[Clinton]

Hard to believe, after shooting with the DA15, that the 16-50 was satisfying to you.

Not just satisfying, but more useful, IMO.

I can understand the appeal of the 8-16, but I think for me it would always be a specialist lens, sort of the same way I think of my fisheye.

My Pentax 10-17 fisheye is far more likely to be left behind. The 8-16mm is almost always in the bag. *shrug*

[RioRico]

The responses show that our tastes and needs evolve. Go figure! I started my K20D kit with the fine DA10-17. When I got the faster Zenitar 16/2.8, the 10-17 saw less use. When I got the flexible Tamron 10-24, the fishies got less use. A 6mm fishy probably wouldn't make the others totally redundant, but the DA and Zen WOULD be a bit lonelier.

Size doesn't really bother me (except with LONG lenses) so I'll not be driven to the Pentax 14 or 15 by that; the 10-24 handles the neighborhood quite well, thanks. (Today I am processing 10-24 shots from the Colorado Rockies.) But others may want or need the size or speed of those primes. Whatever floats thy boat...

[DogLover]

Not just satisfying, but more useful, IMO.

Well, not sure about more useful, but certainly more flexible, as all zooms are more flexible than primes. Satisfaction, however, obviously varies among users.

[selar]

as all zooms are more flexible than primes

Sometimes, Primes are more flexible than zooms. For instance, I went to a rugby test match carying the DA*50-135 and the F*300. The DA* zoom was not permitted but the F*300 was allowed into the stadium, due to its smaller size.

[DogLover]

Sometimes, Primes are more flexible than zooms. For instance, I went to a rugby test match carying the DA*50-135 and the F*300. The DA* zoom was not permitted but the F*300 was allowed into the stadium, due to its smaller size.

Well...ok....but that doesn't really make the lens itself more flexible. Just makes the rules at that stadium silly.

[jsherman999]

i agree. if your LBA pangs are not keeping you awake at night, maybe it isn't time for this lens.

If you're trembling a little bit as you open that UPS package... you've made yourself wait just the right amount of time.

[jsherman999]

the wider you go, the less of a photographer you have to be. ultrawide territory becomes 'instant composition' because any viewpoint is an exaggeration of 'reality'.

I disagree. Ultrawide territory often becomes 'instant crappy composition' more often than not. I'm often taking 2, 3 shots of something, very sure I got what I wanted, then later realizing in post what shot I should have taken. With my DA 35, FA 77, I'm usually getting it right on the spot. YMMV.

I think WA lenses can bring some quick drama to any scene, but if it's a weak composition, it brings middle-school-play drama, not Shakespeare drama

i've never shot one of those starburst JHD is railing against; you can do that with a $15 filter. why spend $600 on a lens to create a cheap and dated effect? i think the salient point is that the lens is HIGHLY resistant to flare, which is useful for anyone.

It retains contrast so very well in spite of direct sunlight and does not seem to know what veiling glare is. Hotspots are minimized.

My personal discovery of the starburst effect happened in post #25 in this thread, and to this day I enjoy it and still use to add punctuation to certain compositional types. I think it's good if people are enthusiastic about that effect.

Another thing about it - if you're shooting for someone else, maybe making a framed shot as a gift or something - if they've never really seen that effect much, they really go nuts for it. So consider your audience, as well. It's something you keep in your tool belt.

it's the focal length that means you don't have to stand back when the scene gets crowded, but will always rewards you taking a step closer. i adore mine. maybe the only Ltd i will never part with, although the 31 is dominating time on my K5 these days...

I'm tying to get acquainted with my other lenses as well, like my old friend the DA 35ltd...







(I was tempted to try to capture that dramatically with the 15 - but then I realized that having strontium embers burning into my skull would probably upset the kids... 35mm it is! )


.

[DogLover]

Another thing about it - if you're shooting for someone else, maybe making a framed shot as a gift or something - if they've never really seen that effect much, they really go nuts for it. So consider your audience, as well. It's something you keep in your tool belt.

This is the point that I have made before. Pretty much every starburst shot I've done, when I've shown it to "laypeople", they always pick those out as being awesome shots. Mainly because most people can't do that with their own cameras. To quote Joe Dirt, "It's not what you like, it's the consumer." I still like 'em too, though, and I'm not ashamed to admit it.

