15/4 limited smc and HD version comparison

stanic · 12-10-2014, 07:33 AM - **4 Likes**

Hi all, I would like to post this comparison aimed at showing the differencies between the "starburst" effect and bokeh of the DA 15/4 limited lenses in smc and HD version. These are screenshots from LR 3.6 and shots were taken in a quick succession.
Personally, I prefer the HD version for its clarity, reduced starburst and lower price

Thanks for comments!
Rastislav

Attached Images

Last edited by stanic; 12-10-2014 at 12:26 PM.

Outis · 12-10-2014, 07:49 AM - **1 Like**

Thanks for the comparison!

panicAttack · 12-10-2014, 07:57 AM

I prefer SMC starburst but bokeh is better on HD

**savoche** · 12-10-2014, 08:47 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by panicAttack

I prefer SMC starburst but bokeh is better on HD

My thought exactly.

That said, I wouldn't really care which one I owned as long as I had one of them. And I do, and see no reason to replace my smc anytime soon.

Thanks for the comparison, stanic!

SteveM · 12-10-2014, 09:24 AM

Interesting.....I had presumed I would prefer the older model, but the bokeh is a surprise. Thanks for sharing.

Kwong · 12-10-2014, 09:42 AM - **1 Like**

Nice comparison. Just got the HD model after not finding a smc used for a good price. Have not had a chance to use it yet but based on your shots I think i prefer it to the old version.

riceguy · 12-10-2014, 09:43 AM

Originally posted by savoche

That said, I wouldn't really care which one I owned as long as I had one of them.

I think in the same way, but can not finde a used one in Europe (for a reasonable price...)

**savoche** · 12-10-2014, 09:46 AM

Originally posted by riceguy

I think in the same way, but can not finde a used one in Europe (for a reasonable price...)

That's why I bought mine new. For a rather unreasonable price. But I'm still glad I did

riceguy · 12-10-2014, 09:51 AM - **1 Like**

Thx for the comparions stanic!!!

Originally posted by savoche

That's why I bought mine new. For a rather unreasonable price. But I'm still glad I did

hehe, thats fine

I'm at the moment a poor Phd guy and teacher...

**UncleVanya** · 12-10-2014, 10:38 AM

That is an amazing difference. Just to be sure I understand - the HD version changes were limited to the coating correct? They didn't change anything else did they?

stanic · 12-10-2014, 10:41 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by bradshea

That is an amazing difference. Just to be sure I understand - the HD version changes were limited to the coating correct? They didn't change anything else did they?

also the aperture blades were rounded which apparently has had a big impact

yukon-bearspirit · 12-10-2014, 11:00 AM - **2 Likes**

This is what I wanted to see. Thanks!

**UncleVanya** · 12-10-2014, 11:45 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by stanic

also the aperture blades were rounded which apparently has had big impact

OK - that makes sense. I wondered why such a profound change in the star patterns.
Thank you.

tvdtvdtvd · 12-10-2014, 12:42 PM

My votes would be, from top to bottom, SMC, HD, SMC, Tie, HD. Each has it's merits and the strength of the
star effect can elevate, (image 1 & 3), or detract, (image 2).

I'm amazed at the difference in clarity, however. I don't recall seeing such a profound difference in other
comparisons, (certainly not in the comparison made by PF a few months back), and can't help wonder
if sample error or some other effect is at play. The SMC version of image 4 in particular seems to show
noticeable motion blur in the upper central branch.

Fine lenses, both, and perhaps different enough to warrant owning both.

stanic · 12-10-2014, 01:07 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by tvdtvdtvd

My votes would be, from top to bottom, SMC, HD, SMC, Tie, HD. Each has it's merits and the strength of the
star effect can elevate, (image 1 & 3), or detract, (image 2).

I'm amazed at the difference in clarity, however. I don't recall seeing such a profound difference in other
comparisons, (certainly not in the comparison made by PF a few months back), and can't help wonder
if sample error or some other effect is at play. The SMC version of image 4 in particular seems to show
noticeable motion blur in the upper central branch.

Fine lenses, both, and perhaps different enough to warrant owning both.

you are correct about the motion blur there, it was a windy night
however, my 15/4 smc has had a bit of bumpy life with me which shows (been to repair twice)
since I am not much of an artist, more of a pixel peeper

, I am really happy with the HD version, to me it creates images that are more true to life than smc, which can be very well seen on the image nr. 4 - the tree branches are in reality not covered with little starbursts

thanks for comments everybody!

12-10-2014, 07:33 AM - 4 Likes	#1
stanic Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Zakopane Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 389	15/4 limited smc and HD version comparison Hi all, I would like to post this comparison aimed at showing the differencies between the "starburst" effect and bokeh of the DA 15/4 limited lenses in smc and HD version. These are screenshots from LR 3.6 and shots were taken in a quick succession. Personally, I prefer the HD version for its clarity, reduced starburst and lower price Thanks for comments! Rastislav Attached Images Last edited by stanic; 12-10-2014 at 12:26 PM.

