[wehavenowaves!]

hey so i know there have been plenty of comparisons of these two lenses already but i was wondering more about the size of the lens rather than image quality. i feel that both lenses would produce an exceptable image for me. but what about the size of the DA 15mm limited vs. the sigma 10-20mm? does anyone have pictures of these lenses mounted on their body? if both lenses take nice shots, both are comparable prices, and i dont really mind shooting prime or zoom, then size of the lens becomes the final decider in my choice. any thoughts? is the the DA 15mm REALLY small? is the sigma slightly bulky???

thanks guys. once again sorry because i know questions about these lenses have been raised many times!

[causey]

You can see pics of the two lenses mounted on Pentax K10D here:
Pentax SMC-DA 15mm f/4 AL ED Limited - Review / Test Report
Sigma AF 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC (Pentax K) - Review / Test Report

The Sigma is very compact for a zoom, but of course the prime is smaller.

[philbaum]

is the the DA 15mm REALLY small? is the sigma slightly bulky???

thanks guys. once again sorry because i know questions about these lenses have been raised many times!

I think this is a key question. My 10-20 measures 3 1/2" long (not including the bayonet) and 3 1/2" in diameter with the hood reversed. Its not hard to carry around on the camera - at all. Its more of an issue of carrying the lens in your bag. I often don't carry the Sigma around unless i know that i will want to use it for specific reasons.

I don't have the D15, but i have the DA21 and DA35ltd.(and those 2 i carry because they will fit in the same slot)

[reeftool]

While I don't own the Sigma, looking at the spec sheet, the DA 15 is around half the weight and considerably smaller. A 49mm filter size vs 77mm. The DA 15 is easily carried in a jacket or vest pocket. Size wasn't the only reason I bought the 15 but it was a factor. Weight and size adds up at the end of the day but the Sigma isn't all that big. Buy the lens mainly for the photos you want to take and then factor in things such as size. I do a lot of car shows, motorcycle rallys, etc and all are usually mid day, in bright sun with lots of chrome and shiny paint to cause flare issues and the DA 15 handles it with ease.

[pxpaulx]

Like Phil said, once the 10-20mm is on your camera, it is not terribly gigantic. It is a relatively dense/heavy lens, and every time you go out with your camera, you'll think twice about whether you'll want to take it. If you are looking for compact on the other hand, the 15mm can't be beat. When I go out with my camera, I don't have to wonder whether I'll take it, because it is the lens I usually leave on the camera - it is great, compact and a pleasure to own!

The sigma is also 10oz heavier (according to the linked specs above, about 7oz vs 17oz, give or take). That is over half a pound of extra weight, leading to the previous point...you'll think twice about taking the sigma with you.

[KxBlaze]

I think overall size does matter for a lens but not in this case because the lenses are relatively similar in size. When it matters for example is when going from the kit 18-55 to the DA 16-45. The 16-45 is much bigger, heavier and extends out very far. This pretty much is the reason my 16-45 stays off my Kx but again in your case I would go with the zoom because it gives you more flexibility, pretty much the same IQ and is not that much bigger.

[pxpaulx]

huh? Kx, the sigma weighs 2.25x more than the 15mm! It is also 1 inch thicker, and twice the length (without the hood attached!).

If you think the 16-45mm is a big lens, that is only the tip of the iceberg

[Super A-wesome]

Size plays a big factor in lens usability for me. I have a nice, sharp, Vivitar S1 28-105mm f2.8-3.8 in my bag, as well as a Tokina 28mm 2.8 and Pentax-M 50mm 1.7. one would expect that the zoom would completely replace my 28mm prime and be a good enough replacement for my 50mm, but 90% of the time, I head out with one prime on the camera and one in my pocket, and leave the zoom at home. the decreased weight around my neck allows me to go farther, not worry about my lens banging into anything, and find better places to take photos.

[SpecialK]

You are comparing a prime to a zoom. That should be your first decision. I would take the 10-20 as the 15 is not particularly "ultra" wide.

[robgo2]

hey so i know there have been plenty of comparisons of these two lenses already but i was wondering more about the size of the lens rather than image quality. i feel that both lenses would produce an exceptable image for me. but what about the size of the DA 15mm limited vs. the sigma 10-20mm? does anyone have pictures of these lenses mounted on their body? if both lenses take nice shots, both are comparable prices, and i dont really mind shooting prime or zoom, then size of the lens becomes the final decider in my choice. any thoughts? is the the DA 15mm REALLY small? is the sigma slightly bulky???

If the size of the lens is your "final decider," then you have answered your own question. The DA15 is much smaller and lighter. It does not have the versatility or extreme wide angle capablity of the Sigma, but evidently, those are not essential features for you. As one who has only recently acquired a DA15, I can tell you that is is a pleasure to use. I don't think that you will be disappointed by it, as long as you understand its limitations--maximum aperture of f4 and corner softness wide open. It is otherwise razor sharp and delivers very crisp, punchy images.

Rob

[Blue]

huh? Kx, the sigma weighs 2.25x more than the 15mm! It is also 1 inch thicker, and twice the length (without the hood attached!).

If you think the 16-45mm is a big lens, that is only the tip of the iceberg

+1

I think this is a key question. My 10-20 measures 3 1/2" long (not including the bayonet) and 3 1/2" in diameter with the hood reversed. Its not hard to carry around on the camera - at all. Its more of an issue of carrying the lens in your bag. I often don't carry the Sigma around unless i know that i will want to use it for specific reasons.

I don't have the D15, but i have the DA21 and DA35ltd.(and those 2 i carry because they will fit in the same slot)

Same here, and they are quite good.

[Aristophanes]

+1
.

Keeping in mind that the 16-45 is unusual in that it extends furthest at its widest.

[JHD]

From the perspective of having owned both the DA15 and the Sigma 10-20, the difference in size and weight is hardly an issue. The biggest difference between these two lenses is the focal length. 15mm is nowhere near as wide as 10mm; the difference is so vast it is like comparing a small window to a picture window.

If anyone really feels the Sigma 10-20 is too large and heavy, they need to ditch their DSLR and buy a Sony NEX with the 16mm pancake. It’s about a ¼ of the size and weight of the smallest Pentax DSLR with the DA15.

[twitch]

Well I guess I need to sell my DSLR then JHD???

Everyone know size matters, but for lenses the smaller the better IMHO. When I'm reaching for a wide lens 90% of the time I reach for the DA15 simply because I love shooting with it so much, probably because of the size but the feel is better and the DOF scale is nice. The other 10% of the time I use my DA12-24. Nice lens, great IQ, but hoo-hum to use. But then I feel that way about all my plastic zooms.... they "get the job done" sums up how I feel about them.

[JHD]

Well I guess I need to sell my DSLR then JHD???

Everyone know size matters...

Yes, since size and weight matters to you at this level you'll be most delighted with the NEX.

Just look at the difference between the K-7 with the DA40 the smallest of lenses... vs. the NEX 5 with the 16mm pancake.