[selar]

Just makes the rules at that stadium silly.

You'll find that most commercial venues have "silly" rules. Big lenses attract more attention.

[Marc Sabatella]

My oppinion is that if you are going to spend 25% of your time taking pictures with a wide angle, might as well dedicate 25% of your bag to a wide angle zoom.

If you aren't, find a smaller lens .

That's the beauty of the DA 15.... a wide angle for people who don't shoot a lot of wide angles.

While true, I'd point out that depending on your kit, it might not be possible to find a zoom that takes up only 25% of your bag. The smallest zoom that gets that wide - or even close to that wide - would be more like 60% of my bag. That's because the rest of my regular kit is small primes, too. The DA15 is the only way to get the size down to only 25%.

[mattb123]

Yeah, I bet at least a third of my shots over the last year were with the da15. I really enjoy wide angle shooting. That's quite a few shots and as convenient as a zoom would be, I can't keep it in my pocket, or in my backpack when skiing or mountain biking.

[paperbag846]

While true, I'd point out that depending on your kit, it might not be possible to find a zoom that takes up only 25% of your bag. The smallest zoom that gets that wide - or even close to that wide - would be more like 60% of my bag. That's because the rest of my regular kit is small primes, too. The DA15 is the only way to get the size down to only 25%.

I thought I had a small bag! But in any case, you are completely right. The size of the DA 12-24 vs. the DA 15 is something like 1/2 the height, and 70% the width, and I'm pretty sure that is not including the huge hood that comes with the zoom. So the savings are very significant.

For me, the biggest advantage is when the lens is actually on your camera. I just don't like waving a long zoom around the room. It just screams "protographer", and I simply am not one. I just want to indulge myself in my hobby without imposing or turning many heads. That's why I value small lenses so much.

[Marc Sabatella]

I of course meant, 25% of the amount of the bag devoted to lenses. I normally have four primes in the bag - a telephoto that is larger than the DA15, the DA40 that is smaller, and the DA70 that is about the same size. That makes the DA15 about 25% of the total lens volume. But I do also keep my camera in the bag!

[TMB]

I am going to revive this thread. I am looking for an image comparison between the 16-45 and the 15ltd. My LBA has me covetting the 15 for a upcoming vacation. My 16-45 is my favorite and most-used lens, but fumbling with the lens hood everytime I want to take a street shot is very frustrating--esp when walking with my wife, who hates when I hate to stop, open my bag, set up, etc.

I am trying to convince myself that the 15 is worth it just for the size alone, in that it will be less obtrusive, and much easier to just whip my camera out my day bag, shoot, and put away.

[mikeSF]

I am going to revive this thread. I am looking for an image comparison between the 16-45 and the 15ltd. My LBA has me covetting the 15 for a upcoming vacation. My 16-45 is my favorite and most-used lens, but fumbling with the lens hood everytime I want to take a street shot is very frustrating--esp when walking with my wife, who hates when I hate to stop, open my bag, set up, etc.

I am trying to convince myself that the 15 is worth it just for the size alone, in that it will be less obtrusive, and much easier to just whip my camera out my day bag, shoot, and put away.

i owned 'em both at the same time and did enough side by side comparison to assure myself i had made the right decision keeping the 15 and selling off the 16-45. Those pics are long deleted by now, however. I do recall comparing 16mm on the 16-45 to the 15 and finding much more pronounced barrell distortion with the 16-45. Overall sharpness was similar enough. The DA15 had slightly better contrast and once you pointed both lenses into the sun, the 16-45 flared and lost contrast while the DA15 experienced only a fraction of that flare and maintained contrast very well. If you are a starburst guy (...waits for JHD to leave...) the 16-45 makes a rather sloppy fragmented mess of it whereas the DA15 will render those lovely 14-pointed bursts. Comparing size, you can easily fit the DA15 into a bluejeans front pocket and you must carry the zoom in a camera bag. I personally rarely used the long end of my 16-45 because i preferred to mount a prime for 28mm and for 50mm instead. YMMV. I am a prime guy for sure.
On the other hand, for kids' birthday parties and other rapidly changing conditions, the zoom was fast and eliminated the need to change lenses for the entire event. there is definitely a need for a wide zoom at times.