12-10-2014, 10:41 AM - 1 Like	#11
stanic Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Zakopane Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 389 Original Poster	Originally posted by bradshea That is an amazing difference. Just to be sure I understand - the HD version changes were limited to the coating correct? They didn't change anything else did they? also the aperture blades were rounded which apparently has had a big impact Last edited by stanic; 12-10-2014 at 12:25 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Quick bokeh and sharpness comparison between Sigma 35 f/1.4 "Art" and FA 31 Limited	Cannikin	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	43	06-23-2014 08:08 AM
question re SMC version of 15 mm lens ?	habsfanusa	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	06-07-2014 09:12 AM
Pentax da 15 hd / smc	mooeep	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	62	04-17-2014 07:27 PM
HD DA 15 limited	ejaedon	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	11	02-24-2014 09:37 AM
DA21 - Crude SMC vs. HD comparison	JPT	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	17	10-09-2013 08:33 AM

12-10-2014, 07:49 AM - 1 Like	#2
Outis Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2014 Location: Cambridge, MA Posts: 935	Thanks for the comparison!

12-10-2014, 07:57 AM	#3
panicAttack Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Posts: 56	I prefer SMC starburst but bokeh is better on HD

12-10-2014, 08:47 AM - 1 Like	#4
savoche Master of the obvious Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Lowlands of Norway Posts: 18,311	Originally posted by panicAttack I prefer SMC starburst but bokeh is better on HD My thought exactly. That said, I wouldn't really care which one I owned as long as I had one of them. And I do, and see no reason to replace my smc anytime soon. Thanks for the comparison, stanic!

12-10-2014, 09:24 AM	#5
SteveM Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Vancouver Island, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,294	Interesting.....I had presumed I would prefer the older model, but the bokeh is a surprise. Thanks for sharing.

12-10-2014, 09:42 AM - 1 Like	#6
Kwong Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: Canada Photos: Albums Posts: 198	Nice comparison. Just got the HD model after not finding a smc used for a good price. Have not had a chance to use it yet but based on your shots I think i prefer it to the old version.

12-10-2014, 09:43 AM	#7
riceguy New Member Join Date: Dec 2014 Posts: 6	Originally posted by savoche That said, I wouldn't really care which one I owned as long as I had one of them. I think in the same way, but can not finde a used one in Europe (for a reasonable price...)

12-10-2014, 09:46 AM	#8
savoche Master of the obvious Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Lowlands of Norway Posts: 18,311	Originally posted by riceguy I think in the same way, but can not finde a used one in Europe (for a reasonable price...) That's why I bought mine new. For a rather unreasonable price. But I'm still glad I did

12-10-2014, 09:51 AM - 1 Like	#9
riceguy New Member Join Date: Dec 2014 Posts: 6	Thx for the comparions stanic!!! Originally posted by savoche That's why I bought mine new. For a rather unreasonable price. But I'm still glad I did hehe, thats fine I'm at the moment a poor Phd guy and teacher...

12-10-2014, 10:38 AM	#10
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,404	That is an amazing difference. Just to be sure I understand - the HD version changes were limited to the coating correct? They didn't change anything else did they?

12-10-2014, 11:00 AM - 2 Likes	#12
yukon-bearspirit New Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Yukon, Canada Posts: 14	This is what I wanted to see. Thanks!

12-10-2014, 11:45 AM - 1 Like	#13
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,404	Originally posted by stanic also the aperture blades were rounded which apparently has had big impact OK - that makes sense. I wondered why such a profound change in the star patterns. Thank you.

12-10-2014, 12:42 PM	#14
tvdtvdtvd Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 1,665	My votes would be, from top to bottom, SMC, HD, SMC, Tie, HD. Each has it's merits and the strength of the star effect can elevate, (image 1 & 3), or detract, (image 2). I'm amazed at the difference in clarity, however. I don't recall seeing such a profound difference in other comparisons, (certainly not in the comparison made by PF a few months back), and can't help wonder if sample error or some other effect is at play. The SMC version of image 4 in particular seems to show noticeable motion blur in the upper central branch. Fine lenses, both, and perhaps different enough to warrant owning both.

12-10-2014, 01:07 PM - 1 Like	#15
stanic Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Zakopane Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 389 Original Poster	Originally posted by tvdtvdtvd My votes would be, from top to bottom, SMC, HD, SMC, Tie, HD. Each has it's merits and the strength of the star effect can elevate, (image 1 & 3), or detract, (image 2). I'm amazed at the difference in clarity, however. I don't recall seeing such a profound difference in other comparisons, (certainly not in the comparison made by PF a few months back), and can't help wonder if sample error or some other effect is at play. The SMC version of image 4 in particular seems to show noticeable motion blur in the upper central branch. Fine lenses, both, and perhaps different enough to warrant owning both. you are correct about the motion blur there, it was a windy night however, my 15/4 smc has had a bit of bumpy life with me which shows (been to repair twice) since I am not much of an artist, more of a pixel peeper , I am really happy with the HD version, to me it creates images that are more true to life than smc, which can be very well seen on the image nr. 4 - the tree branches are in reality not covered with little starbursts thanks for comments everybody!