group with one lens for 30 days. It does not matter, but I used a 28mm and a 15mm respectively. Those challenges forced me to get out and shoot. I decided in the course of them to learn a type of photography I admire but never previously did. So I added another layer to the challenge which was to stick to a theme. Furthermore, the conventional wisdom is that the 28mm was not wide enough for the theme. What I found was that the conventional wisdom stinks, that I really like the new discipline, and that HAVING all the tools in the world will not help me see better. Using the tools did. When I was through with the second challenge I knew exactly what I wanted and exactly what I needed. The two are not synonymous. Let me be clear: The challenges cured me of the mild LBA obsession I had been experiencing. The issues with my photography had nothing to do whatever with the lenses I owned. I have since purchased one lens and will sell another lens this week. Net 0 lenses. Since November. In short, shooting taught me that shooting is the priority, not collecting glass and planning my lineup. I am happier and have work to show for it. What I am advocating is this: use what you have. A lot. In a concentrated and directed manner. Then look at your kit. For example, you are imagining that you would like some macro capability. Do you really? Find a way to shoot some, or something close to this. Buying an expensive lens because you think you'd like to have the capability is... expensive. With all due respect, I tried it. It did nothing really for me. I know I have not helped your plan. Sorry about that. I will say keep the 28mm. It's actually become a favorite FL for me. Hope this helps, Kind regards, woof!

05-14-2011, 06:25 AM	#25
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	I think with the DA* 55mm, the FA 77mm ltd would make a better fit or even the old FA* 85/1.4. I have 2 basic AF kits. One for my digital bodies and one for my MZ-3 and the obviously overlap. Digital: 21, 35, 40, and 77 ltds and Sigma 105mm and DA* 300mm. Film AF: F 28.2.8, FA 50/1.4, FA 77, Sigma 105mm, and DA* 300mm. Through a few mf into the mix, A 50/1.2, Tamron 180mm/2.5, Tamron 90/2.5, Tamron 24/2.5. Then factor in a Takumar collection and I have a lot of lenses. That said, with exception of trading a DA 17-70 for a DA 40 ltd and some cash, I haven't bought a lens in nearly 7 months. That did create somewhat of a gap in my digital line up at anything greater than 21mm.

05-14-2011, 06:39 AM	#26
NaClH2O Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Bronx NY Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,631	Originally posted by DRabbit I've pretty much made the decision now, so I'm covered from 35 and longer. It's just a matter of deciding on wider now. As of now, my kit consists of DA35 Macro (on its way), FA43, DA*55 for weather-sealing and DA70 (on its way). I also have an older SMC-A 28mm f/2.8 that I like. As someone who doesn't shoot wide much (but likes to very occasionally)... which makes more sense do you think? The DA21, DA15 or something like the FA 20-35 (too much overlap?) or DA 12-24/third-party zoom (Sigma 10-20/Tamron 10-24)? I'm actually lean towards the DA15 I think... since I like primes. The 15 and 35 could be a nice travel pair. Hi Amy, I own both the DA 12-24 and the FA 20-35. Also own the FA 20mm F/2.8. Obviously I like to shoot wide (probably more than you do) but I would say for someone like you who doesn't shoot wide all that often that the 20-35 would be the better lens than the 12-24. Don't get me wrong, the 12-24 is a great lens and I'll never sell mine, but I think it's a bit more limited in scope than the 20-35. I don't own and have never shot with the DA 15mm so I can't comment at all on it other than to say that it is highly regarded. The FA 20-35 is a great lens, it is sharp corner to corner even wide open (tho at f/4.0 that's not very wide). Color rendition is superb, nice bright reds w/o oversaturation, yellows don't overexpose, blues and greens are spot on, and excellent flesh tones. Bokeh is also good, but that is such a subjective judgement I almost don't want to mention it. The lens also close focuses very well. CA, the bane of many a WA lens, is limited. I can get purple fringing etc to appear, but I have to work at it. Because of it's color rendition and it's close focus abilities, it is just about the perfect "garden" lens. If it was f/2.8 instead of f/4.0 it would be the perfect garden lens. NaCl(it's also relatively light and unobtrusive)H2O

05-15-2011, 01:56 PM	#28
DRabbit Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Long Island, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 593 Original Poster	Thanks again everyone. I've decided on this kit for now... DA21 DA35 Macro FA43 DA*55 for bad weather DA70 We'll see how those go. I do have a CV 15 on my M8 for times I need ultra wide, so I'm not concerned with skipping the DA15 for now (and I don't shoot real wide all that often). I think I'll seriously get some enjoyment out of having a macro-capable lens in my kit.