[gazonk]

I bought mine from Adorama. B&H is another good option while you're there. Both are reputable businesses.

Thanks! I see you have the 16-45 - is the wider FoV of the 15 significant or just barely noticeable? I already have the 16-45 and have two conflicting wishes: (1) More wide angle, as much as possible, and (2) A lighter camera bag for everyday use with only a set of three limiteds (I have the 35 and 70 limiteds). I've considered the Sigma 10-20 but I am not convinced. I've also considered the DA12-24 but it's a bit bulky and expensive...

[builttospill]

Thanks! I see you have the 16-45 - is the wider FoV of the 15 significant or just barely noticeable? I already have the 16-45 and have two conflicting wishes: (1) More wide angle, as much as possible, and (2) A lighter camera bag for everyday use with only a set of three limiteds (I have the 35 and 70 limiteds). I've considered the Sigma 10-20 but I am not convinced. I've also considered the DA12-24 but it's a bit bulky and expensive...

It's noticeable, but not significant. I'd say somewhere in between barely noticeable and significant. At 16mm I've never had to worry about my feet being in the photo. With the 15mm I had to stand with my feet farther back for just a couple photos. However if you're looking for something more wide, the 15 may not meet your needs here. It will for compact size, but the 12-24 might be a better fit if you want to go wider, although much bigger in size. I wouldn't consider the 10-20 a large lens, as it's much smaller than my FA* 24, but it's not small like the 15.

I used both the 16-45 and the 15 at the same time, and the 16-45 was always sharper. I also owned the DA 17-70, DA* 16-50, and DA 18-55 at the same time, and ended up selling all but the 16-45, but that's another story.

Here's an example below to compare with my example posted here earlier. This one is at 16mm, but I wasn't as close to my subject as I was in the other photo. However this may help you with how much background a 15mm takes in compared to 16mm:

[slip]

It's all about the print
Splitting hairs instead of getting out to shoot solves nothing
Choose the best focal length you need and the price you can afford

Cheers

Randy

[gazonk]

I used both the 16-45 and the 15 at the same time, and the 16-45 was always sharper.

Hmm, really? Maybe I should spend some money fixing my 16-45 instead

(it's too wobbly in its barrel, which is benign when used in landscape mode, but when used in portrait mode at 16mm, it shows decentering)

[builttospill]

Hmm, really? Maybe I should spend some money fixing my 16-45 instead

(it's too wobbly in its barrel, which is benign when used in landscape mode, but when used in portrait mode at 16mm, it shows decentering)

Yes, the 15 really doesn't have a reputation for being the sharpest Limited. It's an incredible lens for those who know how to use it, as evidenced in the mind control thread, but its strengths lies in its ability to avoid flare and aberrations, create large starbursts and its compact size.

My 16-45 doesn't wobble at all, but it does have trouble locking focus at the widest end occasionally.

[lytrytyr]

the 15 really doesn't have a reputation for being the sharpest Limited.

According to the maximum central resolutions measured by Photozone on the K10
(the only camera on which they have tested all the Limiteds),
the DA 15 is outperformed only by the FA 43.

[builttospill]

According to the maximum central resolutions measured by Photozone on the K10
(the only camera on which they have tested all the Limiteds),
the DA 15 is outperformed only by the FA 43.

The DA 15 is a really neat lens, but we didn't get along. Others may like it more than I did and that's okay. I also don't make a practice of shooting test charts like Photozone and other reviewers do. Instead I prefer using lenses in the field and learning from my experiences.

I was asked my opinion and I shared it, however I should have been more specific. From my experience I found the DA 15 not as sharp across the frame as many other lenses. For a wide lens like that I'd want it sharper from edge to edge for landscapes. Many also praise the lens for its sharpness, and I wouldn't rate it as a lens that isn't sharp, I just have other lenses that are sharper. I'm not alone in this thinking either. A quick search here:

...However, a k-5IIs and a DA 12-24 will perform just fantastically. It's sharp edge to edge, sharper than the DA 15, and just a little less contrast and flare resistance. And if you get a DA 15 (which is good for light traveling), you get very good sharpness, very good colour rendition and contrast, and very very very good flare resistance...

...I recently ordered the DA15 Limited, aware of the slight decrease in corner sharpness, but really, how often do you look into the extreme corners of a photo? Even so, you will only notice this decrease when pixel peeping or printing something large (in which case you should probably be using a full frame high-MP camera anyways...)...

Totally different lenses. I'd say, if you are looking for sharpness corner to corner go for DA70 [instead of DA 15].

...I carry the DA 15 mainly for its small size. Performance is not that much better than my DA 16-45mm (16-45 is sharper, 15mm has better distortion, CA, flare resistance)...

I'll chime in for the DA 15 also. You will end up using it for much, much more than than your yearly group portrait. Mine is on the camera 75% of the time. The DA 12-24 is highly regarded also. People who own both say the corner sharpness is better. I don't own the zoom but there are plenty of posted photos from both lenses on the forum to compare. It might be possible to rent one of the lenses for the shoot.

Its likely fine. f4 is soft period, f5.6 and f8 are razors, but that doesnt mean everything will be sharp. It can be a difficult lens to shoot well with sometimes.

Id say go have fun with it and forget the tests for now, see how those shots turn out. Sometimes I look at my own shots from my 15 and say hmm thats not sharp, but then I turn around and it (or rather I) produces some very nice images

You're right, optically there's not much to choose between the two. The 15 Limited is a bit sharper in the center and the 10-20 is a little better in the corners. The 15 has better flare resistance. Vignetting & distortion are too close to call...

One more thought . . . . The 15mm Limited is a nifty enough lens, but it's totally unsuitable for this shot. For this shot you want sharp edge to edge across the frame. The 15mm Limited just will not do sharp across the frame--it's got huge curvature of field. Two thirds of your subjects will be out of focus and will probably not buy prints.

[hoopsontoast]

Pick up a used FA43




And shot with the FA43 too:

[Driline]

Pick up a used FA43




And shot with the FA43 too:

Nice car shot. I love my FA 43.