[Fat Albert]

...because I'm about to buy a copy and I really shouldn't!

Seriously, though...I'm shopping for one and the potential sellers have all shown me sample pics that are really soft and mushy in the corners. I know that some copies tend to run soft, but how much is too much?

[chickenandavocado]

What f stop are the samples? At f8 i am fine with sharpness across the frame

[Na Horuk]

And its ultra wide, I dont think it will show you as much detail and sharpness as a normal prime lens (35mm - 70mm). Also, there is a sample photo search function on this forum, so you can search for photos taken with the 15mm. Of course, they will be processed, so the sharpness there will be better than in the raw data.

[Sandy Hancock]

Wider than f/8.0, my DA15 is pretty soft around the edges. The centre is (very) sharp from f/4.0. Beyond f/8.0 the lens is an edge to edge bliss bomb. Don't be put off, just be realistic with your expectations.

[jeztastic]

Depends what you will use if for. If you are going to print big on top quality paper then maybe go for a pro-grade zoom. Otherwise (and looking at the other gear you have, I guess that's not the case), enjoy the small size, great colours and flare resistance.

[demp10]

If you don't mind manual focus (and for landscapes you set it once and forget it), have you considered the Samyang 14mm F2.8?

If sharpness is your main concern, this is a very sharp lens edge to edge even wide open at F2.8. It is superb at 5.6 and 8.

It does have its issues, heavy and bulky, no filter threads and miss-calibrated distance scale on many samples, but in terms or image quality and price is unbeatable.

[jimr-pdx]

Five replies and no samples? The mind-control won't allow owners to post 'bad' images
If your budget is tight like mine, maybe give up a mm and grab the DA16-45, also f/4. The question may be valid with it as well though; I don't examine edges closely, and I crop often enough to make it less vital.

[reeftool]

I don't know if I have any "bad" shots that can be blamed on the lens rather than my own mistakes. The statements that the DA15 is "soft" in the edges is a little extreme. It's sharper in the middle but still produces a good overall image. I tried to find some shots of mine that would be a good example but that's really not too easy. First, in most of my shots, the edges are at a different focus distance. Second, since I use my DA 15 mostly for car shows and other events where I need to be close and they are mostly outside in bright sun, I'm stopped down quite a bit to get those famous starbursts in the bright reflections. Stopping down also brings up the diffraction factor. This shot has pretty much the whole car and trailer in the same focus place. If you pixel peep the grass, you can see that the edges aren't as sharp. I really think it isn't too noticeable. Not to me anyhow.

[Cambo]

I don't know if I have any "bad" shots that can be blamed on the lens rather than my own mistakes. The statements that the DA15 is "soft" in the edges is a little extreme. It's sharper in the middle but still produces a good overall image. I tried to find some shots of mine that would be a good example but that's really not too easy. First, in most of my shots, the edges are at a different focus distance. Second, since I use my DA 15 mostly for car shows and other events where I need to be close and they are mostly outside in bright sun, I'm stopped down quite a bit to get those famous starbursts in the bright reflections. Stopping down also brings up the diffraction factor. This shot has pretty much the whole car and trailer in the same focus place. If you pixel peep the grass, you can see that the edges aren't as sharp. I really think it isn't too noticeable. Not to me anyhow.

couldn't you be a little more subtle with it? Wow, is that ever distracting. And how many copyright breaches have you prosecuted? They do virtually NOTHING, except to make the photo incredibly ugly. I make mine small, fade it to 30%, and mount it sideways and out of the way...



Still there, still effective (I guess), but I feel it doesn't destroy the image.

IMHO.

Cheers,
Cameron

[Driline]

couldn't you be a little more subtle with it? Wow, is that ever distracting. And how many copyright breaches have you prosecuted? They do virtually NOTHING, except to make the photo incredibly ugly. I make mine small, fade it to 30%, and mount it sideways and out of the way...



Still there, still effective (I guess), but I feel it doesn't destroy the image.

IMHO.

Cheers,
Cameron

Nice pic cambo. And your copyright does look good on the side and small like that. Thanks for the pointers.

[lytrytyr]

couldn't you be a little more subtle with it? I make mine small, fade it to 30%, and mount it sideways and out of the way.

Do butterfly fanciers tend to be less larcenous than hot-rodders?

[crewl1]

Cheers, Cameron

Is this shot with the DA15? If yes, that is cool. I have not seen it used as a macro.
What is the issue with the right wing tip, is it motion blur or out of the focus plane?

[Fat Albert]

Is this shot with the DA15? If yes, that is cool. I have not seen it used as a macro.
What is the issue with the right wing tip, is it motion blur or out of the focus plane?

If that pic is shot with a DA 15, it has no business being in this thread

[Kozlok]

I don't really understand "soft in the corners" at larger apertures. How often do you photograph flat things at f4? If it's flat, stop it down and use a tripod. If you want larger aperture for DOF control, it's highly unlikely anything will be in the corner and in the focal plane. Like here for example,




The focal plane is on the front of the bridge. The front of the boat is noticeably softer, but still sharp-ish. The extreme corner is pretty soft. It's at f5.6, so it's reasonable to assume that a significant amount of "softness" is just bokeh.

Here I'm stopped down to f8, and I get the magic sunburst, no flare, and still get detail in the shadows, even with the sun in the frame. This is the kind of shot you buy the 15 for, in my humble opinion.




Drop it down to f22 at night on a tripod, and it's still very sharp. Diffraction seems to be kinder to the 15 than some other lenses.

[kh1234567890]

...because I'm about to buy a copy and I really shouldn't!

Seriously, though...I'm shopping for one and the potential sellers have all shown me sample pics that are really soft and mushy in the corners. I know that some copies tend to run soft, but how much is too much?

I don't think that you'll get any help from here. I've been through the same process and after pixel peeping many DA15 full size shots on Flickr I have decided that the corner mushiness and CA, even when stopped down, were just too much to put up with. Obviously all those people posting on Flickr have 'bad' copies.