Well, looks like Pentaxforums searchbot couldn't find a past thread making this comparison, so I'm making it.
I'm really trying to smooth down my K30 kit. I think I can do just about everything I need to do with my Tamron 17-50, DA* 50-135, and a soon-to-be-decided UWA zoom (either the 8-16 or one of the 10-20's, maybe even the Tamron 10-24). So lately I've been doing a lot of comparisons between my lenses. I wanted to share one of my comparisons here on the forums.
One of the lenses on the chopping block is my DA 15. It's small and light, and it makes taking stunning images an effortless endeavor. Also, it produces godly starbursts/sunstars.
My thinking is that if my Tamron 17-50 @ 17mm can get up to 90% of that the DA 15 can produce, then I will (sadly) sell off the DA 15 to get some $$$ back and sink into an even more versatile UWA zoom. The DA 15 basically has to show that it produces both far superior quality of images and is sufficiently different enough from the Tamron so that they don't really have any overlap in usage.
Really, the only thing I used the DA 15 for was nighttime cityscape pictures, so I wanted to take a typical night cityscape scene to compare them.
Things I was thinking about when making this comparison:
- What is the field of view difference between the two? I know the degrees listed on their spec sheets in the database, but I wanted to see with my eyes what that translated into in real life.
- Image quality: I have seen with my own eyes that the DA 15 can produce exceptionally sharp and crisp pictures. Can the Tamron come close to it?
- Starbursts: DA 15 produces the best starbursts. I know the Tamron has its own starbursts. How do they compare?
Here are the pictures I made tonight. These two were made using the exact same settings:
30 Seconds
f9.5
ISO 800
+1 Exp.
Straight raw, converted to JPG with no processing and then uploaded to the Flickrs.
Tamron 17-50 @ 17mm
Pentax DA 15 Ltd.
Here are my thoughts:
- The field of view is not all that different. It might be more pronounced in something like a tighter architectural setting, but for a typical nightscape scene like this, its perfectly fine.
- Pixel peeping gives a slight edge to the DA 15 in the IQ department, but it's close. Also, the DA 15 has excellent flare control. The only bad spots seem to be on the three lights on the far right of the picture. The Tamron suffered horribly from a big blob of flare near its dead-center. At first I thought it was something on the front of the lens, but after cleaning it with a lenspen it persisted. Processing should even them up.
- Argh, those starbursts. Its what attracted me to the DA 15 in the first place. And, as per usual, tonight they produced some seksy bursts with very little effort. The Tamron features its own starbursts, and while they aren't as seksy as the DA 15's, they do have their own character.
If city nightscapes was my bread and butter, then for sure the DA 15 has a permanent spot at my right hand. However, it's not. The Tamron can produce images that are more than acceptably close to what the DA 15 can produce, even before post processing. Of course, the Tamron has a whole raft of other features: the zoom range, ability to go down to f2.8 (allows it to be more usable for astro landscapes).
So I think that in the pursuit of paring down and making my kit more efficient and elegant, the DA 15 will soon be on its way to a new owner who will get to experience the joys of an exceptional image-making lens in a beautiful jewel-like package.
One last note. I used to recommend the DA 16-45 as a "poor-man's DA 15" (and I owned two of them). No longer. I'm going to start recommending the Tamron 17-50 as my new "poor man's" alternative to the DA 15.