[normhead]

I think you saved me going back to school for an MBA.

On the lens thing, Aden Camera in TO has both the 14 and 15.... so , maybe next time I go south. If they are really that close the 14 will win because it saves me $109.

[jimr-pdx]

If distortion is important to you, skip this post.. if not:

I found a great price on the Sigma 15 fisheye, and it's very nice on my K-5 and my ME film camera. I've really enjoyed it, and of course the distortion means it has more field in view than the nice & flat DA15 It may not be for you, but it's another option to consider. Price brand new is also DA15-ish.

A few fun shots can be seen at this site - and here's one more:

[normhead]

Thanks for posting, I have Pentax 10-17. It has lots of distortion, I'm looking for correction for both CA and barrel distortion, for landscapes.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

I did not find the DA15 as sharp as I expected a Limited lens to be. Even at f/8 it doesn't feel very sharp. I used it on the K-7 - I wonder how it will look on photozone once it gets retested on a higher resolution camera. Lack of barrel distortion and CA are very nice though.

EDIT/UPDATE 6/17: After using the DA15 on my EPL2, on which I can more easily check focusing, I revised my opinion in this post.

---

Last edited by Laurentiu Cristofor; 06-17-2012 at 07:41 PM.

[audiobomber]

Thanks for posting, I have Pentax 10-17. It has lots of distortion, I'm looking for correction for both CA and barrel distortion, for landscapes.

Any camera after the K20D will do CA and distortion corrections. When I was trying to decide between the 14 and 15mm, I read somewhere on these boards that the 15mm barrel distortion is corrected by Pentax software, whereas the 14mm's moustache distortion is only partially corrected. I don't know for sure if that's accurate.

I ended up choosing the DA 15mm Ltd based on size and the rabid fan club here. Frankly I don't see that it's as wonderful as the fans. Mostly I like it because it's small compared to other choices like 12-24, 16-45 or 14mm. I often carry the 15mm, but I don't mount it all that often. If 16 or 18mm is not wide enough, 15 won't likely be either. The 15mm has lower distortion, better flare resistance, lower CA and more contrast than my 16-45, 10-17 and 18-135. These are nice features, but are secondary to FOV, IMO.

I believe you have an 18-135mm. These samples might help put the DA 15mm Ltd into perspective:
https://picasaweb.google.com/bonhommed/Comparo?authkey=Gv1sRgCLOD9LjmoOKTlAE#

I'm not trying to dissuade you from the 15mm, but to be happy with it, choose it for its particular strengths. I won't be getting rid of mine, it's nice to have a compact, high quality superwide to throw in the bag.

[normhead]

Here's three images I took at Exposure with the 16-50 15 and my 10-17.

10-17


16-50


15 ltd.


100% crop of the 15,


By far the sharpest , but, I only took three images, so not really definitive, but, there is some sharpness there. There is no sharpening or definition applied. In fact the image looks straight from RAW.

It's a noticeably wider Filed of View than the 16-50. I don't see a lot of difference in CA, or purple fringing.

[reeftool]

My DA 15 is probably my most used lens. I've been shooting car shows and motorcycle rallys lately and it is the perfect lens. It's sharp, lightweight, and is very flare resistant, an important feature shooting shiny cars and chrome in the midday sun. It is mounted on my K5 most of the time and it's sharp enough that if a shot happens and I could use something longer, I know a tight crop will look as good as any longer lens I could have used.

[selar]

I seem to be the only person who didn't like the DA 15. I'd say the way the lens feels is far more important than anything else if you're just using it for a hobby. I personally find the DA 16-50 a much better wide angle lens than the DA 15, but that's just me. The DA 15 just didn't gel with me, whereas the DA* 16-50 melts away in my hands.

Why not consider the Sigma 8-16? I hear it's fantastically sharp, and little distortion other than a huge amount at 8mm. But you can't stick a filter on it.

I've developed a habit of agreeing with your posts.

[ihasa]

I'm glad you love your 14, and if I had one, it's possible we'd just say 'oh it's good enough" but not having either it doesn't have home field advantage. Besides having compared it to 3 other lenses, one that we already own... the 15 has already passed the smell test. Thanks for bringing that up though.

