[twitch]

That starburst effect is too over the top and there's no way to restrain it.

That's just silly. Of course anyone can control the starburst captured by a DA15; by varying aperture, framing and PP you can enhance it or eliminate it. Great thing is at least the DA15 gives you the option, other lenses just result in horrible flare shooting into the sun.

---

Last edited by twitch; 06-27-2011 at 08:49 PM.

[DogLover]

That's debatable. Of all the hobbies I find when it comes to photography - regardless of the brand - people are more religious, bigoted and fanatical about their favorite brand, than anyone else in any other hobby.

There goes the hyperbole again. You ever been around any audiophiles, mac-head computer boys, car nuts, etc., etc.?

[paperbag846]

There goes the hyperbole again. You ever been around any audiophiles, mac-head computer boys, car nuts, etc., etc.?

Totally agree. I actually think this forum is much more tempered than the audio gear forums I've wandered through.

However I also agree with JHD - focal length is the most important aspect of a lens, and 15mm is not anything like 10mm. I think the best solution is to literally tape the lens at 15mm and shoot with it for a whole week.

The whole thing is clouded by a lot of personal preference. Sure, a small lens is fun to shoot with, but you have to be satisfied with 15mm.

I think this thread is divided into two basic camps - people like me, who want access to a high quality wide angle, but don't desire to take *that* many, and would leave a large wide angle zoom at home. The other camp would be appalled at the thought of being stuck at 15mm. It depends on how you use the lens, and how much time you spend in wide angle territory.

[rvannatta]

I understand but some don't.
So I wouldn't see any problem with 15 as widest lens...

I think it's a matter of how close to your work you like to be. In the film days of FF, I uses a 28 f/2 for a walking around lens, and didn't even own a 35mm a much more popular WA. then as zooms became more popular I got a Super Program with a 24-50 zoom and thought I was in heaven and usually used the 24. end of it. With the advent of the half-frame digitals I bought a DA* 16-50 and it lives far more at 16 than longer, but like you I see this more as a personal preference, than the 'right way' or 'wrong way' to take photos.

[zuikoholic]

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 love the DA15 because it's as close as I could get in Pentax mount to my all time fave FL, 21mm.

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'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...

[UdonUdon]

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 have to disagree. When you work with ultrawides you need to be a lot more conscious about empty spaces, and in many cases it becomes more difficult to have a point of interest that is isolated enough from the rest of the frame. Additionally, ultrawides tend to have a lot more distortion than other lenses, and you always need to keep your lens's distortion tendencies in mind when shooting.

[philippe]

Q: Do I need a DA 15mm?
A: One always does!
Q: Why?
A: Because!
Q: Why because?
A: Don't you know?
Q: What should I know?
A: Try it and you will see!

[zuikoholic]

"When you work with ultrawides you need to be a lot more conscious about empty spaces"

well, i try to avoid photos of nothing all the time anyway...

the wider you go, the more perspective distortion there is. 15mm is at the limit of 'can nearly make it look normal'. anything wider and i'd jump straight to fisheye.

[RioRico]

Jump to Zenitar 16/2.8, just slightly fishy, pretty small, pretty cheap in Europe, lotsa fun, etc.

A few weeks ago we spent a week in the ski ghetto of Park City UT (2002 Winter Olympics). Off-season cheap room rates, air isn't too thin, not bad (but we left a day early -- boredom). The quaint historic downtown was often crowded with touristas. My favored walkaround was the Tamron 10-24. I used it at 24 a bit, at 10 not so much, at 15 a lot, especially for people-shots. And 15 was tolerable -- but NOT being able to go to 10-12-20-24 would NOT have been tolerable! IMHO 15 by itself is just too limiting. Now, I like limitations, but a 15 all day? No thanks.

[axl]

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'.
....

sorry but this is utter nonsense.
To master WA/UWA photography you have to be MUCH of a photographer. If you are not and use UWA lens you'll end up with lot of empty shots which miss the subject and point. I believe it's like with manufacturing the lenses. The further away from normal you get, the more difficult it is...

[paperbag846]

the wider you go, the less of a photographer you have to be.

Disagree 100%. Composing a quality image with the DA 15 is considerably more difficult than it is with a normal or short telephoto focal length. I think the DA 15 is my most challenging lens to use (but it challenges me in a good way).

I would imagine that taking a quality photo at 12mm or 10mm would just be that much MORE difficult. I think the reason is, as Axl noted, that the further you get from normal, the less like your normal vision the picture will be, so it's harder to envision the shot.

I also think that's why most amazing photos I have seen have been either wide of normal (35mm or less on film) or longer than normal (85mm + on film). It portrays reality in a surrealistic fashion.

[robgo2]

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 think just the opposite. With a WA/UWA lens, you have to be very aware of unwanted objects sneaking into the frame and also of the exaggerated keystoning that can occur if the sensor plane is not oriented exactly parallel to the subject. I am new to the DA15 and am finding it to be the most challenging of all my lenses. Strangely, back when I was shooting film, the lens that gave me the highest percentage of keepers was the Zeiss Contax G 21/2.8. I loved that lens. Go figure.

Rob

[zuikoholic]

Curious. I know several professional photographers who whip out the ultrawide for corporate portraits occasionally; even weddings. so many of those annual report type photos are so inherently boring that a UW is often used to add 'instant interest'.

I guess everything goes in trends - these days it's 'bokehmania' (oh how i laugh).

and paperbag - this is bollocks; we see much wider than the 'normal' view attributed to the 43mm-50mm range, there is just very strong central focus in human vision. the 'soft edges' we decry in a lens doesn't even exist in our own vision!

everyone is different; i *see the world* most comfortably in the 21-28mm (35mm equiv) focal range, so that's where i tend to shoot, whether APS-C or FF.

maybe that's why i don't find the crazy ultra-wides difficult or challenging to use. I've never been frightened about getting close to my subject. i've had a 24mm literally swatted off my camera - smashed to pieces - by a guitar headstock. i haven't owned a fisheye (or rectilinear UW wider than 21mm equiv) in years because the novelty soon wears off.

Picture editors and amateurs seem to love them, but then if every shot has a 'dramatic perspective', none really do, right?

[zuikoholic]

"the 'soft edges' we decry in a lens doesn't even exist in our own vision!"

sorry, phrased this poorly - meant to say: the sharp edges we *crave* in our lenses do not even exist in our own vision.

[paperbag846]

and paperbag - this is bollocks; we see much wider than the 'normal' view attributed to the 43mm-50mm range, there is just very strong central focus in human vision. the 'soft edges' we decry in a lens doesn't even exist in our own vision!

Is it?

You are aware of the periphery, but to see it, you must focus your fovea on it. This requires you to reorient your eyes and remap attention. An ultrawide image is simply more than we can actually see (it might be the amount we are aware of, but not really processing).

You aren't aware of this because the topographic map in the occipital cortex breaks down - you are able to remember what you saw before, and therefore, detail in the scene is greater then the fovea is actually able to process at any given time.

This accounts for the psychology behind focal length determination. A normal lens captures approximately what you can actively process with your fovea. You can blow that image up quite large, but at the end of the day, you aren't going to be scanning that image much for detail. It's processed much like the section of a scene.

Ultra wide images often encourage you to scan the scene and process little details individually. This is independent of the size at which you print the image. The fact is that your brain applies these strategies to processing the image regardless of how much space they take up on your retina, because you have learned that this particular field of view is that of a whole scene.

Habits habits habits.

Those soft edges do exist, because as soon as you look at them, the fovea makes them sharp. You can't compare human vision to a photograph.... because a photograph still needs to go through human vision.

So, no, your claims are bullocks .