[WPRESTO]

And you want to photograph Hoover Dam? It is BIG, and it's not that easy to stand further back. The wider the lens you have, the more diversified the images you'll be able to get. Scan from a chrome and I do not remember what lens was used for this shot (??Sigma 15~30mm??), although I did take one looking down with a 16mm Pentax fish-eye.

---

Last edited by WPRESTO; 01-29-2016 at 12:33 PM.

[northcoastgreg]

In terms of edge to edge sharpness, the best wide angles for the K-mount are the DA 12-24, the Sigma 8-16, and any of the Samyang rectilinear primes (the 16mm, the 14mm, and the 10mm). In terms of visual IQ (i.e., in terms of the visual appeal of the images the lenses produce), I would rank as follows: (1) DA 15; (2) DA 12-24; (3) DA 10-17; (4) Tamron 10-24.

[ChristianRock]

Ebay. There is only 1 bid on it for $199. What the hell is going on with the price drop of the 15?

Over 5 days left on the auction.

On Ebay, 90% of people don't bid on items until the last minute.

The cheapest DA 15 in recent Ebay history is 275 dollars. Which is pretty cheap, I would say, for what the lens was selling for just a year ago. But no, I doubt you'll be able to buy one for 199...

[kh1234567890]

The DA 15 will annoy me? Ok so what's going on.

The one I've got can be a bit unpredictable as far as nailing a perfect overall focus goes. Not a lens that I would take somewhere that I'm not likely to go back to.

As for buying off eBay - the price usually goes up just before the auction ends as the snipers wake up, unless you are lucky.

[Kath]

Ok, so the Sigma is used more than your 15?



The DA 15 will annoy me? Ok so what's going on. Is the 15 not well received by everyone?

---------- Post added 01-13-16 at 07:39 AM ----------



Ebay. There is only 1 bid on it for $199. What the hell is going on with the price drop of the 15?

I don't generally buy things via Ebay, so can't respond to that. Perhaps a full-frame fervor? And I can't imagine why the 15 would possibly annoy anyone, unless someone doesn't enjoy using good primes.

Many, myself included, regard the 15 as a spectacular prime that should be in anyone's kit who really enjoys the benefits of wide-angle photography. But my Sigma 10-20 gets used more often simply because of its range. It's amazing what a 5mm difference can make when you're down in the lower focal lengths. My 15 is sharper, smaller, and produces higher quality images, but I enjoy the versatility of the zoom and it happens to be one that produces excellent images, too. It's really not a "one is better" kind of thing.

[Siegfried]

Correct. It has to be able to go beyond then correct itself back to the right position.

And different temperatures cause components to change size.

No, incorrect. With either PDAD or CDAF you don't need AF to go past infinity to be able to properly focus at infinity.
And you can do your own math to calculate the shell/helicoid size deviations caused by going from one operating temperature to another which will show you that even short-tele fix-focal lenses do not need to go beyond infinity, let alone ultra-wide angle ones.

kh1234567890,
as for your earlier post re DxO: yes, it is stupid to read just what exif data says. And having wrong base settings (inf focus) it improperly corrects perspective distortions at close-up shots since it assumes the focus distance to be 'distant' while it may be 'close' or 'macro' (I haven't yet read it in hex so I don't know what certain values stand for those distance types).

Zig

[rrstuff]

F 17-28 ( $175 )

What other lenses should I be looking at?

16-45mm, $200 for a used copy and my recommendation. An alternative would be a DA15 if you can spend a bit more.
Sigma 10-20mm is another one.

[clackers]

No, incorrect. With either PDAD or CDAF you don't need AF to go past infinity to be able to properly focus at infinity.
And you can do your own math to calculate the shell/helicoid size deviations caused by going from one operating temperature to another which will show you that even short-tele fix-focal lenses do not need to go beyond infinity, let alone ultra-wide angle ones.

"A combination of thermal expansion and allowances for autofocus motors seems to be the largest factor in the "softening" of the infinity focus."

Here are the 'whys' from different manufacturers:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/features/who-killed-infinity-focus%3F

[Driline]

My 15 is sharper, smaller, and produces higher quality images,

That's whats most important to me. Sharper and high IQ.

[redrockcoulee]

16-45mm, $200 for a used copy and my recommendation. An alternative would be a DA15 if you can spend a bit more.
Sigma 10-20mm is another one.

Considering the OP line of lenses and doesn't shot wide that would be the order I would suggest. My wife does shoot wide and has the 16-45 and 10-20 and I you am not such a wide shooter have the DA15. But I can and do use her lenses as concerned got a FA 20-35 and the DA-L 18-50 WR.

[Sandy Hancock]

That's whats most important to me. Sharper and high IQ.

I know you want the 15. Just do it

[Des]

I used to shoot raw, but have recently been satisfied with my jpeg images.

Ultrawides all produce distortion, so if you aren't shooting RAW you want effective in-camera distortion correction for your jpgs. Which means a Pentax lens rather than third-party.

So DA 10-17, 12-24 or 15. All fine lenses. I love primes but I find the flexibility of a zoom invaluable at the wide end. You can't zoom with your feet much when standing on a small viewing platform or on stones in a river. That's why I went for the 12-24. It's prone to flare and to PF in high contrast, but the sharpness and colours are great.

[Driline]

I know you want the 15. Just do it

It's all your fault I am where I am today. Damn you

---------- Post added 01-13-16 at 04:21 PM ----------

Ultrawides all produce distortion, so if you aren't shooting RAW you want effective in-camera distortion correction for your jpgs. Which means a Pentax lens rather than third-party.

So DA 10-17, 12-24 or 15. All fine lenses. I love primes but I find the flexibility of a zoom invaluable at the wide end. You can't zoom with your feet much when standing on a small viewing platform or on stones in a river. That's why I went for the 12-24. It's prone to flare and to PF in high contrast, but the sharpness and colours are great.

Wow. Very nice images.

[mgvh]

You might want to check this thread I started which ultimately came down to choosing between the Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 and the DA 10-17 FE. I like the Sigma, but I'm getting more use from the DA 10-17. The fishiness is part of its whimsical attractiveness, but it is not always evident in some nature scenes. If you want to use it for rectilinear, it's fairly correctable from 12-15mm. It's nearly rectilinear at 16-17mm.

[Driline]

I stopped by my local camera store today to see if they had any wide angle lenses I could test. They had one DA 10-17 left on the shelf. I was able to test it on a KS2 camera but without any SD card. I was impressed how actually small that lens really is. I noticed a HUGE difference between 10mm and 15mm. So if one needs more of a wide shot it's there available to you. From 15 to 17mm it didn't seem very fishy.
So I thought OK, maybe I'll just buy one local here from a brick and mortar store. "Camera Corner". Yea....if I wanted to pay more than DOUBLE the price! They wanted $675 for it! Gee I dunno......maybe I should wait and order it from BHphotovideo or Adorama for $304 or better yet buy two from them and sell Camera Corner the other one for a Good deal at only $500 bucks