Nope, I own the 15! After hours of comparing images from the 12-24, 15, and 14, I concluded that the 12-24 had the best IQ for landscapes where edge to edge sharpness is important (the 'clean' purple fringing is easily correctable), the 15 was worse at the edges but superior central sharpness and flare resistance, and importantly (for me) has the 'classic 24mm MF lens' form factor! The 14mm being nearly as large as the 12-24mm without the benefit of being a zoom was not really in consideration.

Beware of the 'DAltd controls my mind' thread. A lot of the comments are 'infected' by the joy of using such a beautiful, tiny lens, rather than strict analysis of MTF data...

[Anvh]

I have Pentax 10-17. It has lots of distortion.

Actually it depends on how you look at it.
I need to think hard how it precisely was.
I believe it had something to do with distance and angles of the subject but i don't remember it precisely enough

Most fisheyes produce their very wide angles of view by making the location
of an image point directly proportional to the angle that the object is
away from the optical axis of the lens.

had something to do with that but i'm off topic now ^^

[normhead]

Thanks for all the input, I've been writing around looking for a place to actually handle a few of these lenses.

From where I am now the 15 ltd is still the front runner. However the relatively new Sigma 8-16 has moved into second place.

According to photozone... at 5.6 the 15 is very soft at the edges, by F-8, it's the best side to side numbers I saw among the tested lenses. Makes me wonder if those who say it has soft edges were shooting F-8. At 5.6 it has tremendous centers sharpness but unusually soft edges. And it weighs in at 220 grams, or half a pound.

The Sigma 8-12 is a different lens than the 15 at 5.6. Not as center sharp but more consistent across it's range. At F-8 it doesn't appear to challenge the 15 except at the extreme edge. And it weighs 555 grams, over a pound.

To me the idea of a lens with completely different characteristics one stop apart is fascinating. Razor sharp center at 5.6, edges in the excellent range and center still excellent but not as good as 5.6 at F.8.

You might have to think a bit to get the most out of this lens, but understanding it's strengths, you should be able to get unsurpassable results.

The Sigma has great barrel distortion numbers and control of CA. But I see it more as replacement for my 10-17 than as competition for the 15. To me it's strong points are it's numbers @ 12mm and 8mm. I don't think it's going to beat a 15 @ 15, but 8mm is fascinating, and it's numbers 12-16 are either slightly lower or better than numbers for the 15 when you consider everything, resolution, ca barrel distortion. This is like a zoom lens that forgot zooms are not supposed to compete at CA etc. I really don't think I can write this lens off without an actual comparison.

So, I'm going to the vendor who can offer me a look at these two and as many of the Pentax 12-24, Tamron 10-24, the Sigma 10-20 as I can see. Although I'm not betting on being able to see even 2 of them at the same location.

Based on weight and excellence the 15 is in the lead. However I think a Sigma 8-16 could turn my head.

WIth regard to picking these up second hand... I know people don't want to lose what they consider to be their investment, but....

. with the advent of eBay etc... these days and the prices used equipment would bring, I'd really rather by new. To me , saving 300 on a used 1000 item isn't worth the peace of mind being the original owner, It's full warranty and I know no one has dropped it. If I buy from Henrys' a can ad the additional extended warranty. I have never seen in an ad for a second hand lens "Oh I dropped it a couple of times and I never had it tested, but I'm sure it works to original specs." But that doesn't mean it hasn't been dropped or bumped. I prefer, "it was tested with the proper testing equipment and hasn't been touched since." The second hand lenses I've found and bought have all been less than half price, for that I'll take a gamble. You don't see that very often though.

Thanks for all the advice

[Anvh]

There is also a Sigma 12-24 but i know very little about that only that it's has a FF circle and that you can get it in K-mount.

[GDRoth]

There is also a Sigma 12-24 but i know very little about that only that it's has a FF circle and that you can get it in K-mount.

I had a Sigma 10-20, but it was such a heavy brute compared to my DA 15 that I sold it............If I'm having second thoughts about carrying around a lens, then it's no use to me.................

[normhead]

I had a Sigma 10-20, but it was such a heavy brute compared to my DA 15 that I sold it.

That's exactly it. I already have to carry the DA* 60-250. Carrying primes in that zoom range would weigh more than it does. The pancakes are light, you barely notice them in your bag. If only there was a pancake 10 or 12.

[Anvh]

I had a Sigma 10-20, but it was such a heavy brute compared to my DA 15 that I sold it............If I'm having second thoughts about carrying around a lens, then it's no use to me.................

I'm not talking about the 10-20 but 12-24.