[zuikoholic]

hey, it's just my opinion. i see technical applications, but rarely artistic, for FLs <18mm (35equiv). proper UWAs didn't even exist when HCB, Erwitt et all were shooting their best.

and i wasn't comparing human vision to a photograph, rather drawing an analogy between the 'purpose' of photography - to document or draw how we see the world - and sight. they are the same in purpose. one is to feed perceptual data to our brain to drive decisions about our survival and interaction with the environment, the other merely provides a crude - but if we're fortunate occasionally beautiful or emotionally moving - physical representation thereof.

[RioRico]

... the 'purpose' of photography - to document or draw how we see the world ...

That may be A purpose. It is not necessarily THE purpose. Other purposes include art-entertainment and persuasion-propaganda. But that's another can of worms.

But I digress. Ultrawide photography can be done carefully or carelessly. Carefully, if you want to frame an exact image. Carelessly, if you're just trying to grab a context for later cropping. IMHO fisheye lenses require more careful composition than rectilinears. I can (and do) walk down the street with the 10-24 set to 15mm, shoot from the hip, and get images that can be nicely cleaned up. A fisheye is much more problematic. All those converging lines...

And human vision is more complex than any single lens. Our visual systems do MUCH work to filter, stitch, shift FOV, auto-compensate for changing light, fit photons into patterns, etc. And psychologically, we may only see what we expect to see. Cf the gorilla-on-the-basketball-court experiment. So we can only roughly equate any lens to what we see. My mantra: What we want to see, what we think we see, what the camera sees, and what is really there (if anything), are not the same.

Right now, I see it's time for dinner. Oh boy, more BBQ...

[paperbag846]

and i wasn't comparing human vision to a photograph, rather drawing an analogy between the 'purpose' of photography - to document or draw how we see the world - and sight. they are the same in purpose.

Sure, but before you were saying that shooting ultrawide isn't hard because "that's just how we see" or more specifically " the wider you go, the less of a photographer you have to be".

I disagree wholeheartedly on both points.

[Marc Sabatella]

If Pentax ever comes out with a 10mm prime (even an poor quality one) the fan boys will go berserk completely astonished at how much wider 10mm is over 15mm.

I don't think I'd be much surprised, but just because 10 is wider doesn't make it a better focal length for a prime. As you say, every mm makes a difference, and to me, even the DA14 is too wide for a eneral purpose prime. Whereas the 18mm end of the 18-55 isn't wide enough. To me, the DA15 just nails it for focal length, for the way I see and shoot.

BTW, elsehwere you say you found the 15 soft at f/4, but assuming this wasn't simply testing error, that would have been a rare fluke. Objective tests show the lens to be sharper at f/4 than most lens get even at their peaks.

---

Last edited by Marc Sabatella; 06-29-2011 at 01:41 PM.

[selar]

I find the DA15LTD amazing on 4 counts:

1. Size - having used an ultrawide for several years before the DA15, I know first hand that this is a very big deal, as my previous ultrawide sat largely unused due its size and heft. The DA15 is just tiny.
2. Flare resistance - Ok, its easy to criticize and say people buy DA15 for sunburst, but you have to remember that most of the sunburst shots are from new owners, and they are like, Whee! I can shoot into the sun now (much as I was on Good Friday this year when I got the lens).
3. Filter ring diameter - Just being able to put a screw on front filter is a big deal with a lens this wide without vignetting, but to make it 49 mm just like the other DA Limiteds, now that is just so thoughtful of Pentax, isn't it?
4. Distortion in the corners - or rather the almost complete lack of it.

As I said, quite amazing really, most people seem to take these things for granted, probably because they dont realise what a big deal these are for an ultrawide.

[pbizarro]

Hence I was wondering, should I buy DA15mm? If I had not owned Sigma 10-20, decision was simple. I am a bit hesitant that this will make my 10-20 redundant.

What do you think? Please advice

Thanks

I think that if you need to ask, then you do not need the lens.

[mikeSF]

I think that if you need to ask, then you do not need the lens.

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

[DogLover]

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

That's probably true. Lens acquisitions are much more satisfying if you've lost sleep contemplating them.

