[hjoseph7]

Is the Pentax DA 15mm f4 overrated ? I know a lot of photographers love this lens to the point they will never part with it, but from reading several reviews it looks like not only is the non-limited 12-24mm sharper, so is the 16-45mm at 16mm. Of course you can't really compare 15mm to 16mm, but that's not a huge difference and the lowly 16-45mm seems to come out on top especially in the corners according to a couple of professional reviews. So why is this lens so popular ? I have the 16-45mm and I say to myself why burn a $500 hole in my pocket if the results are going to be about the same or worse ?

---

Last edited by hjoseph7; 07-26-2015 at 03:33 PM.

[Adam]

As someone who isn't a fanboy of the lens, I wouldn't say it's overrated. It's quite sharp and the only real compromise it makes is the slow aperture, which is the price you have to pay for the tiny form factor.

[MJSfoto1956]

if you love small and light, it can't be beat.
If you are looking for maximum flexibility, then a zoom will give you more pleasure.
There are sharper lenses but not any that are both sharper and smaller.

Michael

[mattt]

I own the 12-24 and the 15. The ltd prime goes everywhere because of its small size, plus it doesn't have a giant petal hood, or a 77mm filter thread.

[tvdtvdtvd]

the tiny form factor

if you love small and light, it can't be beat.

The ltd prime goes everywhere because of its small size, plus it doesn't have a giant petal hood, or a 77mm filter thread.

DING!!

You either get it or you don't. I love my DA15.

[esrandall]

I like it for its close focus and sharpness. However, I don't use mine much (have the HD version). This is my second foray into UWA territory (had a Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6), and while I pull some cool looking shots with the 15, I don't understand the love affair with it at all. For example, we were at Cannon Beach last week, and while it was cool to get all of Haystack Rock into the frame, I had to be on top of the subject to make that happen...or it just looked a million miles away. Same with a month ago at Johnston Ridge (Mt. St. Helens). I was able to get the whole view in the frame, but frankly speaking it looked no better (or magical) to me than the same shots I took with the DA 40, and DA 35 Macro. I think that my issue with it (UWA in general) is that it doesn't suit my style of shooting, so nothing I do with it comes naturally. With no offense to the folks that post in the "controls your mind" subforum, a lot of what I see in there is just big empty shots with tiny subjects in them, or scenery far away in the outer reaches of the shot. I've seen inside architecture shots that are really cool, and I also like the bit of creative distortion it can give you in people shots.

To the OP, maybe what it's good at doesn't suit what you like to shoot. My HD copy is plenty sharp, and the close focus ability is great, but it just sits in my bag regardless. If you're happy with your 16-45 (I really enjoy my Sigma 17-50) then maybe just roll with what's working for you. I actually plan on listing mine in the Marketplace in the coming week, and have told my wife to slap me if she catches me looking at another UWA anytime soon -- lol

[mattt]

I don't understand the love affair with it at all

Its about telling stories... best done by filling the foreground, and making use of the massive DoF...

[ramseybuckeye]

I have the HD version and I love it. It renders excellent color and yes it is sharp. If you use this for a landscape lens with all of the subjects in the distance it will be sharp, colorful, and boring. But I think it will be boring with any ultra wide. Ultra wides are special, they are not universal lens made for every use. I also have a Tamron 10-24, which is a sharp lens, but suffers from flare when light shines on the 77mm front element. The 15 beats it badly in everything but being wider. You just have to remember, it's not for everything.

[hjoseph7]

I heard it handles distortions pretty well which is good.

[Fat Albert]

I had one and sold it. Way too much field curvature for my personal tastes. I am MUCH happier with the DA 21.

[esrandall]

I had one and sold it. Way too much field curvature for my personal tastes. I am MUCH happier with the DA 21.

The 21 is the only DA Limited I haven't owned. Tempting, but I usually just stick with the Sigma 17-50. I've sure seen a lot of nice shots with that 21, though

[Kozlok]

The magic of the 15 is flare resistance better than any other lens, and great colors, and a really great micro-contrast. Sharpness isn't anything special. Love mine.

[Hattifnatt]

The magic of the 15 is flare resistance better than any other lens, and great colors, and a really great micro-contrast. Sharpness isn't anything special. Love mine.

What Kozlok said. Also the famous starbursts, and the sharpness is really not that bad. When you stop down, it's as sharp as 12-24 in the center at least. Focus distance is really small so it's a great lens for close-ups. Certainly a different lens than 16-45. I have them both and I like them, although I prefer the 15. Problem with the DA15 (as with any wide lens) is more about choosing your subjects and how you fill the frame, as it can make things really small. Zoom in with your legs and get close to your foreground subject.

Here's a shot I would have had problems getting with the 16-45, but the 15 did fine:


And another one:


That being said, the 16-45 is no slouch either:

[cxdoo]

I got my 15HD couple of weeks ago and I'm still figuring out where, when and how to use it.
One thing for sure; this isn't a general purpose lens that you just mount and go around happily snapping; you need an anchor to each image you take, otherwise you'll be left with a lot of empty space.
Also, sharpness is nothing to write home about. Yes, it's sharp if your subject is a meter away, but usually it isn't.
Field curvature and distortion are high; put a person towards the edge of the frame and they distort significantly.
It's also rather expensive.


However.
It's very small.
You don't have to care about the sun.
It literally sucks in the ambient; take a photo in a pub (or wherever) and when you later look at it, you're there.
Museums, castles, narrow streets... you can have it all, left to right, top to bottom.


I'm still wondering if it's worth 500 EUR to me. That's a very different feeling from my last purchase (FA43) which blew me away imediatelly.

[kh1234567890]

Is the Pentax DA 15mm f4 overrated ? I know a lot of photographers love this lens to the point they will never part with it, but from reading several reviews it looks like not only is the non-limited 12-24mm sharper, so is the 16-45mm at 16mm. Of course you can't really compare 15mm to 16mm, but that's not a huge difference and the lowly 16-45mm seems to come out on top especially in the corners according to a couple of professional reviews. So why is this lens so popular ? I have the 16-45mm and I say to myself why burn a $500 hole in my pocket if the results are going to be about the same or worse ?

I think that it is down to your style of shooting. If you are prepared to drag a tripod up some inaccessible hillside and then hang about until the light is just right, shoot only at f11, dump half of your shots because they are not in focus and spend hours tweaking the results in post (cropping out the fuzzy corners) then the DA15 is worth having.

On the other hand if, like me, you think that a f4 lens actually ought to be useable at f4, don't plan your shots, rely on the camera to focus and expose properly and don't spend ages in post-processing, then the DA16-45 is good enough