[pinholecam]

Samyang 14/2.8.
Cheap and works...







The DA15ltd is one of the most unique lens offerings out there.
A bit more expensive, but super flare resistant, small and handy

[mikesbike]

The DA 15mm Limited has far less linear distortion than any zoom lens going from wide angle to a tele range. Not noticeable for most landscape nature shots without any man-made structures, but important for shots having linear content- rooms buildings etc.etc. With such zoom lenses, you have to go to around 24mm or more to get rid of this distortion, then you might have some but not a lot of wide angle. Only some ultra wide-angle zoom lenses can beat the Limited lens it at 15mm for distortion. The DA 15mm LTD is also very flair resistant. None can beat it for handy packing along.

[aslyfox]

. . . . Only some ultra wide-angle zoom lenses can beat the Limited lens it at 15mm for distortion. The DA 15mm LTD is also very flair resistant. None can beat it for handy packing along.

it is a wee little thing

Diam x Length 63 x 39.5 mm (2.5 x 1.58 in.) Weight 189 g (6.7 oz.)

Read more at: HD Pentax-DA 15mm F4 ED AL Limited Reviews - DA Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

but an F 4

[bigbaz]

If you are not too overloaded with information, have a look at these reviews by PF member @NorthcoastGreg (who is an excellent landscape photographer and writes very helpful "real world use" reviews):
Pentax DA 16-45 f4 | Reviews | The Northcoast Photographer
Pentax DA 15 f4 Limited | Reviews | The Northcoast Photographer
Pentax DA 16-85 f3.5-5.6 | Reviews | The Northcoast Photographer

Perhaps Greg might weigh in here, but I notice that In posts in the last few years he reflects without great fondness on the 16-45 as lacking microcontrast and colour richness, even compared to the DA 12-24, let alone the DA 15 Limited and DA 16-85.

I haven't used the 16-45 but I would make the general comment that for narrow-aperture uses it is often these factors and overall rendering, rather than sheer resolving power, that make images stand out, particularly at wide-normal focal lengths. (For telephoto and macro uses, resolution is often the distinguishing feature; at wide-normal lengths, stopped down, many lenses have adequate resolution and it's other factors that make the difference.) That's why people love the Limiteds and other lenses that have these qualities.

Excellent, the reviews help.

[kh1234567890]

The DA 15mm Limited has far less linear distortion than any zoom lens going from wide angle to a tele range. Not noticeable for most landscape nature shots without any man-made structures, but important for shots having linear content- rooms buildings etc.etc. With such zoom lenses, you have to go to around 24mm or more to get rid of this distortion, then you might have some but not a lot of wide angle. Only some ultra wide-angle zoom lenses can beat the Limited lens it at 15mm for distortion. The DA 15mm LTD is also very flair resistant. None can beat it for handy packing along.

I beg to differ

DA16-45 at 16mm :

[northcoastgreg]

Perhaps Greg might weigh in here, but I notice that In posts in the last few years he reflects without great fondness on the 16-45 as lacking microcontrast and colour richness, even compared to the DA 12-24, let alone the DA 15 Limited and DA 16-85.

I was initially impressed with DA 16-45 because of it's corner to corner sharpness throughout it's range. But images from that lens just did not wear well with me over time. There was just something lacking in terms of clarity, contrast, color when compared to other Pentax lenses like the DA 12-24, DA 17-70, DA 16-85, FA 20-35, not to mention the star and limited lenses. I ended up replacing it with the FA 20-35.

A general adage regarding lenses is to get the best lens you can afford. Don't go cheap unless you absolutely have to. The best zoom lenses with wide angle coverage would be the DA* 11-18, the DA 16-85, the DA* 16-50, and the DA 20-40, followed by the DA 12-24 and DA 17-70.

I see the DA 15 as a specialist lens. It's harder to use than the zooms, and not just because it's a prime. It can be challenging to sharpness out of the lens away from the center, particularly at long distances, and my copy is never tack sharp at the very far edges or the corners. But if used right it's better at producing images with high impact than any of the zooms (with the possible exception of the DA* 11-18) listed above.

Here's a shot with the DA 15 taken at Patrick's Point SP:

[ChristianRock]

I'll agree with @kh1234567890 that while tests point out that the DA 16-45 has about 2.5 degrees of distortion at the wide angle, it doesn't feel like it really distorts much at all.

And I'll agree that its bold colors might not be a fit for everyone but I love it despite the fact that it's a zoom... the colors can be a bit unnatural and over-saturated but to my eyes, they compliment the subjects very well... skin tones are always beautiful while other lenses seem to make them a bit too warm (DA 17-70 in particular). To me that's important, to others it's probably not as warmer rendering is usually great for landscape photography.

My work is nothing special so I won't point you to it, but a flickr user called Fausto Deseri makes good use of the DA 16-45mm with his K-3: Search: 16-45mm | Flickr

Though I have to say his DA 15mm results might look even better... Search: 15mm | Flickr

I think these two links help with seeing the differences between the results one can get with both lenses... one a bit too bold with its colors, the other not quite as sharp but able to capture some incredible results. Two different looks for sure.

[bigbaz]

I'll agree with @kh1234567890 that while tests point out that the DA 16-45 has about 2.5 degrees of distortion at the wide angle, it doesn't feel like it really distorts much at all.

And I'll agree that its bold colors might not be a fit for everyone but I love it despite the fact that it's a zoom... the colors can be a bit unnatural and over-saturated but to my eyes, they compliment the subjects very well... skin tones are always beautiful while other lenses seem to make them a bit too warm (DA 17-70 in particular). To me that's important, to others it's probably not as warmer rendering is usually great for landscape photography.

My work is nothing special so I won't point you to it, but a flickr user called Fausto Deseri makes good use of the DA 16-45mm with his K-3: Search: 16-45mm | Flickr

Though I have to say his DA 15mm results might look even better... Search: 15mm | Flickr

I think these two links help with seeing the differences between the results one can get with both lenses... one a bit too bold with its colors, the other not quite as sharp but able to capture some incredible results. Two different looks for sure.

Thank you for the comparison, it helps a lot.

[bigbaz]

I bought the 16-45 lens and I’m well impressed with it. Thank you all for your advice and input.

Best wishes Barry