[Boris]

Yusuf, my understanding is that beside the emotional/LBA/etc reasons, your main reason for wanting DA 15 is its size and convenience as opposed to rather big Sigma 10-20. Immediate alternatives that come to mind are DA 16-45 and DA 16-50 in Pentax land and Sigma 17-50 or Tamron 17-50 in 3rd party land. My (limited <-- no pun intended) understanding that sans DA 16-50, all these lenses are not as big as Sigma, are at least as fast and offer a number of possibilities that DA 15 doesn't provide. E.g. Sigma and Tamron lenses are faster and cheaper.

Personally, I have shied away from DA 15 as I realized that my habit of shooting is between 24 and 100 mm of effective focal length. In fact, it is may be even closer to 28-70, so for me DA 15 would be a waste of resources. Consider this as a disclaimer of sorts.

[yusuf]

Thanks Boris, the only consideration for me is size (no LBA or losing sleep over it ) I enjoy my 10-20mm so focal length is something I'm comfortable with, the only negative is size & weight, especially when carrying it along with one more camera and a netbook. Hence, I will really like something like my FA35. I do have 17-50mm also but again that's kind of bulky compared to FA35. Here I'm assuming DA15 is of same size as FA35 - please correct me if that's a wrong assumption.

Actually, I've also considered Sony NEX with 16mm but then the reviews are not good. any opinion?

[pbizarro]

Thanks Boris, the only consideration for me is size (no LBA or losing sleep over it ) I enjoy my 10-20mm so focal length is something I'm comfortable with, the only negative is size & weight, especially when carrying it along with one more camera and a netbook. Hence, I will really like something like my FA35. I do have 17-50mm also but again that's kind of bulky compared to FA35. Here I'm assuming DA15 is of same size as FA35 - please correct me if that's a wrong assumption.

Actually, I've also considered Sony NEX with 16mm but then the reviews are not good. any opinion?

Photography is about compromising. Of course the zoom will be larger and heavier than the 15 Ltd. But it gives you flexibility that the 15 Ltd is not capable of. No body can decide but you. Say you sell the zoom and get the 15mm lens; maybe in a few weeks time you will be missing the flexibility provided by the zoom?

[paperbag846]

Photography is about compromising. Of course the zoom will be larger and heavier than the 15 Ltd. But it gives you flexibility that the 15 Ltd is not capable of. No body can decide but you. Say you sell the zoom and get the 15mm lens; maybe in a few weeks time you will be missing the flexibility provided by the zoom?

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.

[Boris]

I do have 17-50mm also but again that's kind of bulky compared to FA35. Here I'm assuming DA15 is of same size as FA35 - please correct me if that's a wrong assumption.

I see. I did not shoot with DA15 myself, so I couldn't tell. But here mere looking at the simplest part of the spec - the dimensions, will give you the answer you're after. If I grok what you're saying rightly, DA15 is the lens for you. Given that it is Limited and all, if you decide otherwise after you buy it, you can always re-sell it with minimal financial loss for you.

[Clinton]

My first lens purchase was the 15ltd. I used it quite a bit in the beginning. Then I got the 16-50 and found 1mm just wasn't enough to get it in the bag all the time.

Then I got the sigma 8-16 and it rarely ended up in the bag after that. Yes, the 8-16 flares like crazy, and the color rendition isn't as nice as the 15; however I suppose at 8mm its almost half the focal length of the 15 which makes a huge difference in my shots when I want to shoot wide.

So I sold my 15 a while back to help finance some bigger glass. I can't say I've missed the lens. *shrug*

[DogLover]

Personally, I have shied away from DA 15 as I realized that my habit of shooting is between 24 and 100 mm of effective focal length. In fact, it is may be even closer to 28-70, so for me DA 15 would be a waste of resources. Consider this as a disclaimer of sorts.

Ah yes, I remember telling myself that, too. I don't consider myself a "wide" guy either, but I tried the DA15 and fell in love with it. Really opened up a lot of new possibilities for me. You should borrow or rent one sometime. Consider that a disclaimer!

My first lens purchase was the 15ltd. I used it quite a bit in the beginning. Then I got the 16-50 and found 1mm just wasn't enough to get it in the bag all the time.

Hard to believe, after shooting with the DA15, that the 16-50 was satisfying to you. I love the 16-50 but no way can it compare with the 15 at 16-19mm.

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. I'm certain that it could never replace my 15, and it's hard to imagine me carrying both unless I was going out specifically for wide shots.