Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-20-2013, 05:23 AM   #46
Veteran Member
stormtech's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In the boonies (NW Penna)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,670
I spent months grueling over my UWA lens decision. As usual without being able to try any lenses out living where I do, I depended on the reviews and many threads here about these lenses.

The DA 15 Limited of course stood out with the great "15 Limited controls my mind" thread and came very close to buying that. I also considered the DA 14 - seems to be a sleeper in that there isn't a lot written about the lens. I didn't consider a Sigma as I had a couple duds with new Sigma lenses over the years with brand new lenses back focusing. I ended up with the DA 12-24 just before the last price hike, and I just love this lens! I have nothing to compare it to, but I am an IQ fanatic when it comes to my lenses and bodies, and on my K-5IIs it really shines. In my opinion it is better than the DA* 16-50 as far as IQ.

I never heard anything like is in the title of this thread of the DA 14 sucking compared to other options - that's just crazy............

11-20-2013, 07:01 AM   #47
Site Supporter
Shanti's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Western Denmark
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 896
QuoteOriginally posted by stormtech Quote
I spent months grueling over my UWA lens decision. As usual without being able to try any lenses out living where I do, I depended on the reviews and many threads here about these lenses.

The DA 15 Limited of course stood out with the great "15 Limited controls my mind" thread and came very close to buying that. I also considered the DA 14 - seems to be a sleeper in that there isn't a lot written about the lens. I didn't consider a Sigma as I had a couple duds with new Sigma lenses over the years with brand new lenses back focusing. I ended up with the DA 12-24 just before the last price hike, and I just love this lens! I have nothing to compare it to, but I am an IQ fanatic when it comes to my lenses and bodies, and on my K-5IIs it really shines. In my opinion it is better than the DA* 16-50 as far as IQ.

I never heard anything like is in the title of this thread of the DA 14 sucking compared to other options - that's just crazy............
In same place with no where to test any of them..but I think I go for the 12-24..now if Dirk will send it to me otherwise BF deals are $700 I think on this one..not much really
11-20-2013, 07:08 AM   #48
Site Supporter
Shanti's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Western Denmark
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 896
QuoteOriginally posted by rrstuff Quote
I couldn't see it, I know it's my internet though. I am having trouble lately.

This image you posted (27) looks like a longer focal length, I would say a normal to short-tele. It is also heavily sharpened, you can see the jagged edges and a hint of halos on the rooftop. I think you can get this kind of results with any of the lenses you mentioned. At this resolution, it is more important to photoshop properly. The lens sharpness will be quite critical for larger prints though.

Let me give you an example from one of my shots:
500px / Equalized by Jerzy Szablowski

This was shot with a zuiko 14-45mm kit-lens. It looks pretty sharp on the screen, but when I printed it at 18x24, you could see soft edges. Not a problem for the internet though!

the way I do downsizing is I do bicubic (normal bicubic, not sharper or smoother) in photoshop, down to 900-960px. Then I do 0.3-0.4px radius, levels set to 1 or 2 and 50-70% sharpening. Usually this procedure does a pretty good job.
so you think I can get tree details like this with the 12-24 for example?
when you downsize,is it to look good on most screens then? I use a pro Eizo screen which shows all,but many I know just have notebook screens,so maybe I should check on those as well to see how the final pic looks..maybe its a bit like when I mix my music to sound good on MP3 files??
11-20-2013, 07:56 AM   #49
Site Supporter
cali92rs's Avatar

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 3,197
Here's my opinion...
I had the DA 14mm, and I did not think it sucked at all, in fact I really liked it (i ended up selling it to fund another lens though).
I think lenses this wide and wider really benefit from a good lens correction piece of software (PTLens, DxO etc).

Also, I usually don't use these type of lenses for typical landscape shops. I use it when I really want to exaggerate foreground to background distance. But the background tends to be tiny (mountains can become molehills) so you have to be careful with your composition.

11-20-2013, 04:11 PM   #50
Veteran Member
stormtech's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In the boonies (NW Penna)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,670
QuoteOriginally posted by Shanti Quote
In same place with no where to test any of them..but I think I go for the 12-24..now if Dirk will send it to me otherwise BF deals are $700 I think on this one..not much really
If the 12-24 is included with any of the BF deals, I would expect it to be in that $700 range being the street price is now $900. Before the last price hike last April it was $729.

And as far as lens correction in software - I use DxO for most all my images. I found that there is less correction needed/seen with the 12-24 compared to the DA* 16-50. Not trying to be a fan boy of the 12-24, but the images I get after running through DxO are just spectacular.
11-20-2013, 04:39 PM   #51
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pasadena, CA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,103
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Shanti Quote
so you think I can get tree details like this with the 12-24 for example?
when you downsize,is it to look good on most screens then? I use a pro Eizo screen which shows all,but many I know just have notebook screens,so maybe I should check on those as well to see how the final pic looks..maybe its a bit like when I mix my music to sound good on MP3 files??
I think that's a good analogy. If you are into signal processing, it's like the nyquist frequency in mp3s but in 2D. At 1200 px resolution, you cannot have more detail than 1200 px, so a lens that resolves more than 1200 px in line in principle is an overkill. In practice, it will be difficult to tease out all these details through sharpening and post-processing, but the difference in sharpness between 15mm ltd and 12-24mm wouldn't be something you could see on the screen, in my opinion. If you print big (18x24+), it will matter though.

Look up topics for downsizing and sharpening on Luminous Landscape, if you would like. I found their forum to be very good for this kind of technical questions.
11-20-2013, 05:49 PM   #52
Site Supporter
cali92rs's Avatar

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 3,197
QuoteOriginally posted by stormtech Quote
If the 12-24 is included with any of the BF deals, I would expect it to be in that $700 range being the street price is now $900. Before the last price hike last April it was $729.

And as far as lens correction in software - I use DxO for most all my images. I found that there is less correction needed/seen with the 12-24 compared to the DA* 16-50. Not trying to be a fan boy of the 12-24, but the images I get after running through DxO are just spectacular.
+1 DxO is in my opinion 2nd to none when it comes to lens corrections
11-20-2013, 09:10 PM   #53
Site Supporter
Shanti's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Western Denmark
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 896
QuoteOriginally posted by rrstuff Quote
I think that's a good analogy. If you are into signal processing, it's like the nyquist frequency in mp3s but in 2D. At 1200 px resolution, you cannot have more detail than 1200 px, so a lens that resolves more than 1200 px in line in principle is an overkill. In practice, it will be difficult to tease out all these details through sharpening and post-processing, but the difference in sharpness between 15mm ltd and 12-24mm wouldn't be something you could see on the screen, in my opinion. If you print big (18x24+), it will matter though.

Look up topics for downsizing and sharpening on Luminous Landscape, if you would like. I found their forum to be very good for this kind of technical questions.
Thanks for the help...so the 15 ltd would be better for 30x40cm prints or larger,if I assume correctly?

11-20-2013, 09:39 PM   #54
Loyal Site Supporter
Canada_Rockies's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,142
QuoteOriginally posted by cali92rs Quote
+1 DxO is in my opinion 2nd to none when it comes to lens corrections
+1 on DxO - it even makes the DA* 16-50 look good. I have both 12-24 and 16-50, and the 12-24 is the better lens, in my opinion, by quite a margin. The 16-50, however, is a great walkabout focal range, so I use it quite a bit. And it is f/2.8.
11-21-2013, 10:09 AM   #55
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,615
QuoteOriginally posted by interested_observer Quote
I only provided the AoV for FF for 14 and 15mm because no one really makes a FF UWA rectilinear lens that is any wider.
For a FF rectilinear 12mm (which might even fit on a K-01 if it isn't too fat for the inside), see

Voigtlander SL 12/5.6 15/4.5
11-21-2013, 12:34 PM   #56
Pentaxian
redrockcoulee's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Medicine Hat
Posts: 2,097
QuoteOriginally posted by lytrytyr Quote
For a FF rectilinear 12mm (which might even fit on a K-01 if it isn't too fat for the inside), see

Voigtlander SL 12/5.6 15/4.5
The DA15 is my next to and maybe one of the last to buy lenses. I already have the 17-28FE and my wife has the slower version of the Sigma 10-20. I am very surprised on how often I use the Sigma at the wider range as am not or at least was not a wide angle person. The reason I am looking at the DA15 is mostly size as with my DA70 and DA 35 2.4 I would have an extremely compact system for when I wish to travel very light.

Guess what I am saying is there is more to focal length in making the decision for example the 14 DA would be of little interest to me. Light and small, fast or flexible those are the factors needed in making your decision. Which ever one you choose will likely be the right one.
11-22-2013, 01:15 PM   #57
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pasadena, CA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,103
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Shanti Quote
Thanks for the help...so the 15 ltd would be better for 30x40cm prints or larger,if I assume correctly?
Actually, I think that 12-24mm will be better for larger prints. All the tests I have and most opinions I heard were that 12-24mm is sharper and 15mm has really nice rendition, ie how the image looks overall. If you are into looking at large images from a close distance, 12-24mm might be better.
11-22-2013, 04:11 PM   #58
Loyal Site Supporter
Canada_Rockies's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,142
QuoteOriginally posted by rrstuff Quote
Actually, I think that 12-24mm will be better for larger prints. All the tests I have and most opinions I heard were that 12-24mm is sharper and 15mm has really nice rendition, ie how the image looks overall. If you are into looking at large images from a close distance, 12-24mm might be better.
I have printed as large as 20x30 inches from an image taken with my DA 12-24 at 12mm.
11-22-2013, 04:14 PM   #59
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pasadena, CA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,103
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Canada_Rockies Quote
I have printed as large as 20x30 inches from an image taken with my DA 12-24 at 12mm.
There you go Shanti, here's an answer for your question.

I am curious to see what do people think about printing large from DA15, especially at larger apertures.
11-22-2013, 05:18 PM   #60
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,001
I have also printed at 20" x 30" from a 12-24 image at 24mm ISO 80 from my K5. Its a real spectacular print.

Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
14mm, da, k-mount, ltd, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
F0.7 lens? Is it big enough to strap on a K body, or Q only? Clinton Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 17 12-02-2012 09:06 PM
Is it (the election) really coming to this? Nesster General Talk 5 06-05-2012 05:20 PM
is 135mm long enough? or: do I really have to think twice? slartibartfast Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 18 02-07-2012 02:12 PM
How wide is wide enough - and why? emr Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 81 02-07-2010 02:56 AM
Pictures of K-m+DA21 and compared to other cameras RaduA Pentax DSLR Discussion 9 09-25-2008 01:31 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:05 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top